Allegory and argument discussion from P&CE

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,115
Reaction score
3,031
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
....it's just a story Richard. Which ending would you like?




ETA: Sorry, perhaps that's too flip. I might have posted conventional commentary. But the tale is what came to me. It was my design to avoid becoming entangled in policy arguments-- the world is in no short supply of those just now. It's an allegory. It may be apt or awful. But, it's still a story, and doesn't, imho, need defending. :)

It's not just a story. It's a story with a specific moral to be applied to our current situation. Allegories are like theories, they can and should be measured against reality.

You are making an active claim about political reality by your use of an allegorical story in a political discussion.
 

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
470
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Allegories are like theories...

I see your simile, but raise you a metaphor. ;)

they can and should be measured against reality.

Yes, but by whom? I'd argue that such devices call upon the reader to do the work. Else, why bother? Authors often render political commentary in story form. Modest proposals one might say. Whether such a notion constitutes an inherent corruption of otherwise immutable laws of forum comportment is another matter. Applied in moderation, I'd say no. Other's mmv.
 
Last edited:

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,115
Reaction score
3,031
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I see your simile, but raise you a metaphor. ;)



Yes, but by whom? I'd argue that such devices call upon the reader to do the work. Else, why bother? Authors often render political commentary in story form. Modest proposals one might say. Whether such a notion constitutes an inherent corruption of otherwise immutable laws of forum comportment is another matter. Applied in moderation, I'd say no. Other's mmv.

But, if you gave the argument in non-allegory form it would be subject to counter argument. Why would the form of the argument render it immune to challenge?

Indeed, would not your argument remove the ability to challenge any argument, since any argument is interpreted in the mind of the mind of the reader whether it is rendered explicitly or implicitly.
 

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
470
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
But, if you gave the argument in non-allegory form it would be subject to counter argument. Why would the form of the argument render it immune to challenge?

Indeed, would not your argument remove the ability to challenge any argument, since any argument is interpreted in the mind of the mind of the reader whether it is rendered explicitly or implicitly.

In a word, no.

My answer to your question(s) centers on who does the challenging, not whether a thing can be challenged. I assume you agree that works of fiction have been known to advance ideas? If so, do you argue that those ideas go "unchallenged" unless you can engage the author in a dialogue? Speaking for myself, I've yet to write an author demanding that she explain herself.

So why choose allegory as my form of expression? For this reason. The budget issue is highly politicized, even emotional. In such cases, it can be extremely hard to make a point which is taken at face value. Meaning no disrespect to anyone, I have noticed that there are times when my words, however carefully chosen, were ignored as a reader sought instead to discern my sub rosa meaning. Particularly in political discourse, many want to place the writer in this or that camp, as a tool for interpretation if nothing else. Is a he a neo-con? A liberal? A libertarian? A nut job? Who thinks they know where my partisan sympathies lie? Do I have any?

It seems to be a default assumption, by some (and I truly do not mean you Richard), that argument is sophistry. Despite the forum's wise policy to the contrary, some see all argument as artifice in service to ideology.

By making the argument in story form, an obvious abstraction, my purpose was to remove any focus on me, and instead direct that focus to the idea. Defending the idea in my own voice defeats that purpose. In any event, at least in this limited respect, I don't seem to have succeeded.
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
Richard, Tinman,

Apologies for the shuffle, sort of.

It's an interesting discussion that I'm looking forward to following, but it was a bit of a derail.

Thanks.
 

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
470
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Richard, Tinman,

Apologies for the shuffle, sort of.

It's an interesting discussion that I'm looking forward to following, but it was a bit of a derail.

Thanks.

A solid choice oh wise leader. I suppose the hard question must be whether even an obvious derail will be "worthy" of it's own thread.

But that's why the MODs get paid the Big Bucks.


By way of context, in a thread entitled "Will The Government Shut Down on Tuesday?", a topic on which posters hold strong opinions, I posted this:

Long ago, when the earth was flat, a tall ship sailed straight for the abyss. Half the sailors of Amerigo bore the colors of Vermilion, half the colors of Azul.

