The Teeming Mass: The War Metaphor: A Dangerous Trope In Our Current Times

Boris Johnson, in his declaration of war, has echoed the words of Churchill and Chamberlain, drawing direct comparisons between the Coronavirus Pandemic and the second world war through his continued use of the war metaphor. From politics to pandemics, the war metaphor infiltrates all aspects of life. It feeds heavily into the language of biomedicine; a field inextricably linked to our current circumstances and it precedes the Coronavirus Pandemic. Recently, the war metaphor found itself embroiled in the pandemic, used by politicians and journalists alike. War metaphors rely on continued usage, both implicit and explicit. The explicit references, such as French President Emmanuel Macron’s statement “we are at war”, establish the metaphor while the implicit references, including but not limited to “threat”, “duty”, and “frontline”, sustain it. However, this metaphor can have negative, potentially dangerous implications and as Simon Jenkins suggests “Never, ever, should a government use war as a metaphor in a time of peace.”.

The war metaphor has a variety of effects, some positive, some negative, and it has been utilised by governments worldwide, in particular the in the U.K.. Johnson’s evocation of the ‘Blitz-spirit’ likely has positive intentions, because, as Prime Minister, he aims to unite the country and create a community spirit similar to that experienced during the second world war. However, the intended and actual effects of the war metaphor, especially when applied to the Coronavirus Pandemic, are poles apart. While this community spirit existed, the second world war was a predominantly frightening time for the majority of people. The reality of war starkly contrasts the heroic images presented by Johnson and other politicians in their comparison between World War II and the Coronavirus Pandemic. Also, rather than uniting communities, this apprehensive atmosphere has highlighted their divisions and the distrust which seems to underpin the lockdown. Many have taken to social media to name and shame to so called ‘traitors’, strangers flouting social distancing guidance. While people should be following the rules, this kind of pedantic shaming completely disregards individual circumstances. Although Boris Johnson’s intentions may be positive, the effects of the continued reference to war are deeply troubling, raising the question of whether our response to the virus should be centred around war.

Additionally, the use of this metaphor is open to exploitation. By creating a war-like mentality, the state is able to reinforce its power. In governments worldwide, new unprecedented powers are being gained, such as in Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has gained the ability to rule by decree. While these powers, as a temporary measure, are justifiable, there is the threat of them remaining in a post-Coronavirus world. George Orwell extrapolates on the exploitation of this war-like mentality in his Novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which the Oceanian state has been at war for as long as the protagonist, Winston, can remember. Due to the constant terror the Oceanian citizens live under, many injustices are accepted; the disappearances of individuals remain unquestioned, the past is rewritten in the Ministry of Truth, and the state has the power to punish dissenters. Part of this terror is caused by the war, a perpetual war implied to be non-existent. By having twenty to thirty rocket bombs fall in London weekly, and the occasional parading of prisoners of war, the state ensures the war is omnipresent in the minds of the population. However, the additional fears of vaporisation and the Thought Police also reinforce the power of the state, extrapolating on the fears of Orwell’s contemporary society. I hope these new powers do not survive the pandemic; they frighten me. Maybe I’m overly suspicious, but they seem more fitting of the worlds of the dystopian texts I studied at A Level than our society, in 2020, and yet here they are. Alongside this potential threat, there is another, more language-based, exploitation taking place. The power of language has been felt in America recently, where President Donald Trump’s referral to the pandemic as “The China Virus” has had deeply negative effects, directly influencing the increase in racist anti-Asian attacks in the country. Trump’s language in relation to the virus is extremely prejudiced, but due to his platform, his wording is being used to justify violent, deeply xenophobic attitudes and crimes.

The war metaphor appears to do more harm than good, and ultimately it lacks a purpose. With over 30,000 deaths in the U.K. alone, our current experiences are horrific enough and the comparison to war is reductive and detracts from the unique horrors experienced by Coronavirus victims and their families. If we wish to change how the Coronavirus Pandemic is reported on and challenge the frequent use of the war metaphor, we can describe it in ways which address its horrific nature without relying on war as a substitute. The advice and language used by medical professionals may provide a more accurate way of explaining and understanding the Coronavirus Pandemic than war. In the words of Marina Hyde “Plague is a standalone horseman of the apocalypse – he doesn’t need to catch a ride with war”.