Models, Metaphors and Constructs

People have long used models, metaphors and constructs as a way of trying to understand and explain the inner and outer worlds that we experience.  These can be physical models to describe the natural world we inhabit, or abstract models to attempt to describe the less tangible aspects of our lives. 

Some of these physical models, such as those depicting the relationship between the planets in our solar system, have been influenced by political and religious beliefs.  Labelling copper spheres and placing them in a particular order does not change the reality of planetary orbits, but does affect our perception of them. Over time these have been verified through scientific observation and amended if needed and when societal pressures allowed.  Abstract models are even more susceptible to political and religious influence as they are harder to prove.

Among each new wave of influencers, whether philosophers, physicians or politicians, are those who wish to cordon off an area of what they believe to be unique understanding.  Each new paradigm creates a fresh discourse which is supported by a new set of models, metaphors and constructs.  Putting it another way, each new way of looking at things leads to a new way of talking about them which often seems to require a language of its own.  If the central idea becomes generally accepted then so do the terms used to describe them and any mechanisms used to illustrate and explain.

An example would be Sigmund Freud's description of the Ego, the Super-Ego and the Id.  Many people, not just psychoanalysts, continue to use these words as nouns, which makes it easy to believe that they are describing real things.  They will refer to them as influencing or even directing our behaviour in such a way that while they are part of us they are also apart from us.  However, these are only constructs.   It would be far more accurate to refer to the Concept Freud called the Ego.  Clearly there is a need for short-hand but one that can be used without losing sight of the actual meaning.

Part of the legacy of Freud and his contemporaries is to have carried over the discourse of physical medicine into the abstract realm of our mental processes.  The proliferation of single nouns to describe ever more complex collections of feelings and behaviours now underpins an industry that has a significant impact on millions of people as well as generating huge profits for many of those involved.  

Applying the words health, illness and disease to our mental state suggests a direct comparison with our physical state.  However, these are only metaphors.  It is clear that we do not have a mental illness in the same way that we might have a physical illness.  While it can be helpful to use language that is understood in one setting to explain another, there is the risk that we will then make assumptions about the second based on our knowledge of the first.  This is clearly the case in the way we generally approach mental     dis-ease.  The metaphors become constructs before solidifying into accepted models.

We have long had an interest in trying to categorise ourselves and others through the use of IQ and Personality Tests.   The so-called Intelligence Quotient has a dark history rooted in the attempt to discriminate between ethnic groups in favour of the home team.  Like many experiments, it set up parameters and then measured people’s ability to meet their requirements.  When the objective is to identify people with a certain set of skills and abilities the process is relatively benign.  However, when certain parameters are elevated over others we are in danger of creating a hierarchy of winners and losers that is based on cultural values expressed as absolute values. 

Politicians frequently reduce their arguments to a case of either/or and good and bad, splitting the population between those who are for and those against.  Too often the explanation involves the simplification of a complex narrative that seems intended to make it easier for us to understand, but which also allows a bias to be embedded within.  

These many forms of illustration are a way in, a step towards understanding a more complex scenario. However once we are inside the view can be expanded, so that as we understand more the illustration gives way to the thing itself.  As we develop the skills to navigate we no longer need the short-cut.

I think it is important to remember that models, constructs and metaphors are tools that are used to help us understand complex ideas.  However they can never fully describe or explain them, are not a substitute and can never be a replacement.  I would agree with the principle that first there is the thing and then there is the name for it and that there is already one thing too many.

By appreciating the way that models, constructs and metaphors are being used we can separate the words from the things themselves and come to our own conclusions as to their meaning and value.  It is possible to acknowledge their usefulness as a way of helping us to understand, without succumbing to their tyranny as a way for other people to tell us how things are. 

© 2014 Michael Golding