In his post G. Claude Rapaille and his dartboard Grant McCracken says “Claude Rapaille is a man without shame.” Well judging by his Austin Powers taste in frilly cravats that seems a fair statement. McCracken then goes on to say “The idea that there is a code! This is ludicrous.” This I believe is not.

If Rapaille’s claim is that he can turn people in to open books by simply cracking thier singular code, then I sure would agree this is ludicrous. But lets step away from Rapaille’s clownish dramaticisms, so that if we interpret “code” to mean not formula, but metaphor and myth… well that changes things. Both metaphor and myth are psychologically and sociologically central to how we make sense of the world and our places in it.

Linguist George Lakoff, for example, helps us understand conservative thought in the US by explaining its central myths and metaphors like “the strict father.” Such titles are really just handles for what are actually dense and complex mythologies.

Myth and metaphor are usually implicit and encoded in the tone and language of discourse within a given community. As an outsider understanding these myths and metaphors helps reveal what’s being said between the lines and what goes without saying. It opens up the community’s discourse for a fuller and better contextualized interpretation. In some cases this understanding can even help one make sense of what was gibberish. So in conservative parlance “family values” isn’t just a vapid catch phrase, it has a real and significant meaning that is more easily accessed by an outsider who understands the “strict father” myth.

So myth and metaphor (codes) aren’t some sort of magic universal translator, they are more like a Rosetta stone, a tool to help comprehend what is otherwise inaccessible. Myth and metaphor help decode a little of the mystery that is other people, and help us see a bit of the world through their eyes.