In some sense I agree, but I disagree more. My argument is simply this: 1) while there may be similarities, things compared are never the same and, 2) the key point to be communicated is better done with the biological analogy.
In this instance, it is likely true that the biological comparison only goes so far and that, in order to go further, an ecosystem is a better analogy. However, I don’t think that analogy does what the initial, biological analogy does nearly as well, which is to convey the most important idea informing the analogy’s use: constant growth is death.
To use an analogy (no joke intended) … Let’s say I’ve made a movie. I’m asked, “What’s it like?” If I answer, “It’s sort of like Casablanca,” almost everyone will have an idea of what that means. Of course, it won’t be accurate – it may even be misleading, especially if I leave it at that.
But if I answer, “It’s sort of like The End of the Affair,” some people will have an idea of what that means having read the book or seen the movie, but others will not. Casablanca communicates far better than The End of the Affair simply because more people are familiar with it.
Getting back to the biology/ecosystem analogies … The biological one communicates more broadly and with much more impact than the ecosystem one, particularly if you bring in the idea of cancer as a malignant growth. Many, many people have been touched by cancer in one way or another.
The problem with my argument is that, once you establish the idea of constant growth as a negative, you run into problems. But I don’t think it’s a problem specific to this instance, it’s a problem with all analogies. They are always inaccurate because no two things are ever the same. Their use is in communicating a key idea. Their flaw is in our nature, which is to simplify and not think things through and realize they are inevitably inexact. Ecosystem may be more exact but it, too, will only go so far.
From what I’ve seen in the business world, however, at the ground level where middle-managers and executives are engaged in daily business activities, the idea of constant growth is very deeply rooted and unquestioned. I think the only way to shake it loose is with an analogy that has the kind of impact of the biological one. I just don’t think the ecosystem analogy would do the same. It’s also a more complex analogy, I think, at least compared to the biological one.
I suppose my quibble is dependent on defining what it is that is to be communicated and to whom. But it seems to me, at least as far as a broader, general audience goes, you won’t be able to communicate anything until you create the conditions to so, and I think that lies in freeing people from the traditional growth, growth, growth-at-all costs mindset to one where growth is seen differently – as not necessarily a good thing or, growth is good but a different kind of growth.
As I often do, I agree and disagree simultaneously. There must be a metaphor for that.
Follow Writelife on Twitter
