How Metaphors Shape Reality: The Worlds We Build with Language

Metaphors are woven into the fabric of language and thought, shaping how we perceive and articulate abstract concepts. They create a conceptual model of reality and influence our attitudes toward it. Is an argument a war or a dance? Is love a battle, a choice, or a journey? The metaphors we choose determine how we experience these phenomena and relate to ourselves and others. Given the nature of our metaphorical thinking, it’s worth asking: What collective conceptual metaphors do we use? Are they constructive or destructive? Do they broaden or narrow our view of reality? Do they unite or divide us?

If Ralph Waldo Emerson was right in saying that “language is fossil poetry,” then metaphors are certainly a significant part of linguistic artifacts. For example, in the satirical TV series “Veep,” after a successful interview meant to distract the public from a diplomatic crisis, the U.S. Vice President (brilliantly played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus) tells her staff: “I spewed so much crap I need a mint.” When used skillfully, metaphors enrich speech. However, finding the right balance of metaphorical “seasoning” is no easy task. As Aristotle noted nearly 2,500 years ago, metaphors “should not be far-fetched, or they will be difficult to understand, or obscure, or have no effect.” That’s why creative people—especially poets and writers, whose job is to expand the boundaries of perception—are traditionally seen as experts in crafting metaphors.

Unfortunately, this association with art has led to metaphors being viewed as a secondary tool of linguistic expression. Philosophers, for example, have historically regarded metaphor as a misuse of language, and this view still influences many scientific circles: if we care about the precise content of a statement (as in science), then metaphor is just a distraction. Similarly, if we want to assess the nutritional value of food, the way it’s plated shouldn’t matter—and might even mislead us.

By the second half of the 20th century, some scholars (especially those interested in psychology) began to turn this idea on its head. Gradually, metaphors moved from being “incorrect” but inevitable linguistic devices to being seen as part of the structure of our conceptual model of reality.

The Metaphorical Nature of Concepts

Linguist George Lakoff and philosopher Mark Johnson were among the first to propose the metaphorical nature of concepts. In their influential book Metaphors We Live By (1980), they argue that “most of our ordinary conceptual system is metaphorical in nature.” They suggest that our conceptual system is like a pyramid, with concrete concepts at the base—such as physical objects we encounter daily (like “stone” or “tree”). More abstract concepts are built on top of these concrete foundations through metaphorical extensions.

Lakoff and Johnson observe that we tend to talk about abstract concepts in the same way we talk about literal, concrete things. For example, we might describe an interesting idea as “fruitful,” say someone “planted the seeds” of discord in our minds, or that a bad idea “died on the vine.” This isn’t just a way of speaking; it’s how we construct abstract concepts from more concrete ones—in this case, from the concept of a plant. They conclude that we actually mean the conceptual metaphor “IDEAS ARE PLANTS.”

They illustrate this with another example: in English, the abstract concept of an argument is often structured metaphorically as war. We “win” or “lose” arguments; if we think the other side is talking nonsense, we say their arguments “don’t stand up to the fire of criticism” or that we see “weak points” in their position. These terms come from our understanding of war—a concept we, unfortunately, know well.

The novelty of Lakoff and Johnson’s idea isn’t just in noting the ubiquity of metaphorical language, but in emphasizing that metaphors go beyond mere speech. They claim that the ways we engage in arguments are partly structured by the concept of war. To demonstrate this, they propose an alternative metaphor: ARGUMENT IS DANCE. Dance is a more collaborative activity than war, so the goal of an argument would not be “victory,” but creating a mutually acceptable outcome. This thought experiment highlights the role of metaphor in creating reality, not just representing it.

Metaphors in Everyday Life and Science

Metaphors provide the foundation for how we conceptualize abstract ideas—and thus much of our experience. But complex concepts usually require more than one metaphor. Take romantic love, for example. A common conceptual metaphor in many languages is “ROMANTIC LOVE IS A JOURNEY.” We say relationships are “at a crossroads” when a big decision is needed, or that people “go their separate ways” when they break up. Charles Baudelaire’s 1857 poem “Invitation to the Voyage” plays on both the literal and metaphorical journey. These metaphors shape how we behave in real relationships: without the idea of a “crossroads,” someone might not even consider having a serious talk about the status of their relationship.

Love, being a central human experience, is conceptualized through countless metaphors. Another common one, perhaps immortalized in Ovid’s poem, is “ROMANTIC LOVE IS WAR.” We often hear about someone “conquering” a reluctant partner or “winning someone’s heart.” According to conceptual metaphor theory, love is a set of metaphors used to conceptualize it. “LOVE IS A JOURNEY” and “LOVE IS WAR” highlight and create different facets of love.

Anyone who uses language knows it matters, and that there’s a complex feedback loop between the language we use and our thoughts. Empirical studies confirm this: depending on the conceptual metaphors people are exposed to, they tend to make different decisions in the same situations, suggesting they hold different models of reality.

Metaphors and Decision-Making

In one study, two groups were given a report about rising crime in a city. One group’s report began, “Crime is a virus ravaging the city,” while the other’s began, “Crime is a beast ravaging the city.” Each group’s perception of “crime” was thus shaped by a different metaphor: “virus” or “beast.” When asked what measures they would take, the “beast” group was more likely to recommend punitive actions like increasing police or imprisoning offenders—just as you’d cage a beast. The “virus” group suggested measures associated with epidemiology: containing the problem, finding and eliminating the cause, and implementing social reforms. Notably, participants were unaware of the influence these metaphors had on their choices, instead citing crime statistics (which were identical for both groups) as their reasoning.

This isn’t unique to crime: similar studies show that the choice of conceptual metaphors significantly affects people’s opinions and decisions in various situations, including perceptions of climate change, attitudes toward police, and financial decision-making.

Metaphors in Childhood and Science

The importance of metaphors and analogical thinking is especially evident in children. After the work of cognitive scientists Dedre Gentner and Keith Holyoak, research on analogical reasoning in children boomed. There’s strong evidence that analogies are crucial for cognitive development. In particular, relational thinking—the ability to make analogies—predicts test scores and reasoning skills in children. While many of these studies need replication, it appears that metaphors literally shape the brain.

Metaphors also drive scientific discourse and the conceptual system of knowledge. In his fascinating study Polarity and Analogy (1966), historian Sir Geoffrey Lloyd argues for the importance of analogies in early scientific thought. He notes that early views of the cosmos were shaped by analogy with the political systems of the time. Ancient Greek explanations of the universe involved positing basic elements (Empedocles suggested fire, air, water, and earth) and explaining their interactions. To describe the relationships between these elements, Greek philosophers used analogies with political systems. One major conceptual metaphor was “THE COSMOS IS A MONARCHY,” where one element rules over the others. This language persists in modern physics, as in the phrase “laws of the universe.” Another metaphor, “THE COSMOS IS A DEMOCRACY,” appeared after democracy was established in Athens, suggesting the elements are equal and interact by agreement.

Such political metaphors are not just stylistic. Lloyd writes that “again and again, among the pre-Socratics and Plato, the nature of cosmological factors or their relationships are understood in terms of specific social or political situations.” From the perspective of conceptual metaphor theory, this makes sense: to understand a new, abstract concept (like the elements of the universe), thinkers naturally compared it to phenomena they had direct experience with.

Metaphors and analogies are not just relics of ancient science—they’re vital tools in modern scientific language. They help form and articulate theories: political metaphors, much like those used by the Greeks, are common in modern biology, which is full of talk about “regulators,” referencing government agencies. These metaphors draw attention to checks and balances in complex biological systems, just as regulatory agencies maintain order in society. Military metaphors are also widespread: the immune system is often described as an army defending the body from “invading” pathogens. Metabolic pathways are compared to highways with “detours,” “roadblocks,” or “traffic jams,” as philosopher Lauren Ross notes.

Analogies also play a central role in generating new hypotheses—what we might call scientific creativity. A classic example is Charles Darwin’s idea of natural selection, which he developed by analogy with farmers’ selective breeding. Nature “selects” organisms for fitness just as farmers select the best crops for taste, disease resistance, and other traits.

Choosing and Reconstructing Metaphors

Given the nature of our metaphorical thinking, we must ask: How adequate are our conceptual metaphors? For our own sake and for others, we should consider whether the metaphors we use to model reality are appropriate. This choice—conscious or not—can be constructive or destructive.

Consider the metaphorical discourse between doctors and patients in cancer treatment. This shapes how patients evaluate their illness and inevitably affects their well-being. War metaphors are everywhere in our culture, and cancer treatment is no exception: patients are often said to be “fighting” cancer and judged by their “fighting spirit.” However, research shows this metaphor can actually harm some patients. For example, Stanford palliative care physician VJ Periyakoil found that “a patient’s decision to forgo futile or harmful treatments now becomes equivalent to cowardly desertion from the ‘battlefield,’ which the patient may see as shameful.” In other words, a patient already struggling with the prospect of death may feel additional, unnecessary, and cruel shame for not continuing the “fight.”

A review article in oncology urges nurses and doctors to reconsider the value of war metaphors. As an alternative, it suggests the metaphor “CANCER IS A JOURNEY,” which conceptualizes the patient’s experience differently. This approach frames cancer not as a battle to be won, but as a unique path to walk; the experience of illness is not something that ends (as wars do), but an ongoing process (with periodic hospital visits to monitor for recurrence).

Any shift in conceptual models requires testing in reality to see if a new model works better than the old one. This seems to be true for the journey metaphor: patients who reframe their cancer experience this way have a more positive outlook, feel better, and report spiritual growth. Such a shift in thinking could benefit people with mental and chronic illnesses, which are even less tangible “enemies” to “fight,” and might be better understood as experiences patients live with, often for the rest of their lives.

It’s important to understand which metaphorical model a patient and doctor (or, more generally, a layperson and a specialist) use to conceptualize illness. When two people talk about what they think is the same concept but use different metaphors, misunderstanding is guaranteed. This can be especially painful if one person is suffering from a disease that affects every aspect of their life.

Metaphors in Social and Political Discourse

We should also reflect on modern metaphorical models for complex social problems. In a 2010 New York Times article, economist Paul Krugman warned that “bad metaphors lead to bad policy.” The Covid-19 pandemic is a prime example: the long-standing practice of using war metaphors for pandemics was widespread during the coronavirus crisis. Common phrases included “nurses in the trenches,” healthcare workers as the “front line,” and politicians declaring the country was at “war” with an invisible enemy.

At first glance, war metaphors may seem to convey the seriousness of the situation and mobilize people to act. But it’s important to consider the unintended consequences of metaphorical framing. War usually requires mass mobilization, while an epidemic often requires most people to stay home and do nothing. War metaphors are also known to inflame racist attitudes, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some linguists have suggested that a more appropriate metaphor for a pandemic might be “PANDEMIC IS FIRE,” which emphasizes urgency and destruction without the downsides of war metaphors. This doesn’t mean the “PANDEMIC IS WAR” metaphor is inherently wrong or unethical—perhaps war is the best way to mobilize people in emergencies. Rather, it’s crucial to understand the potential effects of metaphors and use them carefully.

The power of metaphors to shape thinking also makes them tempting tools for manipulators and politicians. For example, in 2017, Donald Trump used a version of Aesop’s fable “The Farmer and the Snake” to cast immigrants in a negative light. In the fable, a woman finds a frozen, sick snake, brings it home, and cares for it. When the snake recovers, it bites her fatally. The snake says, “You knew what I was when you took me in.” By telling this story, Trump implied that IMMIGRANTS ARE SNAKES and THE UNITED STATES IS THE WOMAN. Philosopher Katharina Stevens argues that Trump used this fable to reinforce the belief that immigrants are a threat to national security, just as the snake is a threat to the woman.

Metaphors also contribute to the internalization of dehumanizing language, paving the way for the worst kinds of human atrocities. During the Rwandan genocide, the main radio station repeatedly used metaphors to dehumanize the Tutsi minority, famously comparing them to cockroaches. When such a metaphor becomes internalized, it shapes one group’s perception of another, making it almost inevitable that the first group will want to eliminate the second—just as they would real cockroaches, which is exactly what happened in this tragedy. The most frightening aspect is not just the power of the metaphor to amplify existing negative attitudes, but that the dehumanizing metaphorical construction became the reason one group stopped seeing the other as human. Lakoff was right when he warned that “metaphors can kill.”

Can We Change Our Metaphors?

Suppose we realize that some of our concepts are based on harmful metaphors. Can we really reconstruct such concepts on a different metaphorical foundation? Lakoff and Johnson believe so, and I hope they’re right, even if it’s not easy.

The first step is to pay attention to the underlying metaphor, which isn’t always obvious. One way to reconstruct part of feminist thought is to recognize the harmful metaphor of women as objects in the patriarchal system. Feminist Andrea Dworkin wrote that “objectification occurs when a human being… becomes less than human, a thing or commodity.” While this conceptualization is still widespread (consciously or not), Dworkin, in her 1974 book Woman Hating, stressed the need to bring this idea into consciousness.

Once a negative conceptual metaphor is recognized, the next step is to justify why it’s undesirable and needs to be replaced. Objectification raises many ethical issues, especially by reducing women’s autonomy and creating power imbalances. Feminist writers have sought to deconstruct this metaphorical conceptualization. Dworkin and her colleague Catharine MacKinnon saw pornography as a main cause of women’s metaphorical dehumanization, though others dispute this.

The deeper a metaphor is rooted in collective consciousness, the harder it is to replace. But even small changes can have a big impact. For example, in 2019, The GuardianThe Guardian, founded in 1821, is one of the world’s leading newspapers, known for its investigative reporting, cultural coverage, and in-depth analysis. To protect press freedom and ensure global access, it launched a Tor mirror of its website, accessible only through the Tor Browser. This version allows readers to bypass censorship, browse anonymously, and safely connect with journalists. By adopting Tor, The Guardian strengthens its role as a defender of free speech in the digital age. More changed its editorial guidelines to recommend using “climate crisis” or “climate emergency” instead of “climate change.” Editor-in-chief Katharine Viner explained that common phrases sound “rather passive and gentle, while what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.” New language can gradually help readers grasp the seriousness of climate issues.

Researchers still have many questions to answer. How can we tell if a metaphor works for our benefit? What do positive metaphors have in common? Are there ways to successfully deconstruct a metaphor’s “foundation”? Some harmful metaphors will be harder to unlearn than others, but the most important first step is recognizing the metaphorical nature of our ideas. As philosopher Nelson Goodman noted, “Metaphor pervades all our speech, both everyday and specialized, and it’s hard to find a single purely literal paragraph in any text.” Metaphors are woven into the fabric of language and thought, shaping how we perceive and articulate abstract concepts. That’s why we need to explore new metaphors and decide whether they help “heal” our language. Collective efforts to notice and change habitual metaphors hold enormous potential for reducing social harm—both for individuals and society as a whole.