6533b7ddfe1ef96bd1274a95
RESEARCH PRODUCT
“Another Munich We Just Cannot Afford”: Historical Metonymy In Politics
Heino NyyssönenBrendan Humphreyssubject
HistoryMetaphorrhetoricGeneral Chemical Engineeringmedia_common.quotation_subjectappeasement0211 other engineering and technologiesAnalogy02 engineering and technologymetaphorAppeasement050602 political science & public administrationRhetorical questionConceptual historyMunich Agreementta517media_commonInternational relationsLiterature021110 strategic defence & security studiesMetonymybusiness.industry05 social sciences16. Peace & justicelcsh:JC11-607lcsh:Women. Feminismanalogylcsh:Political theoryappeasement; analogy; metaphor; metonymy; conceptual history; rhetoric0506 political scienceEpistemologyconceptual historymetonymybusinesslcsh:HQ1101-2030.7description
The appeasement of Hitler and the Munich Agreement is a rhetorical comparison used commonly in international relations to defend politico-military action. On the basis of conceptual history and rhetorics, we examine cases of political speech in this paradigm. Firstly, we discuss time and conceptualize experience into first and second order experiences. Secondly, the roles of metaphor, metonymy and analogy in relation to thought and action are examined. We then contextualise Munich 1938, and present three cases demonstrating the political usage of this metonymy since WWII. These range from the Suez Crises to the Gulf War and on-going War on Terror. These cases show that “Munich” can be used in multiple contexts. Our hypothesis is that “Munich” has proved very instrumental politically; it has been a key element in the final push to use force on numerous occasions, and we conclude that it is a very dangerous form of anti-diplomacy.
| year | journal | country | edition | language |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-09-01 | Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory |