Cover not available

Article published In: Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 12:1 (2022) ► pp.46–68

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Metaphors of cultural diversity at UNESCO

Legitimization strategies of a new keyword in institutional discourse

 | Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Published online: 23 November 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.20018.kor
Abstract
This paper analyses metaphors and analogies of cultural diversity at UNESCO in a discursive and rhetorical-argumentative framework, to answer the following question: How do these rhetorical devices play a legitimizing role when introducing a new keyword into the public sphere? Conventional and creative metaphors are analyzed separately to examine if they represent different legitimization strategies. Conventional metaphors and analogies include variations on treasure, heritage, and biodiversity; creative metaphors include cultural diversity as a living treasure and a Rainbow River. The findings suggest that the wealth metaphor fulfills an evaluative meliorative function, while the heritage metaphor constructs a collective identity devoid of internal conflict, thereby depoliticizing the concept of cultural diversity. The biodiversity analogy further depoliticizes cultural diversity via naturalization and the invocation of the authority of science. Legitimization is also achieved by invoking past discourse and shared knowledge, and by tapping into UNESCO’s “discursive memory.” In contrast, the creative metaphors living treasure and Rainbow River play a different argumentative role: they offer a rhetorical solution of coexistence to two contradicting views on culture; one as a static, closed entity to be protected from extinction, and the other as a changing, dynamic process. They do so by fusing both views, represented by different metaphors, into one creative metaphor.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theory and methodology
    • 2.1Institutional discourse and epideictic genre
    • 2.2Metaphors, analogies, and argumentation
    • 2.3Conventional and creative metaphors
  • 3.Cultural diversity as a treasure
  • 4.Cultural diversity as the common heritage of humanity
    • 4.1The construction of a universal collective
    • 4.2Discursive memory
  • 5.The analogy to biodiversity
    • 5.1Legitimization based on previously shared knowledge
    • 5.2Legitimization based on nature and science
  • 6.Creative metaphors: The Rainbow River
    • 6.1Cultural diversity as a river
    • 6.2Cultural diversity as a Rainbow River
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (72)
References
Amossy, R. & Koren, R. (2009). Rhétorique et argumentation: approches croisées [Rhetoric and argumentation: Crossed approaches]. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours [Argumentation and Discourse Analysis], 21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arcimaviciene, L. & Baglama, S. H. (2018). Migration, metaphor and myth in media. SAGE Open, April-June 2018, 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aristotle (1928). The works of Aristotle (W. D., Ed.): Vol. 11. Rhetorica. De rhetorica ad Alexandrum. De poetica. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arizpe, L. & Preis, A. B. (2000). General introduction. In UNESCO (Ed.), World report on culture (pp. 14–19). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arizpe, L. et al. (2000). Cultural diversity, conflict and pluralism. In UNESCO (Ed.), World report on culture (pp. 22–40). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnard, F. M. (Ed.). (1969). J. G. Herder on social and political culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bokova, I. (2010). Mot introductif [Introductory remarks]. In UNESCO (Ed.), Rapport mondial de l’UNESCO. Investir dans la diversité culturelle et le dialogue interculturel [UNESCO World Report. Investing in cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue] (p. iii). Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 13 October, 2021, from [URL]
Bonhomme, M. (1998). Les figures clés du discours [The key figures of discourse]. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). De l’argumentativité des figures de rhétorique [On the argumentativity of rhetorical figures]. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours [Argumentation and Discourse Analysis], 21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyd, R. (1993). Metaphor and theory change: What is “metaphor” a metaphor for? In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 481–532). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Busino, G. (2000). Notes sur les métaphores fondatrices de la connaissance sociologique [Notes on the foundational metaphors of sociological knowledge]. Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales [European review of Social Sciences], 38(117), 69–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Metaphors of Brexit. No cherries on the cake? London: Palgrave MacMillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Courtine, J.-J. (1981). Quelques problèmes théoriques et méthodologiques en analyse du discours, à propos du discours communiste adressé aux chrétiens [Some theoretical and methodological problems in discourse analysis, concerning the communist discourse addressed to christians]. Langages, 621, 9–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daston, L. (2014). The naturalistic fallacy is modern. ISIS, A Journal of the History of Science Society, 105(3), 579–587. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ervas, F. & Sangoi, M. (2014). The Role of Metaphor in Argumentation. In F. Ervas & M. Sangoi, Metaphor and argumentation (pp. 7–23). University of Urbino: Isonomia – Epistemologica.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ervas, F. et al. (2018). Creative Argumentation: When and why people commit the metaphoric fallacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 25 September 2018. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fahnestock, J. (1999). Rhetorical figures in science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fasciolo, M. & Rossi, M. (2016). Métaphore et métaphores: les multiples issues de l’interaction conceptuelle [Metaphor and metaphors: multiples outcomes of conceptual interaction]. Langue française [French Language], 1891, 5–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1971). L’ordre du discours [The order of discourse]. Paris: GallimardGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2018). ‘Riots engulfed the city’: An experimental study investigating the legitimating effects of fire metaphors in discourses of disorder. Discourse & Society, 29(3), 279–298. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilgert, E. (2016). L’analogie est-elle plus explicite que la métaphore ? [Are analogies more explicit than metaphors?], Langue française [French Language], 1891, 67–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
International Society of Ethnobiology. (1988). Declaration of Belém. Retrieved February 20, 2020, from [URL]
Koren, R. (2016). Exemple historique, comparaison, analogie, métaphore : sont-ils interchangeables ? [Historical example, comparison, analogy, metaphor: Are they interchangeable?], Argumentation et Analyse du Discours [Argumentation and Discourse Analysis], 161, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. (1939). Cultural and natural areas of North America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1993). Metaphor in science. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 533–542). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Le Hégarat, T. et al. (2015). Introduction. In T. Le Hégarat et al. (Eds.), Faiseurs et passeurs du patrimoine XIXe-XXIe siècle. Actes de la journée d’études du 7 mai 2014 [Makers and passers of heritage 19th-21st century. Proceedings of the workshop on 7 May 2014] (pp. 6–12). Guyancourt: CHCSC & HAL online archive. Retrieved November 3, 2020, from [URL]
Macagno, F. (2020). How can metaphors communicate arguments? Intercultural Pragmatics, 17(3):335–363. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maffi, L. (2001). Introduction: On the interdependence of biological and cultural diversity. In L. Maffi (Ed.), On biocultural diversity: Linking language, knowledge, and the environment (pp. 1–50). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Biocultural diversity. In The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Wiley Online Library. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maingueneau, D. (1991). L’analyse du discours. Introduction aux lectures de l’archive [Discourse Analysis. Introduction to archive readings]. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Les rapports des organisations internationales: un discours constituant ? [International organizations reports: A constituting discourse ?] In G. Rist (Ed.) Les mots du pouvoir. Sens et non-sens de la rhétorique internationale [Words of power. Sense and nonsense of international rhetoric] (pp. 119–132). Geneva: Nouveaux Cahiers de l’IUED 13 & Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsuura, K. (2001). ‘The cultural wealth of the world is its diversity in dialogue.’ In UNESCO (Ed.), UNESCO Universal declaration on cultural diversity (p. 31). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Préface [Preface]. In UNESCO (Ed.), Diversité culturelle. Patrimoine commun, identités plurielles [Cultural diversity. Common heritage, plural identities] (pp. 3–5). Paris: UNESCO. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Value. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved November 4, 2020, from [URL]
Morgan, L. H. (1907). Ancient society. New York: H. Holt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2016). Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oger, C. & Ollivier-Yaniv, C. (2006). Conjurer le désordre discursif. Procédés de ‘lissage’ dans la fabrication du discours institutionnel [Conjuring discursive disorder. ‘Smoothing’ procedures in the fabrication of institutional discourse]. Mots. Les langages du politique [Words. The languages of the political], 811, 63–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ouellet, P. (2000). La métaphore perceptive. Eidétique et figurativité [Perceptive metaphor. Eidictics and figurativity]. Langages, 1371, 16–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1971). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. London: University of Notre Dame Press. Tr. by J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plantin, C. (2011). Analogie et métaphore argumentative [Analogy and argumentative metaphor. A Contrario, 161, 2011/2, 110–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prandi, M. (2016). Les métaphores conflictuelles dans la création de concepts et de termes [Conflictual metaphors in the creation of concepts and terms]. Langue française [French Language], 1891, 35–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rist, G. (2002). Le prix des mots [The price of words]. In G. Rist (Ed.), Les mots du pouvoir. Sens et non-sens de la rhétorique internationale [Words of power. Sense and nonsense of international rhetoric] (pp. 9–24). Geneva: Nouveaux Cahiers de l’IUED, 131 & Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rivière, F. (2010). Introduction. In UNESCO (Ed.), Festival International de la diversité culturelle 2010 [2010 International Festival for cultural diversity] [Online Catalogue] (p. 4). Paris: UNESCO. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossi, M. (2016). Pour une typologie des avatars métaphoriques dans les terminologies spécialisées [Towards a typology of metaphorical changes in specialized terminology], Langue française [French Language], 1891, 87–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salmon, J. (2010). Dictionnaire de droit international public [Dictionary of public international law]. Brussels: Bruylant.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sholomon-Kornblit, I. (2018). Biodiversité et diversité culturelle: trajectoire d’une analogie (2001–2010) [Biodiversity and cultural diversity: Trajectory of an analogy (2001–2010)]. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours [Argumentation and Discourse Analysis], 211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spencer, H. (1896). The study of sociology. New York: D. Appleton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 231–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stocking, G. W. (1968). Race, culture and evolution. New York: The Free Press & London: Collier-MacMillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Titchen, S. M. (1995). On the construction of outstanding universal value. UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention (Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage, 1972) and the identification and assessment of cultural places for inclusion in the World Heritage List. PhD thesis. Canberra: Australian National University. Retrieved January, 20, 2016, from [URL]
Tomlinson, J. (2003). Globalization and cultural identity. In D. Held & A. McGrew (Eds.), The global transformations reader (pp. 269–277). Cambridge & Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tylor, E. B. (1958). Primitive culture. New York: Harper.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
UNESCO. (1972). Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1982). Mexico City Declaration on cultural policies. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1996). Notre diversité créatrice [Our creative diversity]. Rapport de la Commission mondiale de la culture et du développement. Version condensée [World commission Report on culture and development. Condensed version]. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1998). Notre Diversité créatrice [Our creative diversity]. Rapport de la Commission mondiale de la culture et du développement. Document de travail [World commission Report on culture and development. Working Paper]. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2000). World culture report: Cultural diversity, conflict, and pluralism. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2001). UNESCO Universal declaration on cultural diversity. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2009). World culture report: Investing in cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010). International conference on biological and cultural diversity: Diversity for development- development for diversity, June 8–10 2010, Montreal, Canada. Working Document. Retrieved November, 11, 2020 from [URL]
United Nations. (1987). Our common future. Report of the World commission on environment and development (Ed. G. H. Brundtland). New York: United Nations.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1992). Convention on biological diversity. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2020). Indigenous Peoples: Culture. In Department for Economic and Social Affairs (website). Retrieved June 4, 2020, from [URL]
Van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimization in discourse and communication. Discourse and Communication, 1(1), 91–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Poppel, L. (2020). The Study of Metaphor in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation (2020). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winkin, Y. (2002). Cultural diversity: A pool of ideas for implementation. In K. Stenou (Ed.), UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity: A vision, a conceptual platform, a pool of ideas for implementation, a new paradigm (pp. 17–59). [Document for the World summit on sustainable development, Johannesburg, 26 August – 4 September 2002], Paris: UNESCO, Cultural diversity series n. 1. Retrieved November, 3, 2021, from [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1998). The Politicization of ‘Culture’. Anthropology Today, 14(1), 7–15. London: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Shakoury, Kayvan & Frank Boers
2024. Metaphors for multiculturalism in the Canadian context. Metaphor and the Social World 14:2 ► pp. 304 ff. DOI logo
Shakoury, Kayvan & Frank Boers
2024. University students’ metaphors for Canadian multiculturalism: Diverse perceptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 34:3 ► pp. 1046 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue