If you read the news about monkeypox, you’re likely to see it described as ‘spilling out’, ‘cropping up’, or ‘masquerading’. What you’re less likely to see is monkeypox described as a war. War metaphors have commonly been used throughout history to frame a wide variety of viruses, such as HIV, Ebola, and most recently COVID-19. If it’s so common for viruses to be framed as enemies of war, why is monkeypox different?
Research into the framing of the 2003 SARS outbreak in British newspapers highlighted a similar phenomenon. War metaphors were scarce in that context as well. Looking at the parallel social context in which the two viruses took centre stage may help explain why this is the case.
At the time of the 2003 SARS outbreak, Britain was on the heels of another viral outbreak, foot-and-mouth disease – the worst of its kind in British history. In response, the government sanctioned drastic actions, including killing millions of animals to control the virus. War metaphors were widely employed in this context to justify such drastic actions on a national level.
There are parallels between the social situation at the time of the SARS outbreak in Britain and the current monkeypox outbreak in Canada. Like Britain recently experienced widespread foot-and-mouth disease, at the time of the monkeypox outbreak, Canada has spent over two years of COVID-19 pandemic. Although the measures were different, stay-at-home orders, widespread closures, quarantine and masking measures were similarly drastic in that they had widespread social and economic impacts. War metaphors were often used to help explain and justify the need for these measures during COVID-19.
In the SARS outbreak in Britain, war metaphors were therefore not used because people were tired of them after their use in previous viral outbreaks. It’s possible the same thing happened in the case of monkeypox in Canada after COVID-19. The desire for the government to convey a sense of control led to more managerial, and balance metaphors used to frame SARS use of ‘containment’ language in the context of monkeypox may be used to a similar effect.
Another similarity comes from the global political context in which both outbreaks occurred. The 2003 SARS outbreak in Britain coincided with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In this context, war metaphors were thought to be unappealing because of the immediacy of a literal war. With war vocabulary already being used in the news because of this war, journalists may have been less likely to use war metaphors as they would not stand out against other news coverage.
Similarly, the monkeypox outbreak occurred in Canada in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the resulting literal war that followed. It is possible that because of this context, war metaphors occur less often for the same reasons.
What these examples show is that how we understand what viruses are and what they do is not just about the virus. It is also about the social and political context in which we come to encounter them and give them social meaning. Had the context been different, we may not have come to know these viruses in the same way. If how we understand a virus influences how we respond to it, it is important to consider how social and political factors may be shaping our understanding.