On a prior voyage the sailors had agreed that, when the abyss loomed, the captain would steer a course to port. Amerigo's captain was bound to execute the wishes of her sailors.

But, on this voyage, Amerigo's sailors were no longer of one mind. As the abyss loomed, the sailors from Vermilion told the captain to chart a course to starboard. "Foul," cried the sailors from Azul,"it was settled before this voyage began. Hard-a-port!"

The shouting continued as the abyss drew near. From the crow's nest it was clear that either course, port or starboard, would avert disaster for all. If either side relented, doom would be avoided.

But, as night fell, they would not relent. And that's how morning for Amerigo became a mystery.
 

shakeysix

blue eyed floozy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
2,426
Location
St. John, Kansas
Website
shakey6wordsmith.webs.com
An argument from allegory should never be taken seriously because no two things are ever exactly the same.

Not my words but a digest of a lesson on logical arguments from the "Bedford Guide for College Writers." The example given was from Copernicus' day. As I recall the great minds of the day poo-pooed the idea that the earth moved around the sun because the earth did not possess a tail, wings or legs. The allegory was false. They assumed that the earth was like a living being. It had no power of locomotion so it could not move.

Anyway this is the way I remember the lesson. I haven't taught out of that book for 7 years and I am up to my eyebrows in fall housecleaning so I don't have time to shore up this example. I just thought it was interesting.

On the up side I just found 120$ in ancient Traveler's Checks in a file cabinet! --s6
 
Last edited:

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,115
Reaction score
3,031
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Split personality Mod note

Welcome to a more polite argument area. Please park all P&CE excesses at the door.


Hey, you're repressing my freedom.


That's a philosophical point.
 

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
470
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
An argument from allegory should never be taken seriously because no two things are ever exactly the same.

An interesting notion, but not one I'd subscribe to. The example is a bit off since to say that the earth is "like" a living being is a simile, whereas an allegory is closer to an extended metaphor.

But, even if one made that precise argument (the earth is a living being), it's not clear to me why a bad allegory renders all allegories impotent.

Let's look at the logic of this criticism in the context of a metaphor:

"All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances."
William Shakespeare

Is a stage an exact match for the world? If not, should we reject the use of metaphor?

I think allegories and metaphors are...to use a simile...like a painter's brush. It matters who is holding the brush. Let me quickly cite to my words quoted in the OP, lest anyone think I'm claiming a particular skill:

It's an allegory. It may be apt or awful.

I have no idea why the Bedford Guide adopted this stance. But I'll posit a theory (well, more a WAG): too many college writers are prone to writing
sophomoric twaddle, a malady which the Guide hoped to cure. :)

Saying all this, I've been known to change my mind in response to a persuasive argument.
 
Last edited:

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
470
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Split personality Mod note

Welcome to a more polite argument area. Please park all P&CE excesses at the door.


Hey, you're repressing my freedom.


That's a philosophical point.

Yes it is. I've heard of them. ;)

ETA: Not that you're implying otherwise, but not all philosophical arguments depend on the juxtaposition of esteemed yet competing values (civility and free expression, in your example).
 
Last edited:

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
It would seem logical that allegory can have a place in an argument -- if only because it can be a tool to help all parties frame a point in a reference(s) they can each understand. But this means that the point gathered from the allegory can be objected to. However, as an allegory is apt to be an incomplete description or framing of the argument/point, how much further flawed does it become if we try to use the same allegory to respond in the original argument? At some point that allegory must either modify or be discarded.
 

shakeysix

blue eyed floozy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
2,426
Location
St. John, Kansas
Website
shakey6wordsmith.webs.com
An allegory can illuminate an argument but it cannot cinch an argument. Pure Shannon Smith, this time around. Still can't find a copy of the Bedford Guide but American Express says the checks from 2002 are good! Hot Damn! I'm rich! --s6
 

Captcha

Banned
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
637
I think one of the advantages of using allegories is that they remove the participants of the argument from their comfort zones and fall-back positions and biases. I would think that this sort of removal would be especially valuable in the realm of US politics, with its binary nature and knee-jerk loyalties. (how many figures of speech did I use in that paragraph? A LOT!)

