Category: Theory Article Summaries

🔹 1. Introduction: Extending Frankfurt’s Analysis

• The essay responds to the popularity of Harry Frankfurt’s “On Bullshit” by both endorsing and extending his core thesis.
• Maes and Schaubroeck argue that Frankfurt’s definition is limited: it only explains one kind of bullshit among many “flowers in the lush garden of bullshit” (✶Cohen, 2002, p. 323).
• They propose an enriched typology that adds nuance and explores bullshit’s evaluative complexity—i.e., not all bullshit is bad.

---

🔹 2. Frankfurt’s Definition of Bullshit

• Frankfurt defines bullshit as characterized by indifference to the truth:
  “a lack of connection to a concern with truth – [an] indifference to how things really are” (✶Frankfurt, p. 33).
• A bullshitter is unlike a liar: the liar knows the truth but distorts it, while the bullshitter doesn’t care whether what they say is true or not.
• Bullshit involves deception about one’s epistemic stance, not about facts per se:
  “What he cares about is what people think of him” (✶Frankfurt, p. 18).
• Frankfurt makes a sharp distinction between bull sessions (exploratory and unconstrained by truth but not deceptive) and actual bullshit (which entails a pretense) (✶Frankfurt, p. 38).

---

🔹 3. Critique of Frankfurt – Two Key Revisions

a. Pretence is not essential

• The authors challenge Frankfurt’s insistence on pretence: not all bullshit involves fakery.
• Case in point: Fania Pascal’s remark to Wittgenstein, “I feel just like a dog that has been run over,” lacks pretence but is still labeled bullshit due to her indifference to the truth (✶Pascal, 1984, p. 29).
• Conclusion: “A mere indifference to the truth is apparently all that is needed” for bullshit.

b. Bullshit can be benign or even good

• Not all bullshit is harmful or morally reproachable:
  • Comforting words in painful moments,
  • Social politeness (✶Nagel, 2002, p. 6),
  • Casual banter (✶Ishiguro, 1999, pp. 257–258),
  • Witty epigrams by Oscar Wilde (✶Maes & Schaubroeck).
• Thus, bullshit can promote social cohesion and warmth, even if not concerned with truth.

---

🔹 4. Cohen’s Response: Academic Bullshit

• G.A. Cohen critiques Frankfurt for ignoring another kind of bullshit found in academia: unclear, unclarifiable writing.
• His test: “Add or subtract a negation sign… if plausibility is unaffected, it’s likely bullshit” (✶Cohen, 2002, p. 333).
• Cohen-bullshit = sincere but obscure, impenetrable prose with no clear connection to truth—often seen in certain academic or continental philosophical texts.

---

🔹 5. A Third Kind: Pseudoscientific Bullshit

• Neither Frankfurt’s nor Cohen’s model adequately explains pseudoscientific bullshit (e.g., astrology, water crystals, chakra kits).
• Characteristics:
  • Producers are not indifferent to truth—they sincerely believe in their claims.
  • Their work is not unclarifiable—often it is quite specific and literal.
• Authors propose a third kind defined by:
  • Insensitivity to evidence and
  • Logical fallacies (✶Cohen, 2002, p. 333).
• This category is especially dangerous due to its impact on public health, science, and politics.

---

🔹 6. Final Takeaway: A Pluralist Theory of Bullshit

• The authors outline three main types:
  1. Frankfurt-bullshit: Indifference to truth, often hidden.
  2. Cohen-bullshit: Obscure and unclarifiable academic writing.
  3. Pseudoscientific bullshit: Specific, sincere, but epistemically flawed.
• They call for a more nuanced evaluation, noting that bullshit is not monolithic in origin, form, or moral weight.
• “Bullshit” may at times be socially necessary, linguistically rich, and even charming—a fact Frankfurt underestimates.

---

📚 Key Quotations

• “Bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.” (✶Frankfurt, p. 61)
• “The explicandum that attracted his interest is just one flower in the lush garden of bullshit.” (✶Cohen, 2002, p. 323)
• “A bit of bullshit from time to time might even be a good thing.” (✶Maes & Schaubroeck)
• “If I say, ‘How nice to see you,’ you know perfectly well that this is not meant as a report of my true feelings.” (✶Nagel, 2002, p. 6)

❗ Overextension of the Concept of Bullshit

• Critique: The authors expand Frankfurt’s concept too broadly by removing pretence as an essential condition of bullshit.
• Issue: By allowing any speech that is indifferent to truth (even sincere or casual) to be called “bullshit,” they risk diluting the term into vagueness.
• Example: Labeling expressions like “I feel like a dog that’s been run over” as bullshit (per the Wittgenstein example) stretches the definition to include everyday, benign utterances.

---

❗ Collapse of the Distinction Between Bullshit and Ordinary Speech

• Critique: The paper blurs the boundary between bullshit and casual, non-truth-committed talk such as jokes, metaphors, or expressions of emotion.
• Consequence: This leads to a slippery slope where poetic, humorous, or empathetic language might be unfairly delegitimized.
• Concern: Critics may argue this pathologizes ordinary human communication under the banner of philosophical critique.

---

❗ Insufficient Criteria for Evaluating Pseudoscientific Bullshit

• Critique: While the authors identify pseudoscientific bullshit as a third type, they provide no detailed framework for analyzing it.
• Gap: The lack of theoretical development makes their treatment of pseudoscientific bullshit underdeveloped compared to Frankfurtian or Cohenian types.
• Quote: “These effects certainly warrant further investigation… But this is not the right place to carry out this investigation.” (p. 11)

---

❗ Inconsistent Handling of Intentionality

• Critique: The paper waffles on whether the speaker’s intention matters in defining bullshit.
• Contradiction: While Frankfurt places emphasis on the speaker’s indifference and concealment, Maes & Schaubroeck sometimes ignore intention entirely (e.g., bull sessions and poetic metaphors).
• Effect: This inconsistency creates ambiguity: Is bullshit defined by mindset, effect, or structure?

---

❗ Undermines Frankfurt’s Moral Critique

• Critique: By accepting forms of benign or even “positive” bullshit, the authors weaken Frankfurt’s ethical stance that bullshit is a grave threat to truth and reason.
• Implication: They potentially normalize or excuse bullshit under certain social circumstances (e.g., comforting lies, polite phrases, “banter”).
• Challenge: Critics may argue this relativism erodes the civic and epistemic urgency behind Frankfurt’s warning.

---

❗ Ambiguity in Classifying Bullshit in Literature

• Critique: The paper doesn’t clearly differentiate between rhetorical style, artistic ambiguity, and academic bullshit in cultural texts.
• Risk: The overlap between poetic license and bullshit becomes dangerously vague, risking misuse in literary criticism.

🧠 1. Definition and Theoretical Foundation

• Meibauer expands on Harry Frankfurt’s definition of “bullshit” as a form of insincere communication that disregards the truth.
• Bullshitting is not lying: Unlike lying, it does not require the speaker to know the truth; it is characterized by a lack of concern for whether statements are true or false.
• “Bullshit, in the Frankfurtian sense, is speech with no concern for the truth” (Meibauer, 2016, p. 68).

---

🗣️ 2. Bullshit as a Pragmatic Phenomenon

• Meibauer frames bullshit as a pragmatic category using tools from speech act theory and Gricean implicature.
• He argues that bullshitting typically occurs in the form of assertions, even though the speaker is not committed to the truth.
• “Bullshitting is insincere assertion” (p. 73).
• “Assertions are central to bullshitting, but with a weaker epistemic commitment than is standardly assumed” (p. 74).

---

⚖️ 3. Distinction from Lying

• Lies involve a knowledge of the truth and an intent to deceive.
• Bullshitters may not know or care what is true—they aim to impress or manipulate.
• “The liar hides the truth, the bullshitter hides the fact that he does not care about the truth” (p. 69).

---

📢 4. Excessive Certainty as a Marker

• A novel contribution from Meibauer is the idea that bullshit is marked by exaggerated epistemic certainty.
• This confidence disguises the speaker’s indifference to the truth.
• “One typical feature of bullshitting is the use of excessive certainty markers” (p. 75).

---

🧩 5. Relationship to Other Speech Acts

• Bullshit is closely related to bald-faced lies, irony, and metaphor, but distinct in intent and function.
• Meibauer explores these distinctions to develop a typology of insincere discourse.
• “Bald-faced lies are intended to be false and known to be so by both speaker and hearer… not so with bullshit” (p. 77).

---

🧱 6. Structural Characteristics of Bullshit

• Meibauer outlines key features:
  • Speaker pretends to assert a proposition.
  • Speaker is indifferent to the truth.
  • Speaker aims at persuasion or impression management.
  • Speech often includes pseudo-intellectualism or vagueness.
• “Bullshitting often entails strategic vagueness and the use of stock phrases” (p. 81).

---

🔍 7. Implications for Discourse Analysis

• Bullshit is pervasive in political speech, advertising, and public discourse.
• It challenges conventional models of communication that assume cooperation and sincerity.
• “Bullshit calls into question the Gricean assumption that speakers aim at maximally informative and cooperative discourse” (p. 86).

---

📚 8. Relevance for Broader Linguistic and Literary Analysis

• The paper has significant implications for analyzing:
  • Unreliable narrators
  • Satire and irony
  • Propaganda and rhetorical manipulation
• Meibauer’s framework enables a more precise analytical vocabulary for discussing insincerity and authorial stance in literature.

