“…Metaphors are also entities that are rich in rhetorical capital and can potentially be utilized by rhetorically minded politicians (on metaphors in the study of International Relations, see, for example, Drulak, 2006; Kornprobst et al, 2008). The symbolic substance of metaphor and how it links different ideas and objects are both robust resources of persuasion, rendering metaphor a useful tool in the struggle to capture the commonsense, and, as social semiotics teaches us, symbols, signs, icons, and images that can also be very useful rhetorically in the struggle over the commonsense (see, for example, Brandist, 1996; Peoples, 2008). However, this article focuses on defining and naming, arguing that: 1) both are efficient political tools in the struggle over the commonsense; 2) of the two, defining is the more obvious arena and tool in the struggle over the commonsense as it is more formal and publicly-oriented; and 3) in unsettled, contested political events, parties can use naming as an indirect and subtle act of defining.…”