On complexity, metaphor, and urbanization

Abstract

Metaphors are indispensable for comprehending complexity (see Landau et al. 2013). But truth and understanding are different things, and the truth content of metaphors is hotly debated. In analytical philosophy, the likes of Donald Davidson (1984) have argued that metaphors may be highly effective in prompting thought, but these thoughts have no necessary connection to truth conditions. In continental philosophy, metaphors have often been assigned a more central role. By dispensing of the objective/subjective dualism, many continental philosophers have extensively used metaphors to describe the human condition. But doubts remain. Derrida and Moore (1974) claimed that every “sign” (i.e. words) is essentially metaphorical since it cannot possibly “signify” the actual thing. For example, I might be typing with my “finger” (sign), but this word does not articulate the whole being of my digit (e.g. its tendons, muscles, scars, etc.). Nietzsche would say even more (see Kofman, 1994), claiming that there is absolutely no correspondence between the stimulus (i.e. thing in the world) and the final utterance (i.e. metaphor). Philosophical debates have therefore placed a “use with caution” label on the metaphor. The continued use of metaphors in the social sciences therefore occurs on contested philosophical grounds. And yet, this usage (and, by extension, abuse) is unavoidable. This is certainly true when it comes to the urban disciplines. The city and urbanization are immensely complex things. They are, strictly speaking, unknowable. No matter how familiar you are with a city, there will always be residents you don’t know, histories yet to be uncovered, livelihoods you’re unaware of, and changes that are yet to be noticed. This does not mean we should not try to understand cities. Rather, we simply need to be aware that the tools we employ, like metaphors, will always be partial, failing, and/ or problematic. This is one reason why I am thrilled to feature Wilson and Wyly’s (2022) forum paper in this issue. Metaphors are essential and yet potentially dangerous analytical tools. They require careful presentation and reflective discussion. I would hope that anyone reading Wilson and Wyly’s “Dracula urbanism” thesis can identify its utility. The metaphorical application of Bram Stoker’s vampire to contemporary urbanism brings a particular set of issues to the fore: parasitic development, demonization of poverty, the disciplinary use of technology, and so on. However, their metaphor also, by definition, sends other processes and things into the background. Our commentaries do a wonderful job of revealing some of these disappearances. Dallas Rogers takes up the question of metaphors and their utility directly, making a distinction between those that reveal and those that fool. Renee Tapp encourages us to look beyond the pessimism of Dracula urbanism and think