🎭 Narratology: Unreliable Narration and Speaker Intent

• Meibauer’s concept of insincere assertion is vital for analyzing unreliable narrators, especially those who present themselves as truthful while masking their lack of epistemic commitment.
• His notion that bullshit involves “weak epistemic commitment” (Meibauer, 2016, p. 74) helps decode characters or narrators who perform sincerity without believing their own claims.
• 📖 Application: Analysis of literary voices that manipulate the reader, such as in Nabokov’s Pale Fire or Ford’s The Good Soldier.

---

🌀 Post-Structuralism: Instability of Meaning and Truth

• The text supports post-structuralist concerns about truth being contingent, performative, and manipulable.
• Meibauer observes that bullshit flouts Gricean maxims, destabilizing expected truth norms in discourse (p. 86).
• 📖 Application: Deconstruction of logocentric claims and exploration of ambiguity in authorial voice.

---

🧩 Pragmatics in Literary Discourse Analysis

• By grounding bullshit in speech act theory and implicature, Meibauer offers tools for analyzing how characters use language performatively rather than truthfully.
• “Bullshitting is insincere assertion” (p. 73), particularly useful in identifying manipulative or self-deceptive dialogue in fiction.

---

🎭 Rhetoric and Reader Response Theory

• The function of impression management and strategic vagueness aligns with theories of reader manipulation and rhetorical stance.
• Meibauer writes: “Speaker aims at persuasion or impression management” (p. 81)—a foundation for analyzing how texts guide reader belief or complicity.

---

🌫️ Ideology Critique and Critical Discourse Analysis

• Meibauer’s account of bullshit reveals how truth-indifferent language sustains ideological hegemony, especially in political or propagandistic fiction.
• “Bullshit often entails strategic vagueness and the use of stock phrases” (p. 81)—a critical insight for dissecting ideology in dystopian or authoritarian texts.

---

🧠 Ethics and Intentionality in Literary Ethics Theory

• The concept of ethical commitment to truth in speech is central to evaluating moral dimensions of narration.
• By distinguishing lying from bullshitting, Meibauer clarifies how characters’ epistemic ethics affect narrative trust.
• “The liar hides the truth, the bullshitter hides that he does not care about the truth” (p. 69).

---

📣 Satire and Irony Studies

• Bullshit as a mode of insincere discourse enhances understanding of ironic and satirical narrative tones.
• His reference to “pseudo-assertion” and overconfident speech markers (p. 75) is crucial for analyzing ironic posturing in works by Swift or Vonnegut.

---

📚 Metafiction and Self-Reflexivity

• Theorizing bullshit as discourse unconcerned with truth but obsessed with performance aligns with postmodern metafictional strategies.
• Meibauer’s view of bullshit as discourse that “pretends to assert a proposition” (p. 81) mirrors self-reflexive narration that performs fictionality.

🔍 Overreliance on Speech Act Theory

• Meibauer grounds his theory primarily in assertive speech acts, which may exclude or oversimplify more literary, poetic, or metaphorical uses of bullshit.
• Critics argue that not all bullshit functions through clear illocutionary force—e.g., satire or performance art resists such classification.

---

🎭 Neglect of Performative and Aesthetic Dimensions

• The theory underemphasizes the literary or aesthetic use of bullshit, such as in postmodern fiction, where authors deliberately play with sincerity and insincerity.
• Literary scholars may argue that bullshit can function as artistic ambiguity, not always as a rhetorical or moral failure.

---

🧠 Assumes a Binary Between Truth and Bullshit

• While Meibauer refines Frankfurt’s model, he still operates within a binary of truth vs. insincerity, leaving little room for complex epistemic gray zones like irony, parody, or speculative writing.
• Real-life discourse often blends knowledge, belief, and persuasion—bullshit may not be as categorically distinct as suggested.

---

🗣️ Narrow Focus on Assertion

• The model prioritizes assertions as the main carrier of bullshit, possibly ignoring other speech acts like questions, commands, or emotional appeals, which can also function insincerely.

---

🌍 Lacks Socio-Cultural Contextualization

• Meibauer’s approach is largely individualistic and formal, focusing on the speaker’s intent rather than institutional or ideological structures that enable bullshit (e.g., political media, nationalism).
• Critical theorists might call for a broader, discourse-historical analysis.

---

🌀 Insufficient Engagement with Visual/Multimodal Bullshit

• In the age of digital misinformation, bullshit often occurs in images, memes, or tone, not just verbal assertions—Meibauer’s framework doesn’t address this.

---

🧩 Unclear Operational Criteria

• The line between exaggeration, lying, and bullshitting remains theoretically murky, especially when certainty and sincerity are difficult to measure.
• Critics argue the framework lacks clear diagnostic tools for identifying bullshit in natural language.

🔹 Redefining “Bullshit” Beyond Frankfurt

• The authors critique Harry Frankfurt’s rigid, checklist-style definition of “bullshit” and argue for a more flexible, graded-category approach.
  • Frankfurt defines bullshit as “a misrepresentation of the self—one’s feelings, thoughts, or attitudes” (p. 17).
  • However, the authors propose that bullshit is not an either/or concept but a spectrum: “Like game, bullshit groups together acts that can be quite varied” (p. 32).
  • They draw on Wittgenstein’s “family resemblances” to suggest bullshit should be treated as a graded category rather than an essentialist one (p. 32).

---

🔹 Bullshit as a Rhetorical Phenomenon

• Bullshit in academic writing is often not about deception, but rhetorical ethos-building.
  • “Prototypical bullshit has to do with a purposeful misrepresentation of self, has the quality of gamesmanship…” (p. 379).
  • The authors stress that academic bullshit is part of a “ludic” rhetorical tradition—one that values play, performance, and reputation (p. 132).
  • Referencing Walter Ong, they argue that such rhetorical behavior is gendered, typically associated with masculine competitiveness (p. 124–125).

---

🔹 Prototypical vs. Non-Prototypical Bullshit

• A key conceptual distinction is drawn between different types of bullshit:
  • Prototypical bullshit: exaggerated, insincere, self-promoting discourse that misrepresents reality for rhetorical gain.
    • Example: “Your call is important to us” – “It grates… nobody believes it” (p. 380).
  • Non-prototypical bullshit: stylistic convention, unintentional obfuscation, or identity performance that may still serve valid academic purposes.
    • “Academic writing… may be bullshit, but it is not prototypical bullshit” (p. 384).

---

🔹 The Bullshit Paradox in Academic Writing

• Academics are in a contradictory position: they produce writing often accused of being bullshit, yet they value clarity, truth, and rigor.
  • “The academic writer must… prove [claims] according to the conventions of the discipline” (p. 383).
  • Yet these conventions themselves can produce writing that “enhances the ethos” more than it clarifies (p. 383).
  • The article suggests that “academic gamesmanship is liable to the charge of bullshit insofar as the persona… may be completely different from the ‘actual’ disposition of the writer” (p. 384).

---

🔹 Bullshit in Student Writing

• Student writing also reflects bullshit in both cynical and developmental forms.
  • William Perry’s “bullster” writes without reading—offering “relevancies, however relevant, without data” (p. 65).
  • More troubling is the “competent but insincere cooperation” seen in Jasper Neel’s “anti-writing,” where students follow form but show “disregard for the truth” (p. 85).
  • This type of bullshit “aims to get by with something worse than a lie: disengagement” (p. 386).

---

🔹 Bullshit as Pedagogical Reality and Opportunity

• The authors conclude that benign bullshit is part of academic development and genre acquisition.
  • “Productive sort of bullshit… ultimately produces better thought and better selves” (p. 387).
  • They caution, however, against the “gravitational pull” of prototypical bullshit (p. 384).
  • Teachers must remain vigilant, guiding students away from cynical manipulation and toward sincere engagement: “To do that, we need… a more precise understanding of how what bullshit is varies” (p. 386).

---

🔹 Bullshit as a Structural and Institutional Issue

• The article shows how academia’s incentive systems (tenure, publishing, specialization) structurally encourage bullshit.
  • “Professional rewards come from academic reputation, and academic reputation comes from publication” (p. 383).
  • Even earnest academic writing “may be a variant sort of bullshit—bullshit on the edge of the category” (p. 384).

---

🔹 Bullshit and Intra-Academic Policing

• Bullshit is also a rhetorical weapon used within academic turf wars.
  • “Theoretical frameworks probably provoke more cries of ‘Bullshit!’ than any other academic praxis” (p. 385).
  • Accusing another scholar of bullshit can be “an argumentum ad hominem that aims to excommunicate” (p. 385).

🧠 1. Poststructuralism & Constructivist Theories of the Self

• Contribution: The article supports a view of identity as constructed rather than essential, aligning with poststructuralist ideas of subjectivity.
  • “Some contemporary scholars might deny… that there is a pre-existing self to which the bullshitter is not true. They might say that the self is bullshit. It is constructed out of bullshit” (p. 377).
• Implication: The notion of rhetorical identity aligns with thinkers like Foucault and Derrida, challenging stable notions of authorial sincerity and authenticity.

---

🧬 2. Rhetorical Theory and Ethos

• Contribution: Eubanks and Schaeffer expand classical rhetorical theory—particularly the Aristotelian concept of ethos—by showing how academic ethos can be performative, strategic, and even deceptive.
  • “The bullshitter attempts to misrepresent himself or herself, that is, to create an ethos that implies a character that the speaker does not possess” (p. 377).
• Implication: In literary theory, this supports an analysis of texts and authorship as performative acts, not transparent self-expressions.

---

🌀 3. Prototype Theory and Linguistic Semantics

• Contribution: The article introduces prototype semantics (from cognitive linguistics) into literary and rhetorical theory, enriching how categories like “bullshit” or “literature” are evaluated.
  • “Bullshit is a graded category… one task is not to say what is bullshit and what is not but to distinguish what is prototypical bullshit from what is not” (p. 376).
• Implication: Literary theorists can apply graded categories to analyze genres, textual ambiguity, and hybrid forms without strict binaries.

---

🎭 4. Performance Theory

• Contribution: Bullshit is reframed as gamesmanship or rhetorical performance, linking to Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical theories and Judith Butler’s performativity.
  • “Bullshit may be essential to the kind of rhetorical situation that Walter Ong calls ‘ludic’… these situations could be called ‘games’ and the behavior appropriate to them called ‘gamesmanship’” (p. 378).
• Implication: Academic and literary discourse are viewed as stage-managed performances, challenging assumptions of sincerity or objectivity in interpretation and criticism.

---

⚔️ 5. Feminist Literary Criticism

• Contribution: The article acknowledges that the masculine, ludic nature of rhetorical games (including bullshitting) is embedded in academic discourse and writing norms.
  • “Bullshit… is almost exclusively a male game” (p. 379); “It is surely no accident that so many influential critiques of academic argument have come from a feminist perspective” (p. 379).
• Implication: Reinforces feminist critiques of academic discourse as gendered and exclusionary, validating the push toward more inclusive and ethical writing practices.

---

🧾 6. Genre Theory

• Contribution: It reframes academic writing as a genre bound by institutional conventions that may foster bullshit—not as deviance but as structural necessity.
  • “Even good academic writing… may be bullshit” (p. 384); “Academic publication… aims to create an ethos that will result in tangible rewards” (p. 383).
• Implication: Enhances literary theory’s understanding of how genre functions rhetorically, especially in institutional and professional contexts.

---

📚 7. Institutional Critique & Critical Theory

• Contribution: The article critiques the academic institution itself for structurally incentivizing bullshit through systems of tenure, peer review, and scholarly competition.
  • “Professional rewards come from academic reputation, and academic reputation comes from publication… a particularly rich field for bullshit” (p. 383).
• Implication: Supports the critical theory tradition (e.g., Habermas, Bourdieu) in exposing the ideological and material functions behind academic discourse.

---

🤹 8. Reader-Response and Audience Theory

• Contribution: The essay emphasizes that judgments about “bullshit” are audience-dependent and context-specific.
  • “What they really mean is that the writing does not appropriately address them” (p. 382); “It matters who is making the judgment” (p. 382).
• Implication: Underscores the active role of the reader in assigning value and meaning—core to reader-response theory.

---

💬 9. Metacriticism

• Contribution: The article itself is a metacritique of academic discourse, exposing its self-contradictions, performativity, and institutional constraints.
  • “If academic writing is bullshit, then bullshit is what we teach” (p. 374).
• Implication: Challenges literary theorists to critically reflect on their own practices and disciplinary assumptions.

❗ Over-Normalization of Bullshit

• Criticism: The authors risk normalizing bullshit by suggesting it is often benign or inevitable in academic writing.
• Concern: This may blur the ethical distinction between strategic rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty.
• E.g., the argument that “benign bullshit… produces better selves” (p. 387) could be misused to excuse poor scholarship.

---

🔍 Lack of Clear Boundaries

• Criticism: The concept of bullshit as a graded category makes it difficult to apply in real academic assessment.
• Concern: By avoiding a firm line, the authors complicate the task of evaluating when rhetoric crosses into problematic territory.
• Frankfurt’s call for “decisiveness” is rejected, but critics might argue this renders the concept too vague to regulate.

---

👓 Masculine Bias in Rhetorical Framing

• Criticism: Although the essay acknowledges Ong’s insight that bullshit is a “masculine game,” it arguably does not go far enough in critiquing this gender bias.
• Concern: The piece risks reinforcing a gendered view of rhetoric without fully interrogating its implications for feminist or inclusive pedagogies.

---

🧩 Insufficient Engagement with Power Structures

• Criticism: The essay critiques individual performances and stylistic conventions more than systemic academic inequalities.
• Concern: It underplays how institutional bullshit is tied to publishing metrics, elitism, and exclusionary discourse norms.

---

📉 Neglect of Student Impact

• Criticism: The discussion of student “bullshit” risks condescension or underestimation of the pressures students face.
• Concern: Descriptions of “bullsters” and “anti-writing” may frame students too harshly, ignoring the structural constraints on their agency.

---

📚 Limited Theoretical Dialogue

• Criticism: The article focuses heavily on Frankfurt and cognitive semantics, with limited engagement with broader critical theory.
• Concern: The discussion could be enriched by deeper references to discourse theory, Bourdieu, or postcolonial critiques of academic language.

---

🔄 Circularity in Definition

• Criticism: The authors reject checklist definitions but still rely on a prototype that often loops back to the same traits—misrepresentation, ethos inflation, gamesmanship.
• Concern: Critics may argue this makes the article circular in logic, using bullshit to define bullshit.

Origin and Purpose of the Book

• David Graeber’s book was inspired by his 2013 viral essay, “On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs,” which sparked global attention (Rudolph, 2018, p. 78).
• The book explores a “neglected aspect of the world of work”, namely jobs perceived as meaningless even by those who hold them (p. 78).
• Rudolph defends the seemingly provocative title as fitting, noting the serious anthropological and sociological depth behind it: “this is a serious, important and excellent book” (p. 78).

---

🔹 Definition of a ‘Bullshit Job’ (BS Job)

• Graeber defines it as “a form of paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence”, though they must pretend otherwise (Graeber, 2018, pp. 9–10; Rudolph, 2018, p. 78).
• These jobs often contribute little or no value to society, and their elimination might even improve things (p. 78).

---

🔹 The Five-Fold Taxonomy of BS Jobs

1. Flunkies – Exist to make superiors look/feel important (e.g., idle receptionists) (p. 78).
2. Goons – Aggressive roles that manipulate or deceive (e.g., PR, telemarketers) (p. 78).
3. Duct Tapers – Solve problems that shouldn’t exist (e.g., temporary IT fixes) (p. 78).
4. Box Tickers – Create the illusion of action (e.g., writing reports no one reads) (p. 78).
5. Taskmasters – Managers who generate work for others unnecessarily, sometimes inventing new BS jobs (p. 78).

“Taskmasters become BS generators whose role is to create BS tasks for others” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 78).

---

🔹 BS Jobs vs. “Shit Jobs” (S Jobs)

• BS Jobs: White-collar, often well-paid, but meaningless.
• S Jobs: Blue-collar, poorly paid, but socially necessary (e.g., cleaners, care workers) (p. 78).

“S jobs typically involve work that needs to be done… workers are paid and treated badly” (p. 78).

---

🔹 The Phenomenological Criterion

• Graeber proposes that if you feel your job is BS, it probably is, and vice versa (p. 78).
• This subjective validation challenges traditional labor economics and emphasizes personal agency.

---

🔹 Social Value vs. Economic Value

• Graeber argues that “the more one’s work benefits others, the less one is likely to be paid for it” (p. 78).
• For instance, nursery workers generate social value, while bankers destroy it—yet the latter are paid significantly more (p. 78).

---

🔹 Psychological Impact of BS Jobs

• BS jobs induce “hopelessness, depression, and self-loathing” (p. 78).
• Graeber describes this as “spiritual violence”, attacking human dignity and purpose (p. 78).

---

🔹 Historical and Systemic Observations

• BS jobs proliferated even as capitalism was supposedly focused on efficiency (p. 78).
• Graeber provocatively claims “the existing system isn’t capitalism” but “managerial feudalism”, driven by hierarchical bloat (p. 78).
• This mirrors Soviet-style “make-work” practices: “Employment was considered both a right and a sacred duty” (p. 78).

---

🔹 Moral Superiority and Work Ideology

• Both political left and right share the idea that having any job is morally superior to not working (p. 78).

“Not working is very bad… a contemptible parasite unworthy of sympathy” (p. 78).

• Graeber links this to religious doctrine, particularly Genesis, where labor becomes punishment for the Fall (p. 78).

---

🔹 Paradox of Modern Work

• People both resent and derive self-worth from their jobs.

“Workers… gain feelings of dignity and self-worth because they hate their jobs” (p. 78).

• A collective belief persists that misery in work is morally redemptive, echoing the anti-Utilitarian “Gospel of Labour” (p. 78).

---

🔹 Higher Education and Bullshitization

• Academia is not immune: increasing layers of strategic roles, managers, and admin staff detract from teaching and research (p. 78).
• Citing Ginsberg, Rudolph notes that universities are experiencing a “staffing explosion” that mirrors other sectors (p. 78).

“All nonexecutive Deans, PVCs… are bullshit jobs” (p. 78).

---

🔹 Critiques and Limitations

• Rudolph finds Graeber’s qualitative data compelling, but criticizes the lack of statistical rigor (p. 78).
• He warns that statements like “half of all jobs are BS” rely on ad hoc empiricism (p. 78).
• Lack of attention to non-Western contexts and gig economy is also noted (p. 78).

---

🔹 Proposed Solutions and Vision

• Rather than advocating mass layoffs, Graeber proposes the “de-bullshitization” of real work (p. 78).
• He supports universal basic income and a reduction in working hours as paths toward meaningful reform (p. 78).
• The goal is not utopia, but to “start us thinking and arguing about what a genuine free society might actually be like” (p. 78).

---

🔹 Conclusion and Impact

• Rudolph concludes the book is a “provocative, eclectic, and hilarious” read that challenges deep cultural assumptions (p. 78).
• It combines “everyday anecdotes, theoretical insights, and pop-cultural references” with intellectual rigor (p. 78).

📖 1. Reader-Response Theory

Focus on individual perception and experience of meaning

• The book uses a phenomenological definition of meaning, which directly aligns with reader-response theory—where subjective interpretation defines significance.

“If you feel your job is BS, it probably is” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 78).

• Like literary texts whose meaning is co-created by readers, the value of a job emerges through self-perception, not external utility.
• This aligns with Stanley Fish’s theory that interpretation is a product of communities and context—not fixed meanings.

---

🏛️ 2. Marxist Literary Theory / Critical Theory

Critique of power, labor, and class under capitalism

• Graeber’s critique of managerial feudalism resonates with Marxist analysis of labor alienation and surplus labor under capitalism.

“The existing system isn’t capitalism… it is managerial feudalism” (Graeber, 2018, p. 191; Rudolph, 2018, p. 79).

• The inversion of value (low-paid socially useful jobs vs. high-paid harmful jobs) critiques capitalist ideology and commodification.
• Links to Frankfurt School thought, which interrogates how culture and bureaucracy uphold exploitative systems.

---

🧠 3. Existentialist Literary Theory

Exploration of meaning, alienation, and authenticity

• The book’s exploration of “spiritual violence”, hopelessness, and depression caused by meaningless work echoes existentialist themes in literature.

“Directed at the essence of what it means to be a human being” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 78).

• The existential search for authenticity and meaningful action parallels characters in literature by Sartre, Camus, and Dostoevsky.
• BS jobs, like existential absurdity, force individuals to confront the void of modern life.

---

📚 4. Cultural Studies / Ideological Critique

Unmasking dominant ideologies that shape social behavior

• Graeber exposes the “moral superiority of work” as a deep-seated cultural belief rooted in religion, not economics.

“Not working is very bad… a contemptible parasite” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 80).

• Literary theory that focuses on hegemonic discourse, such as that of Raymond Williams or Stuart Hall, would find Graeber’s book a vivid case study.
• The book interrogates the rhetoric of productivity, paralleling how literature reflects and critiques ideological apparatuses.

---

🧾 5. Bureaucratic Narrative Theory

Critique of form, genre, and narrative structure in institutions

• Graeber’s classification of job types (Flunkies, Goons, Duct Tapers, etc.) can be seen as a satirical taxonomy, echoing narrative archetypes and structuralist models.

“Box Tickers… allow an organization to claim it is doing something that, in fact, it is not doing” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 78).

• The concept of “bullshitization” functions like a genre trope, describing how stories of purpose are constructed around empty roles—similar to how narratives can be hollow.

---

💬 6. Postmodern Theory

Interrogating grand narratives and embracing fragmentation

• The very title “Bullshit Jobs” signals postmodern irreverence, irony, and suspicion toward institutional authority.
• Graeber’s book deconstructs the myth of progress through work, revealing contradictions within the modern employment narrative.
• As Rudolph notes, the book is “polemic” and “an eclectic mix of anecdotes, insights, and pop-culture references” (p. 81)—hallmarks of postmodern pastiche.

---

⚖️ 7. Ethical Criticism / Humanist Literary Theory

Concern with moral dimensions of human action and dignity

• The emotional toll and dehumanization through BS jobs highlights ethical issues in society—a concern central to moral or humanist criticism.
• It raises questions about what kind of society ought to exist and how literature—and in this case, theory—can serve human flourishing.

📉 1. Weak Empirical Foundation

• Graeber’s use of statistics (e.g., “37% of British workers think their jobs are pointless”) is described as “ad hoc empiricism” and methodologically shaky.
• Rudolph cautions readers:

“His statistics could be regarded as ad hoc empiricism and should be… taken with a big pinch of salt” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 78).

---

🧪 2. Non-Representative Sampling

• The qualitative testimonies Graeber relies on come from self-selecting respondents, which introduces selection bias.
• Rudolph critiques this as a “convenience sample”, unrepresentative of broader populations.

“People would have needed to read the essay” and choose to reply—thus skewing the results (Rudolph, 2018, p. 81).

---

🌍 3. West-Centric Analysis

• Graeber’s examples and sources are mostly from Western contexts (UK, US, Netherlands).
• Rudolph notes a lack of non-Western case studies, making the theory less globally applicable.

“There is no persuasive evidence that half of all jobs are BS jobs” beyond Europe (Rudolph, 2018, p. 81).

---

🚫 4. Omission of Gig Economy & Startups

• Graeber largely ignores modern forms of work like freelancing, gig work, or flat-structured start-ups.
• These could challenge or complicate his framework of BS jobs.

“Graeber also seems to omit tech and other start-ups… and there is also nothing much on the gig economy” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 81).

---

📚 5. Overlooking Seminal Theories

• While Graeber references bureaucracy, he does not directly cite key theories like Parkinson’s Law or the Peter Principle in this book.
• Rudolph finds this a missed opportunity for richer theoretical integration:

“He could have used Parkinson’s Law… but avoids repetition” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 81).

---

🧭 6. Lack of Concrete Solutions

• Graeber is deliberately light on policy prescriptions, focusing instead on critique.
• While Rudolph respects this, he notes the book may frustrate readers seeking practical answers:

“Graeber’s point is not to provide solutions… but to start us thinking” (Rudolph, 2018, p. 82).

---

🧮 7. Overgeneralization of Bureaucracy

• Rudolph warns that sweeping generalizations about institutions like universities or governments risk oversimplification.
• Even if bureaucracy often produces BS jobs, not all administrative work is inherently BS.

🔹 1. Purpose and Context of the Article

• Sobolev aims to rethink the theory of metaphor in light of postmodern criticism and cognitive science.
• Challenges the idea that metaphor has a unified structure, suggesting instead a field of heterogeneous possibilities.
• Responds to the inadequacy of classical models (like I.A. Richards and Max Black) in addressing metaphor’s multidimensional operation in contemporary discourse.

---

🔹 2. Critique of Traditional Metaphor Theories

• I.A. Richards (Tenor and Vehicle):
  • Sobolev notes its binary simplicity but criticizes its lack of structural dynamism.
• Max Black (Focus and Frame):
  • Acknowledges the interaction theory but finds it overly tied to rhetorical logic and insufficiently open to cultural and cognitive variables.
• Both models rely on the assumption that metaphor functions according to stable relations, which Sobolev disputes.

---

🔹 3. Key Theoretical Distinctions Introduced

• Structure of Identification vs. Structure of Functioning:
  • Identification: How metaphor is recognized or detected in discourse.
  • Functioning: How metaphor operates, shapes meaning, and evokes response.
  • Important because recognition does not guarantee understanding or appreciation of the metaphor’s impact.
• This dual distinction allows Sobolev to separate form from effect, enabling a more flexible model.

---

🔹 4. Proposal of a Tripartite Structure

• Moves beyond the binary of “tenor–vehicle” or “focus–frame”.
• Suggests three components in metaphor:
  • Frame: The contextual or grammatical setting.
  • Primary Term: The central or familiar referent.
  • Secondary Term: The novel or metaphorical concept applied to the primary.
• This structure enables a better mapping of metaphorical tension and interplay across layers.

---

🔹 5. Multidimensional Axes of Metaphor

Sobolev proposes metaphor should be examined along several independent but interacting dimensions:

• Axis of Similarity:
  • Whether similarity is given (pre-existing) or created (through metaphor).
• Axis of Function:
  • Is the metaphor used for elucidation (clarifying existing concepts) or creation (generating new understanding)?
• Axis of Modality:
  • Evaluated in terms of truth/falsity (propositional logic) or success/failure (performative effect).
• Axis of Conceptual Transference:
  • Degree to which new concepts are transferred or transformed through metaphor.

These axes form the core of his analytical framework, enabling plural interpretations.

---

🔹 6. Epistemological and Aesthetic Implications

• Sobolev asserts that metaphor is not simply a decorative element or a cognitive shortcut.
• It is a mode of knowledge generation, especially in art and literature.
• Metaphors cannot be paraphrased without loss of meaning due to their complex multidimensional operation.

---

🔹 7. Cultural and Contextual Flexibility

• Metaphor operates differently across:
  • Disciplines (literature, science, politics).
  • Cultures (Western vs. non-Western conceptual traditions).
  • Mediums (spoken, written, visual).
• Sobolev’s model allows for metaphor variability without collapsing into relativism.

---

🔹 8. Integration with Poststructuralism and Cognitive Linguistics

• While poststructuralists view metaphor as indeterminate and unstable, Sobolev argues this does not negate structured analysis.
• Embraces Lakoff and Johnson’s idea of conceptual metaphors but adds nuanced structural depth.
• Incorporates insights from cognitive linguistics, while remaining committed to aesthetic and literary specificity.

---

🔹 9. Contribution to Literary Theory

• Provides a synthesis between rhetorical, cognitive, and aesthetic perspectives.
• Reframes metaphor as an open system with cultural embeddedness.
• Offers tools for analyzing metaphor in literature, theory, philosophy, and communication.

---

🔹 10. Conclusion and Future Directions

• Metaphor must be seen as a flexible, multi-dimensional structure rather than a fixed linguistic entity.
• Encourages scholars to move beyond dualisms and embrace models that reflect the plurality of metaphorical thought.
• The model sets the stage for further interdisciplinary research, especially in digital, cross-cultural, and AI applications of metaphor.

📘 1. Structuralism and Poststructuralism

• Challenge to Structuralist Simplicity
  • Sobolev critiques binary metaphor models (e.g., Richards’ tenor/vehicle), arguing they oversimplify metaphor’s complexity (p. 904–906).
  • Suggests that metaphor cannot be captured by a single system of relational equivalence.
• Revision of Poststructuralist Relativism
  • While poststructuralism emphasizes the instability of meaning, Sobolev offers a middle ground: a structured yet non-unified field (p. 924).
  • He supports poststructuralist insight into multiplicity but proposes a model where metaphor has functional axes that remain analyzable.

---

🧠 2. Cognitive Literary Theory

• Integration with Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT)
  • Sobolev builds on Lakoff & Johnson but critiques their model for being overly universal and schematic (p. 909–910).
  • Introduces axes like modality and conceptual transference to address metaphor’s aesthetic and rhetorical variability, especially in literature (p. 922).
• Contribution: Multi-Dimensional Cognition of Metaphor
  • Proposes a model that can be flexibly applied to poetic, philosophical, and everyday discourse, accommodating both thought and feeling (p. 915–918).

---

🧬 3. Rhetorical Theory / Classical Rhetoric

• Beyond Persuasion
  • Rejects metaphor as purely rhetorical decoration or a tool of persuasion (Aristotelian view) (p. 905).
  • Emphasizes metaphor’s role in world-construction and knowledge-making, especially in literary texts.
• Contribution: Expanding Function
  • By distinguishing between identification and functioning, Sobolev gives literary metaphor epistemic and creative functions, not just persuasive ones (p. 906).

---

🖼️ 4. Aesthetic Theory

• Metaphor as Artistic Structure
  • Asserts that metaphor’s aesthetic power lies in its resistance to paraphrase—a direct engagement with New Criticism and aesthetic formalism (p. 926).
  • Literary metaphor cannot be reduced to logical propositions; it functions affectively and aesthetically.
• Contribution: Articulation of Irreducibility
  • Positions metaphor as an irreducible site of experience and ambiguity, essential for literary beauty and innovation (p. 926–927).

---

🌍 5. Cultural Poetics / New Historicism

• Cultural Variability of Metaphoric Logic
  • Recognizes that metaphors operate differently across cultures, epochs, and genres (p. 923).
  • Moves away from static universal models toward culturally embedded metaphoric fields.
• Contribution: Historicized Flexibility
  • Suggests metaphor analysis must be context-sensitive, aligning with New Historicism’s attention to historical and discursive specificity.

---

📚 6. Literary Hermeneutics / Phenomenology

• Metaphor as Interpretive Event
  • Metaphor is not just a structure but a phenomenological experience—the reader’s interaction with metaphor shapes understanding (p. 920–921).
• Contribution: Dynamic Reader Engagement
  • Echoes hermeneutic thinkers like Paul Ricoeur in proposing metaphor as a fusion of horizons between the reader’s world and the metaphor’s world.

---

🔄 7. Interdisciplinary Theory (Philosophy–Literature Interface)

• Metaphor as Philosophical Tool
  • Bridges literary theory and philosophy of language—metaphor is a way of thinking, not just describing (p. 908–909).
  • Engages with thinkers like Nietzsche and Derrida, while offering a more structured model for analysis.
• Contribution: Theory Hybridization
  • Proposes a theoretical framework useful across literature, philosophy, and cognitive science, reinforcing metaphor’s interdisciplinary centrality.

⚖️ 1. Ambiguity in the “Field” Model

• While Sobolev aims to escape rigid binary models, his proposal of a “field of heterogeneous possibilities” may be too abstract or diffuse for empirical application.
• Critics may argue that it lacks operational clarity, especially for researchers seeking concrete analytic tools.
• The multiplicity of parameters (similarity, modality, function, transference) may overwhelm or dilute explanatory precision.

---

🧪 2. Limited Empirical Validation

• Sobolev’s model is highly theoretical, with minimal empirical testing or examples drawn from systematic data.
• Cognitive linguists may criticize the lack of experimental or corpus-based evidence supporting the axes of metaphor proposed.
• It remains unclear how reliably different readers or researchers would identify or rate the values along Sobolev’s metaphor axes.

---

🔄 3. Overcomplication of Metaphor Structure

• The tripartite structure (Frame, Primary Term, Secondary Term) could be seen as a repackaging of existing binary models, adding complexity without clear interpretive advantage.
• Critics may question whether the “frame” is a truly necessary third element, or if it overlaps with grammatical or contextual analysis already covered in classical rhetoric.

---

🧩 4. Underdeveloped Cultural Specificity

• Though Sobolev claims that metaphors vary across cultures and epochs, he does not develop a cross-cultural comparative analysis.
• There is little discussion of non-Western metaphor traditions, oral storytelling, or indigenous cognitive models.
• Critics may argue that the cultural embeddedness he invokes is asserted rather than demonstrated.

---

📉 5. Lack of Engagement with Recent Cognitive Theories

• While Sobolev references Lakoff and Johnson, his engagement stops short of integrating or extending more recent developments in embodied cognition, neural metaphor processing, or blending theory.
• Scholars in cognitive poetics or psycholinguistics may find his approach theoretically elegant but scientifically shallow.

---

🖼️ 6. Neglect of Visual/Multimodal Metaphor

• The article focuses almost entirely on verbal/textual metaphor, leaving out metaphorical thinking in visual media, film, or digital interfaces.
• This omission may limit the relevance of his model in contemporary multimodal literary and cultural studies.

---

🤝 7. Weak Intertextual Anchoring

• Though Sobolev references major figures (Richards, Black, Lakoff), he does not robustly situate his argument in dialogue with literary theorists like Paul Ricoeur, Harold Bloom, or even Derrida.
• Critics may see this as a missed opportunity to deepen philosophical and literary grounding.

---

🔄 8. Tension Between Flexibility and Structure

• Sobolev’s attempt to merge structure with flexibility may be internally contradictory.
• The model might lack falsifiability—if any metaphor can fit somewhere within the multidimensional field, then theory becomes too adaptable to be critically tested.

🔁 No Theoretical Conflict: Complementary, Not Competing

• The article opens by dismissing the misconception that Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) and Conceptual Blending Theory (CBT) are in opposition:

“There is a mistaken perception that ‘metaphor theory’ and ‘conceptual blending’ are competing views… The real situation is this: We have been good friends and colleagues for over forty years, and we remain so” (Fauconnier & Lakoff, p. 394).

• Both approaches are portrayed as mutually reinforcing and often intertwined in theory and empirical scope.

---

🧠 Development of Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT)

• Initial formulation in Metaphors We Live By (1980): metaphors are cognitive mappings grounded in experiential domains.

“It assumed that conceptual metaphors were cognitive mappings from frame to frame across domains” (p. 394).

• Mid-1980s: discovery of cross-linguistic metaphors and preservation of image-schema structures.

“The cross‐linguistic ones all had common experiential bases… inferences that came with the image‐schema structure” (p. 394).

• Generic-level metaphors: introduced in More Than Cool Reason (1989), mapping high-level abstractions onto specific, culturally framed instantiations.

“Poetic metaphors were typically made up of high‐level generic content plus lower‐level content” (p. 394).

• Neural theory of metaphor (NTL): developed in the 1990s to model metaphor processing in the brain.

“In the neural theory, the old ‘conceptual metaphors’ are replaced by neural mappings, which are relatively simple neural circuits” (p. 395).

---

🧩 Emergence of Blending Theory and Mental Spaces

• Mental spaces introduced by Fauconnier (1977–1985) to handle logical phenomena in discourse.

“Mental spaces and their connections were viewed as cognitive constructs” (p. 395).

• Conceptual Blending (1990s): created by Fauconnier and Turner as an extension of mental spaces and metaphor mappings.

“A ‘conceptual blend’ used various mental spaces and mappings across them: A generic space, input spaces, and a blended space” (p. 395).

• Blends allow creative cognitive operations not explained by metaphor alone, involving multiple mappings and emergent structure.

“Blending synthesizes mappings across inputs into a new, emergent space” (p. 396).

---

🧬 Neural Integration: Mapping Metaphor and Blend to Brain Structures

• Lakoff’s neural linguistic model (late 1990s–2000s) introduced neural constraints on conceptual mechanisms.

“According to Lakoff, neural binding circuitry is necessary to accomplish blending, but is insufficient for metaphorical mappings” (p. 396).

• The article emphasizes that neural blending and neural metaphor require distinct mechanisms.

“Different circuitry was needed” (p. 396).

---

🔄 Blending Theory Incorporating Metaphor

• Fauconnier and Turner show that metaphor can be seen as a product of conceptual blending.

“Metaphors as surface products can result from complex integration networks” (p. 397).

• Case study: “TIME as SPACE” illustrates multiple layers of metaphor and blend working together.

“This account… seems totally compatible with the binding mechanisms proposed within Neural Linguistics” (p. 397).

---

⚖️ Comparison of Theoretical Paradigms

• Lakoff and Fauconnier agree on the empirical validity of both theories but emphasize different analytic levels:

“The different theoretical paradigms… do not necessarily yield exactly the same results, though there is considerable overlap” (p. 397).

• Neural linguistics seeks to ground observed generalizations in neural circuitry:

“Neural linguistics… explain[s] at a deeper level, principles and generalizations discovered through linguistic analysis” (p. 397).

---

🧭 Philosophy of Science and Methodology

• Clarification that both authors support data-driven cognitive linguistics, regardless of whether the method is experimental or observational:

“Traditional linguistic research… is one of the most important empirical methodologies in cognitive science” (p. 398).

• They reject the notion that non-experimental work is “speculative” or “unproven”:

“We note a tendency to call anything that’s not experimental, ‘non‐empirical’… We look forward to a return to that tradition” (p. 398).

---

❤️ Final Message: Unity in Diversity

• The essay’s final note underscores the complementarity of metaphor and blending theories:

“There would be no conceptual blending framework without conceptual metaphor theory, and there would be no neural linguistics without the elaborate linguistic analysis” (p. 398).

• Their collaboration reflects a model for interdisciplinary integration:

“Different enterprises… can mutually reinforce each other, lead to deeper convergent perspectives, and achieve wide-ranging scientific goals” (p. 397).

🎭 Poetic Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Turner’s Model)

• Contribution: The article reinforces the idea that poetic metaphors are not merely decorative language but are cognitively structured through high-level generic mappings and frame-specific instantiations.
• Reference: “Poetic metaphors were typically made up of high‐level generic content plus lower‐level content” (p. 394).
• Implication: In literary theory, this supports the view that poetic language reveals structured conceptual patterns, making CMT a tool for analyzing literary expression and figurative depth.

---

🧠 Cognitive Poetics / Cognitive Literary Theory

• Contribution: Blending theory expands literary analysis beyond metaphor, allowing for the examination of how multiple input spaces are merged to create novel imaginative meanings—essential in poetry, allegory, and myth.
• Reference: “A conceptual blend used various mental spaces and mappings across them: A generic space, input spaces, and a blended space” (p. 395).
• Implication: Literary texts often involve multiple conceptual mappings (metaphorical, metonymic, fictional), and blending theory accounts for their integration and emergent properties in narrative and lyrical structure.

---

🔮 Symbolism and Allegory Analysis

• Contribution: The theory of integration networks and optimality constraints helps explain how literary allegories operate by compressing elaborate mappings into symbolic forms.
• Reference: “Compression in integration networks… allowed the formulation of governing principles and optimality constraints” (p. 396).
• Implication: Complex symbols in literature (e.g., “the ship of state” or “the veil in The Scarlet Letter”) are cognitive blends that can be unpacked using blending theory, revealing layered meanings.

---

🌀 Intertextuality and Frame-Shifting

• Contribution: The article supports the idea of mental space construction across texts, which aligns with theories of intertextuality and frame-shifting in poststructuralist and cognitive frameworks.
• Reference: “Frameshifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction” (Coulson, 2001, cited p. 399).
• Implication: Readers construct intertextual meaning by shifting between cognitive frames and input spaces; blending theory explains how this happens at a mental-structural level.

---

💡 Figurative Language and Embodied Meaning

• Contribution: Conceptual metaphor and blending are grounded in embodied cognition, showing that even abstract literary language is rooted in physical experience.
• Reference: “Conceptual metaphors… were cognitive mappings… grounded in experience” (p. 394); “primary metaphors… Philosophy in the Flesh” (p. 395).
• Implication: This supports embodied theories of meaning in literature, where metaphors are not stylistic flourishes but reflections of sensorimotor patterns.

---

🧰 Narratology and Viewpoint Theory

• Contribution: Mental space theory contributes to understanding narrative voice, temporal shifts, and viewpoint in literature.
• Reference: “Mental space constructions accounted for tense and viewpoint phenomena in language” (p. 395, citing Cutrer, 1994).
• Implication: Tools from mental space theory help narratologists model how readers shift between character and narrator perspectives in complex narratives.

---

🔗 Distributed and Material Cognition in Literary Contexts

• Contribution: The role of material anchors in blends (Hutchins, 2005) shows how literary objects (e.g., maps, clocks, diagrams) can participate in meaning-making through cognitive blending.
• Reference: “Material anchors… showing the role of blending in material culture” (p. 396).
• Implication: Material features in literary texts (e.g., visual poetry, graphic novels) are part of cognitive operations—not just aesthetic elements.

---

🧪 Empirical Basis for Figurative Analysis

• Contribution: The article defends the empirical rigor of linguistic analysis in literary semantics, countering views that only experimental methods count as valid science.
• Reference: “The analysis of massive amounts of linguistic data – especially in the area of semantics” (p. 398).
• Implication: Validates cognitive approaches in literary theory as data-rich and empirically structured, not speculative.

---

🔧 Literary Creativity as Cognitive Construction

• Contribution: Literary innovation, particularly metaphorical and narrative creativity, is explained not as mysticism but as systematic conceptual integration.
• Reference: “Metaphors and blends are among the most interesting phenomena in the cognitive sciences, and should be studied in enormous detail” (p. 398).
• Implication: Literary creativity is modeled as cognitive engineering using available conceptual resources—bridging creativity and structured cognition.

⚙️ Overgeneralization of Cognitive Mechanisms

• Critics argue that conceptual metaphor and blending frameworks sometimes overextend their explanatory scope, attempting to account for all forms of meaning construction.

The flexibility of blending theory risks making it “too powerful,” capable of explaining everything but predicting nothing.

---

🧪 Lack of Empirical Falsifiability

• Despite being labeled “empirical,” both theories face criticism for insufficient experimental testability.

“We note a tendency to call anything that’s not experimental, ‘non‐empirical’” (p. 398), yet critics argue the theories still rely heavily on introspective analysis rather than rigorous data.

---

🔍 Ambiguity in Mapping Levels

• There’s inconsistent terminology across metaphor and blending theory, especially between surface metaphors and deep conceptual mappings.

The article itself admits: “The word ‘metaphor’ is ambiguous between such conceptual mappings… and surface products also called ‘metaphors’” (p. 395).

---

🔄 Blending Theory’s Circularity

• Some scholars claim that blending theory is descriptively circular — explaining literary creativity by restating the inputs and outputs without revealing cognitive necessity.

There’s a lack of predictive structure to determine when and how blends will emerge.

---

🧬 Disconnection Between Neural and Conceptual Models

• Although neural linguistics is a major part of Lakoff’s approach, critics point to a gap between theoretical mappings and actual neural evidence.

“The blending theory’s generalization across mappings… did not hold at the neural level” (p. 396), showing unresolved tension between theory and neuroscience.

---

🧩 Insufficient Differentiation from Classical Semantics

• Critics argue that while CMT and CBT reject classical semantics, they don’t always offer clear formal alternatives for semantics in syntax, logic, or truth-conditional terms.

---

⏳ Underestimation of Historical and Cultural Specificity

• Conceptual metaphor theory has been challenged for its universalizing tendencies, often neglecting historical and cultural variation in metaphor use.

Literary critics argue that CMT sometimes flattens textual richness into cognitive templates.

---

📚 Limited Literary Sensitivity

• Some literary theorists claim that the cognitive models do not account for style, irony, genre, and aesthetic form, limiting their applicability to close literary analysis.

---

🎭 Reductive View of Figurative Language

• Figurative expressions that are layered, ironic, or ambiguous are sometimes too reductively mapped onto embodied metaphors or image schemas.

Critics suggest this misses intentional poetic ambiguity and interpretive openness.

🌟 Introduction and Context

• Explores and expands upon Black’s earlier “interaction view” of metaphor (1962).
• Aims to deepen understanding of metaphor’s function and significance.
• “An elaboration and defense of the ‘interaction view of metaphor’ introduced in the author’s earlier study” (Black, 1977, 432).

🌀 Reasons for Current Interest in Metaphor

• Metaphor now recognized as central and significant, overcoming past trivialization.
• Proliferation of metaphor studies reflects its linguistic and cognitive significance.
• Critics “often take metaphor au grand sérieux, as a peephole on the nature of transcendental reality” (Black, 1977, 433).

❓ The “Mystery” of Metaphor

• Metaphors puzzle because they assert what is literally false or absurd.
• Yet, this absurdity or falsity is precisely what creates metaphorical meaning.
• “The ‘mystery’ is simply that, taken literally, a metaphorical statement appears to be perversely asserting something to be what it is plainly known not to be” (Black, 1977, 434).

🎯 Identifying the Targets

• Focus on whole metaphorical statements rather than isolated words.
• Context crucial for identifying meaning.
• Example: “Pascal’s metaphor of man as a thinking reed” (Black, 1977, 437).

📌 Classification of Metaphors

• Rejects simplistic classifications like “dead” and “live” metaphors.
• Proposes “extinct,” “dormant,” and “active” metaphors as useful distinctions.
• “A so-called ‘dead metaphor’ is not a metaphor at all” (Black, 1977, 439).

✨ Emphasis and Resonance

• Metaphors have varying levels of emphasis (indispensability of wording) and resonance (richness of implications).
• Strong metaphors combine high emphasis and resonance.
• “A metaphorical utterance is emphatic…to the degree that its producer will allow no variation upon…the words used” (Black, 1977, 439-440).

🔄 Interaction View Explained

• Metaphors involve interaction between two subjects, creating new meaning.
• Secondary subject projects implications onto primary subject, producing novel insights.
• “The metaphorical utterance works by ‘projecting upon’ the primary subject a set of ‘associated implications’” (Black, 1977, 442).

⚙️ Mechanisms of Metaphorical Statements

• Metaphors depend on structured analogy or isomorphic relation between subjects.
• Example: “Marriage is a zero-sum game” projects competitive implications onto marriage.
• “Every metaphor is the tip of a submerged model” (Black, 1977, 445).

🔗 Metaphors vs. Similes

• Metaphors imply stronger identification than similes.
• Metaphors have richer cognitive and emotional resonance than explicit comparisons.
• “To perceive that a metaphor is grounded in similarity…is not to agree that ‘the Simile…[differs] in form only from a metaphor’” (Black, 1977, 445).

🧠 Thinking in Metaphors

• Metaphorical thinking involves seeing one thing as another, creating conceptual shifts.
• Metaphors essential for articulating complex or subtle insights.
• “Metaphorical thought and utterance sometimes embody insight expressible in no other fashion” (Black, 1977, 448).

🎨 How Metaphors Are Recognized

• Recognizing metaphors involves distinguishing figurative from literal meaning based on context.
• No single infallible test; metaphor recognized through context and intended meaning.
• “Our recognition of a metaphorical statement depends…upon knowledge of what it is to be a metaphorical statement” (Black, 1977, 450).

🚀 Creativity of Metaphors

• Metaphors can create new perspectives, offering genuine cognitive insights.
• They not only describe but actively shape perceptions of reality.
• “Some metaphors enable us to see aspects of reality that the metaphor’s production helps to constitute” (Black, 1977, 454).

🔍 Metaphors Revealing “How Things Are”

• Metaphors provide unique, insightful representations of reality.
• Can be cognitively informative without conforming to traditional truth criteria.
• “Metaphors…can, and sometimes do, generate insight about ‘how things are’ in reality” (Black, 1977, 456).

📖 Conclusion

• Strong metaphors serve as powerful cognitive tools beyond mere decorative language.
• Their true value lies in their capacity to illuminate understanding and generate insight.

🔮 Hermeneutics and Interpretation Theory

• Enhances understanding of metaphor as a complex interpretive act requiring active reader engagement.
• Reinforces the interpretive necessity of context and implicative meanings.
• “A metaphorical statement…demands ‘uptake,’ a creative response from a competent reader” (Black, 1977, p. 442).

🌀 Structuralism and Semiotics

• Offers the concept of “Isomorphic Structure”, demonstrating how metaphors function as structured semiotic systems.
• Underlines the structured correspondence between signifiers (secondary subject) and signifieds (primary subject).
• “The two systems…are isomorphic” (Black, 1977, p. 444).

🌐 Interactionist and Reader-Response Theory

• Clarifies how meaning is dynamically produced through interaction between text and reader’s cognition.
• Places emphasis on active role of reader in co-creating meaning.
• “The metaphorical utterance works by ‘projecting upon’ the primary subject a set of ‘associated implications’” (Black, 1977, p. 442).

🌈 Formalism and Stylistics

• Provides nuanced distinctions between “emphasis” and “resonance,” refining stylistic analysis of literary language.
• Reinforces importance of precise wording and context-dependent interpretations.
• “A metaphorical utterance is emphatic…to the degree that its producer will allow no variation upon the words used” (Black, 1977, p. 440).

🧬 Cognitive Literary Theory

• Highlights metaphor’s cognitive and conceptual function in generating insights and new knowledge.
• Suggests metaphor actively shapes cognitive frameworks and worldview.
• “Metaphors enable us to see aspects of reality that the metaphor’s production helps to constitute” (Black, 1977, p. 454).

🎭 Phenomenological Literary Theory

• Explores the experiential dimensions of metaphor as ways of “seeing-as,” emphasizing embodied and perceptual experience.
• Addresses metaphor as an experience shaping human perception and understanding.
• “What is it to think of something (A) as something else (B)?” (Black, 1977, p. 446).

⚡ Poststructuralism and Deconstruction

• Argues against fixed, literal interpretations, proposing that metaphors disrupt stable meanings.
• Metaphors challenge the distinction between literal and figurative language.
• “The recognition of a metaphorical statement depends essentially upon… our judgment that a metaphorical reading…is preferable to a literal one” (Black, 1977, p. 450).

📌 Pragmatics and Speech Act Theory

• Examines metaphor as a kind of speech act with specific pragmatic functions in discourse.
• Suggests metaphor performs linguistic actions beyond mere statement of facts.
• “I…wish to attend particularly to what a metaphor-user is doing and what he expects his auditor to do” (Black, 1977, p. 438).

🗺️ Literary Theory of Models and Analogies

• Proposes metaphor as a representational model that maps structural relations between conceptual domains.
• Deepens theoretical understanding of metaphorical language as analogical modeling.
• “Every metaphor is the tip of a submerged model” (Black, 1977, p. 445).

🔍 Literary Linguistics and Semantics

• Addresses semantic dynamics in metaphorical language, emphasizing context-driven meaning shifts.
• Highlights semantic complexity involved in recognizing metaphorical usage.
• “The imputed interaction involves ‘shifts in meaning of words belonging to the same family or system’” (Black, 1977, p. 443).

⚖️ Comparative Literary Theory

• Critically revisits the traditional “comparison view,” refining the understanding of similarity and analogy in literature.
• Clarifies the limits of considering metaphors simply as condensed similes.
• “To perceive that a metaphor is grounded in similarity…is not to agree that ‘the Simile…[differs] in form only from a metaphor’” (Black, 1977, p. 445).

🌏 1. Three-Class Framework of Indian Womanhood

• 🔹 Third World Women: Poor, rural, overworked, responsible for survival tasks like collecting water, fuel, and food.
  💬 “No better than beasts of burden… their highest aspiration is to give a certain modicum of education to their children” (p. 408).
• 🔹 Second World Women: Middle class, educated, politically aware; both rebels and conservatives emerge from this group.
  💬 “They are the most mobile… sometimes cross over to the first world through sheer determination” (p. 408).
• 🔹 First World Women: Elite, affluent, urban, consumerist, often seen as role models by the second world.
  💬 “They compose the ‘first world’ within the ‘third world’ country of India” (p. 408).

---

🧝‍♀️ 2. Heritage of Oral Literature: Three Archetypes

• 🕉️ Goddess: Seen as divine (Sita, Savitri), pure, forgiving, and incorruptible.
  💬 “The goddess is seen as Shakti… destroyers of evil” (p. 409).
• 💔 Beloved: Tragic heroines like Radha or scheming women, shaped by romantic and folk narratives.
  💬 “Pure and incorruptible… or as a scheming ‘other’ woman” (p. 409).
• 🏠 Householder: Part of extended family, subjected to social constraints and satire.
  💬 “She is seen both as a sensual and a work-burdened being” (p. 409).

---

🗡️ 3. Warrior Woman: Durga as Utopian Symbol

• 🌸 Used during the freedom struggle but not realistic for common women.
  💬 “Durga became the Utopian image… invoked in times of emergency or invasion” (p. 411).
• 🪶 Male authors like Tagore and Chatterji depicted revolutionary women as secondary to male leaders.
  💬 “Women… were cast not as thinking leaders but as fighters under the leadership of men” (p. 411).

---

🧠 4. Literary Representation: Gendered Constraints

• 🧷 Women seen as class representatives in early literature (e.g., Premchand), later as metaphors of sensuality or sacrifice.
• 💋 Shift in 1930s: Emphasis on woman as beloved or patita (fallen woman), often romanticized and pitied.
  💬 “She became the representative of a sex rather than a class” (p. 412).
  💬 “Even more self-negating and intense in her aspirations… than an ordinary woman” (p. 413).

---

♀️ 5. Feminism in Indian Literature: A Conflicted Inheritance

• 🧨 Focus on rebellion against men, not systemic class oppression.
• 📚 Literature highlights sexual victimhood more than economic roles of women.
  💬 “Feminism… came as a movement emphasizing the need for freeing women from the tyranny of men” (p. 414).
• 💍 Marriage portrayed as oppressive.
  💬 “Yatna Shivir or Torture Chamber” – a metaphor for marriage (p. 416).
  💬 “The refusal to marry was an act of defiance” (p. 416).

---

🧬 6. Samskara and Literary Choices

• ⚖️ Women writers choose male protagonists when addressing political/social issues.
• 🧠 Samskara (cultural conditioning) shapes even feminist writers’ narrative choices.
  💬 “Samskara… tighter than that of the old man on Sinbad the Sailor” (p. 418).

---

🧑‍🌾 7. The Third-World Woman: Misrepresented

• 🏙️ Writers from the second world project their aspirations onto working-class women.
• 🌾 Notable exception: Anaro by Manjul Bhagat – portrays a working-class woman as complex, resilient, and resistant to pity.
  💬 “You can feel frustrated with Anaro but cannot pity her” (p. 420).

---

🌲 8. Chipko Movement: Misread Feminism

• 🚜 Women led the Chipko movement out of ecological and economic necessity, not feminist ideology.
  💬 “It was a peasant movement… not a women’s movement against men” (p. 421).

---

🔚 Conclusion: Towards Real Feminist Critique

• 🧩 Indian feminism must address class, not just gender; Marxist and feminist frameworks need blending.
  💬 “Only a judicious admixture of Marxism and feminism… can be applied to class-ridden female society” (p. 422).
• 📉 Literary criticism remains male-dominated, marginalizing women’s writing.
  💬 “The male critics… turned feminist by treating women as a separate class… but their grasp of theory ends there” (p. 422).
• 🖋️ Women writers show courage, contradiction, and honesty, and they will define modern literature.
  💬 “The only commitment a writer can have is honesty to herself… and hence shall prevail” (p. 423).