I would say that allegories are useful for pointing out universal truths. I used to teach English, and one of the books we used a lot was Animal Farm. Some teachers got right into the Russian revolution, showing how this animal represented Trotsky and that animal represented the proletariat, or whatever. I always thought it was more useful to help the students draw parallels to the modern world, rather than the historical one.

This doesn't mean there are no bad allegories. But just because there are bad ones doesn't mean that good ones aren't super-valuable.
 
Last edited:

Captcha

Banned
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
4,456
Reaction score
637
I always cry when Boxer gets hauled off --s6

Don't get me started on Boxer!

(I used to leave the room and make the kids read it to themselves when that scene came up)

ETA: And it was mostly because he was a lovely old horse and he worked hard and didn't deserve to be betrayed, but it was ALSO because he reminded me of my grandfather, a lovely old man who worked hard and was probably the best representative of the proletariat I could ever think of. I'd say that's an effective allegory, on several levels.
 
Last edited:

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
470
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
It would seem logical that allegory can have a place in an argument -- if only because it can be a tool to help all parties frame a point in a reference(s) they can each understand. But this means that the point gathered from the allegory can be objected to. However, as an allegory is apt to be an incomplete description or framing of the argument/point, how much further flawed does it become if we try to use the same allegory to respond in the original argument? At some point that allegory must either modify or be discarded.

Makes sense, but I think it may depend on the allowable tolerances for the application in question. The devil hides in the details, but sometimes the details are just noise. Estimating can be a useful tool.

Let me speak more plainly about my decision. The budget debate (like so many these days) is polarizing. Many, in my view, approach the budget topic from a highly partisan POV.

If there is a "shut down," it's my view that both sides of aisle will bear some degree of material fault. A number of posters in both camps seem unshakeably certain that only the other camp bears even a modicum of fault. My concern was that expressing my view would result in both sides placing me squarely in the other's camp. As a consequence, my post would come to nothing; "a failure to communicate," as Strother Martin might say.

My thought was to remove both myself and my point from the immediate field of battle. That is, to improve the odds of communication by de-escalating the tension. Whether it worked at all depends on whether anyone was more receptive to the idea of shared responsibility after my post.

Incidentally, "the abyss" in the allegory was irrelevant to my point. It simply represents a consequence of intransigence. Personally, I find the rhetoric of fiscal doom to be self-indulgent in some cases and deliberate fear-mongering in others.
 
Last edited:

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
470
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
I think one of the advantages of using allegories is that they remove the participants of the argument from their comfort zones and fall-back positions and biases. I would think that this sort of removal would be especially valuable in the realm of US politics, with its binary nature and knee-jerk loyalties. (how many figures of speech did I use in that paragraph? A LOT!)

I would say that allegories are useful for pointing out universal truths. I used to teach English, and one of the books we used a lot was Animal Farm. Some teachers got right into the Russian revolution, showing how this animal represented Trotsky and that animal represented the proletariat, or whatever. I always thought it was more useful to help the students draw parallels to the modern world, rather than the historical one.

This doesn't mean there are no bad allegories. But just because there are bad ones doesn't mean that good ones aren't super-valuable.

I was composing and failed to see that you'd beaten me to the point. :)

ETA: I think you're right about drawing parallels to the modern world. Likely reduces the odds of inexactitude. But, the idea of sailing straight over the edge, whilst sailors in red want to steer right while sailors in the blue want to steer left was ...low hanging fruit.
:)
 
Last edited:

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,115
Reaction score
3,031
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Allegory is a form of modeling. It endeavors to correlate one set of real world beings, objects, circumstances, and actions to a fictional set of characters, props, scenes, events, etc.

As with any other form of modeling an allegory can and should be judged not just on its artistic merits but on how well it models the aforementioned real world beings, objects, circumstances, and actions.

It seems to me therefore that an allegory should be judged more strictly than either a story or a theory since it has to pass muster on both artistic and representational ground.

Allegory is hardly the only artwork that requires twofold standards. Architecture needs to be both livable and artistic. Scientific illustration needs to be both well drawn and accurate to what is being drawn and so on.

Allegory is also commonly employed to draw moral conclusions. Thus it enters a third realm in which it is to be judged. How moral are the conclusions it draws and how well do they fit the real world circumstances of the people involved.

The parables in the New Testament are allegories (usually of a particular relationship between humans and God). As such they exist specifically to drive home a moral point. It would be disingenuous at best to treat them as nothing more than isolated bits of storytelling.

The metaphor of the Ship of State goes back at least as far as Sophocles (it's in Antigone if I remember correctly). It is used to justify the sole rulership of the king of Thebes. A ship needs a single captain to guide it lest it crash upon rocks.

Since one subject of the play is the question of whether one person (Antigone) can do what she deems right in defiance of the ruler, the allegory of the king as pilot becomes deadly serious (since her action is one that earns death).

The allegory of the Ship of State is therefore integral to the play, and one can argue that Antigone's actions consist of rejecting the metaphor on the grounds that it does not fit the facts on the ground (in this case, her brother's unburied corpse).
 

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
470
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
It seems to me therefore that an allegory should be judged more strictly than either a story or a theory since it has to pass muster on both artistic and representational ground.

I think this is stated too absolutely for me to subscribe to.

In the first place, some theories should also be judged on more than one basis. Game theory, for example, can be judged for its mathematical merits, but also on its usefulness as a basis for making rational policy.

But mostly, I'd argue we really need to look at this issue on a case by case base basis.

As breathtakingly significant as my allegory about our budget bickering was, there would seem to be a blue jillion theories of greater import to mankind. Oh say, theories on global warming, genetic engineering, evolution, the Big Bang theory, Al's theory of General Relativity, or even his "special" one. I'd have to say that these theories should be judge more strictly than my budget-boat allegory.

YMMV
 
Last edited:

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,115
Reaction score
3,031
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I think this is stated too absolutely for me to subscribe to.

In the first place, some theories should also be judged on more than one basis. Game theory, for example, can be judged for its mathematical merits, but also on its usefulness as a basis for making rational policy.

But mostly, I'd argue we really need to look at this issue on a case by case base basis.

As breathtakingly significant as my allegory about our budget bickering was, there would seem to be a blue jillion theories of greater import to mankind. Oh say, theories on global warming, genetic engineering, evolution, the Big Bang theory, Al's theory of General Relativity, or even his "special" one. I'd have to say that these theories should be judge more strictly than my budget-boat allegory.

YMMV

You seem to be confusing what I meant by more strictly.
Each of the theories you mentioned needs to be judged strictly on two bases: accuracy of modeling and utility. An allegory has other bases of judgment: its artistic/story qualities.

Thus it is more strictly judged because it is being judged on more standards, not more strictly on the same set of standards.

You had prposed that it be judged solely as a story and dismissed the need to judge it as a model at all. Thus you implicitly proposed the general thesis that allegory be immune from judgment standards of accuracy and utility. It is this that I am objecting to.
 

dfwtinman

Cubic Zirconia in the rough
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
3,061
Reaction score
470
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
You seem to be confusing what I meant by more strictly.
Each of the theories you mentioned needs to be judged strictly on two bases: accuracy of modeling and utility. An allegory has other bases of judgment: its artistic/story qualities.

Thus it is more strictly judged because it is being judged on more standards, not more strictly on the same set of standards.

You had prposed that it be judged solely as a story and dismissed the need to judge it as a model at all. Thus you implicitly proposed the general thesis that allegory be immune from judgment standards of accuracy and utility. It is this that I am objecting to.

First, your lack of specificity as to what you meant by "more strictly" does not equal "my confusion." When a thing is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous. Were this is a legal matter, the law would require that your post be construed against its author since the author's lack of clarity caused the ambiguity.

Second, in all candor, you seem to be most willfully misunderstanding me. Whether you're vexed because (for good and sufficient reasons) I declined to answer your question, or because my allegory is at odds with some deeply held (albeit disguised) partisan view, or whether there is some other force in play, I cannot say.

I have not said that my allegory should be judged "simply as a story." Else, why did I bother with allegory? Nowhere have I "dismissed the need" to judge my allegory as a valid model. I said it didn't need defending. A thing can be judged without being defended. And most assuredly, I have not said anything in support this unsubstantiated assertion:

Thus you implicitly proposed the general thesis that allegory be immune from judgment standards of accuracy and utility.

Why would I? I have not and do not subscribe to the above notion, your stubborn attempts at attribution notwithstanding.

On the contrary, what I have said, ad nauseam at this point, is that it was my intent, in this specific instance and for the reason I plainly articulated, that the reader undertake to judge the allegory for him or herself. You mentioned architecture earlier. Are you saying that buildings cannot be judged absent the architect engaging you in conversation? Seriously, do you require poets to write you in defense of their metaphors? Or perhaps you feel some special privilege here to pose interrogatories and demand answers?

If, by some chance, you are are referring me saying that my post "was just a story Richard, what ending would you like?" I suggest you re-read the entire post. I was being flip and said so in that very post. The whole truth is that I found your question off the mark, if not a little off-putting owing to a grammatical mood which struck me as nearly imperative in tone, if not form

You have persisted in attributing this phantom thesis to me despite my having disclaimed it more that once. I was disinclined to indulge you initially (as to do so was contrary to my expressed purpose) If such a thing is possible, I am far less inclined now as I am presently unable to convince myself that my inquisitor approaches me in good faith. Therefore, I will say no more.
 
Last edited:

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,115
Reaction score
3,031
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
It's not just a story. It's a story with a specific moral to be applied to our current situation. Allegories are like theories, they can and should be measured against reality.

You are making an active claim about political reality by your use of an allegorical story in a political discussion.

I see your simile, but raise you a metaphor. ;)



Yes, but by whom? I'd argue that such devices call upon the reader to do the work. Else, why bother? Authors often render political commentary in story form. Modest proposals one might say. Whether such a notion constitutes an inherent corruption of otherwise immutable laws of forum comportment is another matter. Applied in moderation, I'd say no. Other's mmv.

In a word, no.

My answer to your question(s) centers on who does the challenging, not whether a thing can be challenged. I assume you agree that works of fiction have been known to advance ideas? If so, do you argue that those ideas go "unchallenged" unless you can engage the author in a dialogue? Speaking for myself, I've yet to write an author demanding that she explain herself.

So why choose allegory as my form of expression? For this reason. The budget issue is highly politicized, even emotional. In such cases, it can be extremely hard to make a point which is taken at face value. Meaning no disrespect to anyone, I have noticed that there are times when my words, however carefully chosen, were ignored as a reader sought instead to discern my sub rosa meaning. Particularly in political discourse, many want to place the writer in this or that camp, as a tool for interpretation if nothing else. Is a he a neo-con? A liberal? A libertarian? A nut job? Who thinks they know where my partisan sympathies lie? Do I have any?

It seems to be a default assumption, by some (and I truly do not mean you Richard), that argument is sophistry. Despite the forum's wise policy to the contrary, some see all argument as artifice in service to ideology.

By making the argument in story form, an obvious abstraction, my purpose was to remove any focus on me, and instead direct that focus to the idea. Defending the idea in my own voice defeats that purpose. In any event, at least in this limited respect, I don't seem to have succeeded.

Let me see if I understand you. You seem to be saying that an argument rendered in story form removes the author from the argument, so that one can argue only about the idea. Is that correct?

I see no reason to accept your thesis. Why would the form of the argument remove the author. It is true that most arguments are presented in a non-fiction form, but by no means all. We've had theses presented as allegories, as quotations, as poetry as pictures and as LOLcats. Why would story form remove the author.

One of the principles here is that people should own their words. You wrote it, you are responsible for it.