Interpreting “Axis of Evil;†an unnecessary debate
Probably President Bush has no idea that the “Axis of Evil” phrase in his January 2002 State of the Union Address would stir up so much controversy. For myself and what I must assume most viewers or listeners, the metaphor was so obvious so as not to warrant much comment; it was a catchy phrase conveying that those three nations were the highest priority in the areas of security and proliferation. Not so obvious for others.
Speaking of North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, this is what the president said (I include the sentence directly following the “axis of evil” phrase as further definition of context, which is usually omitted by critics):
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic. (emphasis added)
There are two main arguments against the phrase, “Axis of Evil. The first does not argue with the fact that those nations are evil or generally have like goals that cause security problems for the U.S., but that it was harmful to diplomatic efforts, particularly with North Korea. This argument probably has some merit, although I’m not certain it would actually make any difference with a nation like North Korea, and may actually force it to cool down the brinksmanship its known for. At any rate, I don’t take issue with that position here.
Then there are those who focus literally on the definition of the word “axis” in their disagreement with the phrase:
a. An alliance of powers, such as nations, to promote mutual interests and policies.
b. Axis The alliance of Germany and Italy in 1936, later including Japan and other nations, that opposed the Allies in World War II.
The basis of this argument is that there was in fact no agreement or treaty, written or otherwise, between North Korea, Iraq, and Iran ““ indeed it would be absurd for Iran and Iraq, bitter enemies, to be partners ““ and that the president was twisting words, or basically telling lie, in order to make the case for war in Iraq. These people seem to believe that the president was implying some sort of overt alliance, not unlike the axis powers of WWII.
I’m not sure how someone with knowledge of the actions and goals of the three nations mentioned could miss such a plain metaphor ““ “a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity” ““ as those aren’t exactly uncommon in political speeches (or perhaps Bush Sr. really did see a “˜thousand points of light’? [no] Did what Reagan said really mean there was an actual “˜wall’ to tear down around Russia? [YES for the Berlin Wall, as Kushibo corrected me below, but NO for the “Iron Curtain,” a metaphor itself] Did what Bush said really mean there were treaties between Iran-Iraq-North Korea? [no]).
For some the fact that “Axis of Evil” was a metaphor has gone far beyond simply accepting it as an obvious example as such, but into the depths of the “metaphysical”:
“¦So too the “axis of evil” tries to establish some kind of primordial unity between the three countries; not a tangible unity, like an alliance, but a metaphysical unity. I say “metaphysical” because Bush’s metonymy reduces these nations to a unity at the level of existence. They do not have evil rulers, or evil intentions, or use evil means; they are evil. The adjective “evil” is certainly a value judgment, and Bush’s speech aims at persuading people to share it. The term “axis” summons historical connotations that reinforce that value judgment by transferring to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea the historical values that the term “axis” has already acquired from World War II”¦
“¦ human communication simply cannot be studied well separately from its context. We have to consider not just an utterance’s immediate aims, such as those emphasized in speech act theory, but also the influences of cultural and historical knowledge. To my mind (and evidently to yours also), the phrase “axis of evil” has a metaphoric resonance that has little to do with the lexical terms “axis” and “evil” but much to do with historical uses of the both “axis” and “evil. The same resonance is at work for the speechwriter who coined, or nearly coined, the phrase.
I wouldn’t suggest that Bush or his speechwriters envisioned the “primordial unity” bit, but they sure did understand that it would be a catchy metaphor that would encompass and represent all the bad – dare I say “˜evil’ – things about those nations and their courses of action.
When I hear “there-is-no-axis” position I am reminded of how some religious groups ““ Christians, Muslims, etc. all included ““ will focus on a single verse in a holy book and exclude other information, taking it completely out of context in interpretation and forming a bizarre cult. In this case maybe it’s just a sect of the existing anti-Bush cult.
Or perhaps some of that group assumes the president is a moron and fall into the trap of misunderestimation. To the rest it was just an obvious metaphor. That is why I find the strict adherence to the literal meaning of the word “axis” more that a little intellectually dishonest (pseudo-intellectual perhaps), particularly for those smart enough to know better.
—–