👩‍🎓 1. Feminist Literary Theory

• 🔸 Deconstructs essentialist metaphors of womanhood: Garg critiques recurring images like Sati, Ma, Beloved, and Fallen Woman, showing how even women writers internalize patriarchal metaphors.
  💬 “Almost all portrayals of women… cast her as sexual, or at best a family being” (p. 417).
• 🔸 Critiques second-wave feminism in India: Points out that feminism in Indian literature often focuses on gender alone, ignoring class and caste.
  💬 “Feminism came not as an ideology, but as a pragmatic movement” (p. 414).
• 🔸 Reorients feminist focus from gender identity to socio-economic agency: Urges that portrayals of women must recognize them as economic agents, not just sexual or moral beings.
  💬 “Literature… has conspired to limit portrayals of women to sexual beings” (p. 421).

---

🧵 2. Marxist Literary Criticism

• 🔸 Class over gender metaphors: Garg insists that many “feminist” portrayals erase class realities of third-world women.
  💬 “She became the representative of a sex rather than a class” (p. 412).
• 🔸 Merges feminism with class-consciousness: Proposes that meaningful feminist critique in India must integrate Marxist analysis.
  💬 “Only a judicious admixture of Marxism and feminism can be applied to class-ridden female society” (p. 422).
• 🔸 Challenges idealization of rural women: Rejects elite romanticism of poor women as ecologically or spiritually superior (e.g., Chipko movement misreading).
  💬 “The conflict is a city-village conflict and not a male-female conflict” (p. 421).

---

🌍 3. Postcolonial Literary Theory

• 🔸 Unmasks elite-nationalist appropriation of feminine symbols: Critiques use of Durga and Sita as metaphors for national struggle, where women are symbolic, not agentic.
  💬 “Durga became the Utopian image… invoked in times of emergency” (p. 411).
• 🔸 Explores postcolonial class fragmentation: Highlights the ideological gap between first, second, and third world women in India’s postcolonial society.
  💬 “They compose the ‘first world’ within the ‘third world’ country of India” (p. 408).

---

🧠 4. Narrative Theory & Representation

• 🔸 Interrogates authorial samskara: Introduces the idea that inherited cultural codes shape narrative choices even among progressive writers.
  💬 “Most of what literature does… can be explained by the invisible, insidious working of Samskara” (p. 418).
• 🔸 Challenges narrative centrality of women: Shows that women writers often still use male protagonists for socio-political themes, relegating women to affective or family-centered roles.
  💬 “The second-world woman as writer finds her voice in male protagonists” (p. 419).
• 🔸 Calls for literary honesty over ideology: Argues that good writing emerges from a writer’s inner contradictions and courage, not rigid theoretical alignment.
  💬 “The only commitment a writer can have is honesty to herself” (p. 423).

---

🪞 5. Critique of Literary Criticism (Meta-theory)

• 🔸 Dissects gendered bias in literary criticism: Notes that male critics tokenize women’s literature as a separate category without real engagement.
  💬 “They turned feminist by treating women as a separate class… but their grasp of theory ends there” (p. 422).
• 🔸 Suggests gender-blindness in literary value: Proposes that women should be recognized as major contributors to literary excellence — not just “women writers.”
  💬 “Writing by women forms not the fringe but the crux of modern writing” (p. 423).

📉 1. Overgeneralization of Literary Trends

• Garg occasionally collapses diverse literary voices—including those of progressive male authors and experimental female writers—into sweeping categories.
• 📌 Critics argue that she simplifies the entire landscape into binaries like “sexualized vs. silenced,” ignoring nuances within regional and experimental literatures.

---

🔍 2. Inconsistent Feminist Positioning

• While advocating a feminist lens, Garg distances herself from ideology, asserting honesty over theory.
  💬 “The only commitment a writer can have is honesty to herself” (p. 423).
• 📌 This can be critiqued as anti-theoretical or individualistic, undermining the collective ideological thrust of feminist movements.

---

🧵 3. Neglect of Caste and Religion as Feminist Axes

• Garg emphasizes class-based feminism, but caste and religious identity are largely absent from her analysis.
• 📌 Critics argue that without addressing casteist patriarchy or communal identities, her framework is incomplete for intersectional feminism.

---

🛑 4. Dismissal of Feminist Literary Gains

• Garg critiques second-wave feminist literature as obsessed with victimhood, ignoring its foundational contributions to gender discourse.
• 📌 This can be viewed as reductive, dismissing how narratives of trauma helped shape feminist consciousness in India.

---

📚 5. Reliance on Select Examples

• She critiques authors like Jainendra, Agyeya, and even feminist writers, but does not deeply engage with alternate literary traditions—e.g., Dalit women’s writing, Northeast India, or tribal narratives.
• 📌 This limited corpus weakens the universality of her conclusions.

---

🗺️ 6. Urban-Centric Critique Framing

• While critiquing the urban elite’s portrayal of rural women, Garg herself writes from a second-world, urban literary space.
• 📌 Her call for realistic representation may seem paradoxical when framed within her own class-location.

🌐 Contextual Interpretation over Fixed Meaning

• Metaphors do not carry fixed meanings; interpretation depends on the common ground shared by communicators.
• “It is rarely accurate to discuss ‘the meaning of’ a metaphor, as if metaphors must have a single well-specified meaning” (Ritchie, 2004, p. 265).
• Meaning arises from the interplay between topic, vehicle, and cognitive context in the listener’s working memory.

🧠 Neural Connectivity and Embodiment

• Interpretation involves neural coactivation and strengthening of associations in working memory.
• “Cognitive effect can be thought of in terms of the degree to which processing a communicative act leads to restructuring the network of neural connections in working memory” (p. 272).
• Supports an embodied cognition approach aligned with neurological evidence (cf. Kintsch, 1998).

💬 Common Ground Is Constructed, Not Given

• Based on Clark (1996), common ground is “what participants think they share,” not objective shared knowledge (p. 268).
• Effective metaphor comprehension depends on alignment in mutual assumptions, which are often assumed rather than verified.

🔄 Dynamic Interaction of Topic and Vehicle

• Interpretation occurs through connection-building, not static mapping.
• For example, “MY JOB IS A JAIL” connects the listener’s context-dependent knowledge of ‘job’ with jail’s emotional and situational associations (p. 274).

🎯 Search for Relevance

• Metaphors must achieve cognitive relevance—“maximum effect with minimum cognitive effort” (Sperber & Wilson, 1986/1995, p. 15).
• Relevance isn’t fixed: It depends on factors like motivation, prior knowledge, and available processing capacity (cf. Petty & Cacioppo, 1981).

🧭 Multiple Contextual Layers

• Communication activates multiple contextual schemas (e.g., relational, environmental, narrative).
• “A single message can alter several of these representations… and hence can be relevant in several ways at once” (p. 272).

🐕 Metaphors Extend Through Entailments

• Metaphors such as “SHEEPDOG THIS PROJECT” create networks of entailments: leadership, protection, herd control (p. 275).
• Deeper metaphorical meaning emerges when secondary attributes resonate with activated schemas in working memory.

⚖️ Ambiguity and Misalignment Are Common

• Metaphors are inherently ambiguous and misunderstandings are routine, especially when participants’ contexts diverge (p. 279).
• For instance, “MY WIFE IS AN ANCHOR” could mean “source of stability” or “constraint,” depending on prior conversational cues.

🧩 Critique of Conceptual Metaphor Theory & Blending

• Challenges Lakoff & Johnson’s model for assuming preexisting metaphoric structures.
• Also critiques conceptual blending theory for being “overly formal” and cognitively inefficient (p. 284).
• Connectivity model instead emphasizes bottom-up interpretation from context-driven neural activations.

🔄 Overemphasis on Cognitive Flexibility Can Undermine Interpretive Stability

• By asserting that metaphor meanings are always context-dependent and unstable, Ritchie risks undermining shared metaphorical traditions that persist across time and culture.
• Critics might argue this relativism makes it difficult to study metaphor systematically across genres and audiences.

---

🧠 Neural Basis Is Hypothetical, Not Empirically Verified

• While the theory draws from neuroscience (e.g., Kintsch, Jung-Beeman), Ritchie doesn’t provide direct experimental or neurological evidence.
• Claims about “neural connections” in working memory remain theoretical metaphors themselves, lacking measurable validation.

---

📖 Undermines the Role of Authorial Intent

• The connectivity model focuses on reader/listener interpretation but largely ignores the author’s purposeful metaphor selection.
• This can be problematic in literary contexts where metaphor is used strategically to convey deliberate thematic meaning.

---

💬 Displacement of Linguistic Structure and Figurative Form

• By embedding metaphor wholly in discourse and memory contexts, the theory underplays the stylistic and linguistic features of metaphors (e.g., rhyme, rhythm, syntactic parallelism).
• Literary critics may argue that metaphor also works at a formal and aesthetic level, not just cognitive.

---

🔍 Limited Scope for Cross-Cultural and Historical Analysis

• The model relies on mutual cognitive environment and shared working memory, which are highly localized and variable.
• This makes it difficult to analyze metaphors across cultures or historical periods, where common ground is not accessible.

---

🌀 Conceptual Ambiguity in ‘Connectivity’

• The term “connectivity” is metaphorically powerful but conceptually vague and underdefined.
• Critics may question how exactly one maps or quantifies “connections” in working memory without clear operational metrics.

---

⚖️ Understates the Power of Conventional and Archetypal Metaphors

• Some metaphors (e.g., “light as truth,” “life as journey”) operate independently of context due to deep cultural embedding.
• Ritchie’s model struggles to explain why certain metaphors recur universally, suggesting that context cannot be the only determinant.