Chiasmus

Prints
Copied!

👇 Get new sketches each week

When JFK, in his inaugural address, said:

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,"

he wasn’t just delivering one of the most famous presidential lines ever—he was also using a rhetorical device called chiasmus.

What is Chiasmus?

Chiasmus is the name for arranging words, phrases, or ideas in the structure A-B-B-A. The second half of the sentence mirrors the first half, flipping the order. The symmetry of thought of this rhetorical technique makes language more memorable, striking, and often more persuasive.

Chiasmus can involve just ideas, or the exact repetition of words (that special case is called antimetabole).

Famous Examples of Chiasmus

Chiasmus shows up again and again in political speeches, literature, music, and everyday expressions. Mark Forsyth, who is full of brilliant and entertaining examples, notes that few presidents and presidential candidates in recent memory have resisted the lure of chiasmus.

Here are some well-known presidential examples:

"You stood up for America; now America must stand up for you." — Barack Obama
"Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done." — George W Bush (Jr)
"Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate." — JFK
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." — Bill Clinton
"The difference between them and us is that we want to check government spending, and they want to spend government checks." — Ronald Reagan
"America did not invent human rights; human rights invented America." — Jimmy Carter
"In the end, the true test is not the speeches a president delivers, it's whether the president delivers on the speeches." — Hillary Clinton

Aside from presidential candidates, other examples include:

All for one and one for all — the 3 Musketeers
Tea for two and two for tea, Me for you and you for me — the 1925 Musical, No, No Nanette
When the going gets tough, the tough gets going — Billy Ocean
With my mind on my money and my money on my mind — Snoop Dogg
I have never forgotten a print-out at the bottom of some stairs in UC Berkeley: "Take the stairs and add years to your life and life to your years."

Why is Chiasmus Effective?

I don't know if there is a scientific reason why chiasmus is appealing to us, but a few ideas come to mind.

It's rhythmic. The mirrored structure is naturally pleasing to the ear, as in Edward Lear's, "They went to sea in a Sieve, they did, In a Sieve they went to sea."

It's clever. Chiasmus surprises us by flipping words or ideas into a new sense, as in the use of the word "life" in Mae West's "It's not the men in my life, it's the life in my men."

It's easy to remember. If you can remember the first half, you can often reconstruct the second: A place for everything...and everything in its place.

Chiasmus vs Antimetabole

Chiasmus is about flipping ideas, as in:

The green of summer; an autumn of blue — Chiasmus (ideas inverted - colour, season, season, colour)

When the same words are repeated in reverse order, it's technically antimetabole, a special case of chiasmus, as in most of the examples here:

Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind (JFK)— Chiasmus and antimetabole (mankind, end to war, war will end, mankind)

Have any fun chiasmus examples that you created or you've spotted? Submit a chiasmus or send it by email, and I'll add it to the list.

Related Ideas to Chiasmus

More techniques of rhetoric and curiosities of language:

Anadiplosis — Yoda!
Pleonasm — Unexpected surprises
Ordering adjectives — green great dragon?
Ablaut reduplication — hip-hop, zig-zag
RAS Syndrome — ATM machines
The Golden Circle — It was the "I have a dream" speech, not the "I have a plan" speech

Learn More

Mark Forsyth covers the chiasmus meaning and examples (and anadiplosis, pleonasm, adjective order, ablaut reduplication and others) in the entertaining The Elements of Eloquence .

You can also listen to and watch him recite examples in his TEDx Talk: How to Talk Yourself into the White House (12 min). He shares most of the examples included here.

Earlier versions of JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you..." exist, including from author and poet Khalil Gibran (also see Grow not in each other's shadow).

✨ Latest

Get the book!

Big Ideas Little Pictures

Prefer to listen?

Try the podcast

🎉 Sketchplanations is reader supported

Keep exploring

The Trolley Problem

Unknown Unknowns

John Muir quote illustration: I only went out for a walk, and finally concluded to stay out till sundown, for going out, I found, was really going in — John Muir quote

Going Out Was Really Going In — John Muir Quote

How to Instantly Feel Better

The two primary temperature scales of Celsius and Fahrenheit side-by-side calling out water freezing, body temperature and water boiling

Temperature Scales: Fahrenheit and Celsius

What are topography and bathmetry, and their meaning, shown as land elevation and ocean depth

Topography and Bathymetry

The famous moral dilemma: switch the tracks or not? (Here's a combined version of the Trolley Problem and 3 Variants) Imagine you’re the driver of a runaway trolley whose brakes have failed. Ahead on the track, five people are working and will be killed if you do nothing. But you notice a side-track—if you switch the trolley to it, you’ll avoid the five, but one person on that track would be killed instead. Should you pull the lever and switch the tracks—killing one to save five? This is the start of the famous moral dilemma of The Trolley Problem. The fictitious scenario, and others like it, are so effective because they force us to confront our internal moral compass: what seems like the right thing to do, and why? Trolley Problem Variants As we formulate a position on a scenario, it's possible to devise variant scenarios that test our moral reasoning more sharply. For example, in the original problem, many people might suggest that it's OK for the driver to choose to save five people's lives at the expense of the one person on the other track on the basis that killing five people is worse than killing one. Where would you stand on these other variants? The Bystander at the Switch Sketch of the Bystander at the Switch Variant You’re no longer the driver. This time, you’re simply passing by when you see a runaway trolley heading toward five people. The trolley is driverless, and you’re standing next to a switch that could divert the train to another track—where one person would be killed instead. Is it morally acceptable to intervene? Does it feel different when you’re not the driver but an onlooker? The Heavy Man Problem Sketch of the Heavy Man Variant Or suppose that you were on a bridge above the track when you saw the train on its way to crash through the five people working on the track. There’s no switch—but next to you stands a very heavy man. If you push him off the bridge, his body would stop the trolley and save the five. Most people react more strongly against this version, even though the outcome is similar: one life traded for five. (This variant was originally the 'Fat Man' problem, but it's not important that the person is fat, just that they're heavy enough to stop the trolley). The Mafia Problem Sketch of the Mafia Variant Suppose once again you were the bystander at the switch passing the track in this deadly scene. This time, however, you see that the five people on the track are not workmen but hardened criminals. What's more, they've tied an innocent person to the other track. If you switch the trolley, the innocent person dies. If you do nothing, the five criminals die. Does who the people are affect your decision? How to Decide? It may be clear to you what the right path to choose is. And yet, your position may differ from someone else faced with the same scenario. The philosopher Philippa Foot introduced the Trolley Problem in a 1967 paper discussing abortion (PDF), along with several options for reasoning about it. Judith Jarvis Thomson invents some of the further scenarios (such as the mafia case) and alternative arguments in a 1985 paper, The Trolley Problem (pdf). Some possible positions and distinctions you might keep in mind include: Passive vs Active Harm Is it morally different to let five people die (by doing nothing) than to actively cause one person’s death (by switching tracks or pushing someone)? Are you killing or are you failing to save? Is there a difference in what we do and what we allow? Negative Duties vs Positive Duties Some argue there’s a moral difference between duties not to harm (negative duties) and duties to help (positive duties). Avoiding Injury vs Bringing Aid Is there a difference when you are making choices that save different numbers of people rather than making choices where people will die as a direct result of your choices? For example, suppose you face a choice of rescuing a large group of people while leaving another small group to die. Or what if a villain asked you to sacrifice an innocent person, or they will kill five others. Rights vs Utility Does your action violate someone’s rights? Even if the outcome is better overall, is it acceptable to use a person as a means to an end? Is it a matter of degrees? For example, violating an individual's rights by pushing them off a bridge versus stealing from them as a route to save someone. Doctrine of Double Effect Philippa Foot discusses the Doctrine of Double Effect—that our actions may have intended consequences and other outcomes that are foreseeable but not intended—the distinction between "direct" and "oblique intention". In the case of the runaway trolley, it's "one thing to steer towards someone foreseeing that you will kill him and another to aim at his death as part of your plan." Or, for example, in surgery to save a mother during childbirth, the death of a child may be foreseen but not intended. Dilemmas While fictitious moral dilemmas are intriguing thought experiments, real dilemmas surround us. A general orders his troops on a dangerous mission. Adjusting the speed limit on a dangerous road. People die from driving too fast, but walking isn't an option—what's the appropriate risk of death we're comfortable with? Who should receive aid? Who should be rescued first? Should a pilot steer a plane that's about to crash into a less populated area? I remember, in the film Beneath Hill 60 (spoiler), a commander must decide whether to detonate underground munitions to execute the battle plan, knowing that one of his team members is trapped. I find moral dilemmas to be at once fascinating, puzzling, troubling, and uncomfortable. Related Ideas to the Trolley Problem The Front Page Test Equality and Equity The Prisoner's Dilemma Learn More About the Trolley Problem You can, and should, have fun with absurd trolley problems at the brilliant neal.fun—and also see what other choices people made In Michael Sandel's course and book, Justice, he discusses the trolley problem and many other difficult questions of ethics and morals and how to reason about them Both Philippa's and Judith's original papers are quite readable: Philippa Foot, The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect (PDF) Judith Jarvis Thomson, The Trolley Problem (PDF) Prints of the Trolley Problem Trolley Problem standalone prints Trolley Problem and Variants printsThe famous moral dilemma: switch the tracks or not? (Here's a combined version of the Trolley Problem and 3 Variants) Imagine you’re the driver of a runaway trolley whose brakes have failed. Ahead on the track, five people are working and will be killed if you do nothing. But you notice a side-track—if you switch the trolley to it, you’ll avoid the five, but one person on that track would be killed instead. Should you pull the lever and switch the tracks—killing one to save five? This is the start of the famous moral dilemma of The Trolley Problem. The fictitious scenario, and others like it, are so effective because they force us to confront our internal moral compass: what seems like the right thing to do, and why? Trolley Problem Variants As we formulate a position on a scenario, it's possible to devise variant scenarios that test our moral reasoning more sharply. For example, in the original problem, many people might suggest that it's OK for the driver to choose to save five people's lives at the expense of the one person on the other track on the basis that killing five people is worse than killing one. Where would you stand on these other variants? The Bystander at the Switch Sketch of the Bystander at the Switch Variant You’re no longer the driver. This time, you’re simply passing by when you see a runaway trolley heading toward five people. The trolley is driverless, and you’re standing next to a switch that could divert the train to another track—where one person would be killed instead. Is it morally acceptable to intervene? Does it feel different when you’re not the driver but an onlooker? The Heavy Man Problem Sketch of the Heavy Man Variant Or suppose that you were on a bridge above the track when you saw the train on its way to crash through the five people working on the track. There’s no switch—but next to you stands a very heavy man. If you push him off the bridge, his body would stop the trolley and save the five. Most people react more strongly against this version, even though the outcome is similar: one life traded for five. (This variant was originally the 'Fat Man' problem, but it's not important that the person is fat, just that they're heavy enough to stop the trolley). The Mafia Problem Sketch of the Mafia Variant Suppose once again you were the bystander at the switch passing the track in this deadly scene. This time, however, you see that the five people on the track are not workmen but hardened criminals. What's more, they've tied an innocent person to the other track. If you switch the trolley, the innocent person dies. If you do nothing, the five criminals die. Does who the people are affect your decision? How to Decide? It may be clear to you what the right path to choose is. And yet, your position may differ from someone else faced with the same scenario. The philosopher Philippa Foot introduced the Trolley Problem in a 1967 paper discussing abortion (PDF), along with several options for reasoning about it. Judith Jarvis Thomson invents some of the further scenarios (such as the mafia case) and alternative arguments in a 1985 paper, The Trolley Problem (pdf). Some possible positions and distinctions you might keep in mind include: Passive vs Active Harm Is it morally different to let five people die (by doing nothing) than to actively cause one person’s death (by switching tracks or pushing someone)? Are you killing or are you failing to save? Is there a difference in what we do and what we allow? Negative Duties vs Positive Duties Some argue there’s a moral difference between duties not to harm (negative duties) and duties to help (positive duties). Avoiding Injury vs Bringing Aid Is there a difference when you are making choices that save different numbers of people rather than making choices where people will die as a direct result of your choices? For example, suppose you face a choice of rescuing a large group of people while leaving another small group to die. Or what if a villain asked you to sacrifice an innocent person, or they will kill five others. Rights vs Utility Does your action violate someone’s rights? Even if the outcome is better overall, is it acceptable to use a person as a means to an end? Is it a matter of degrees? For example, violating an individual's rights by pushing them off a bridge versus stealing from them as a route to save someone. Doctrine of Double Effect Philippa Foot discusses the Doctrine of Double Effect—that our actions may have intended consequences and other outcomes that are foreseeable but not intended—the distinction between "direct" and "oblique intention". In the case of the runaway trolley, it's "one thing to steer towards someone foreseeing that you will kill him and another to aim at his death as part of your plan." Or, for example, in surgery to save a mother during childbirth, the death of a child may be foreseen but not intended. Dilemmas While fictitious moral dilemmas are intriguing thought experiments, real dilemmas surround us. A general orders his troops on a dangerous mission. Adjusting the speed limit on a dangerous road. People die from driving too fast, but walking isn't an option—what's the appropriate risk of death we're comfortable with? Who should receive aid? Who should be rescued first? Should a pilot steer a plane that's about to crash into a less populated area? I remember, in the film Beneath Hill 60 (spoiler), a commander must decide whether to detonate underground munitions to execute the battle plan, knowing that one of his team members is trapped. I find moral dilemmas to be at once fascinating, puzzling, troubling, and uncomfortable. Related Ideas to the Trolley Problem The Front Page Test Equality and Equity The Prisoner's Dilemma Learn More About the Trolley Problem You can, and should, have fun with absurd trolley problems at the brilliant neal.fun—and also see what other choices people made In Michael Sandel's course and book, Justice, he discusses the trolley problem and many other difficult questions of ethics and morals and how to reason about them Both Philippa's and Judith's original papers are quite readable: Philippa Foot, The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect (PDF) Judith Jarvis Thomson, The Trolley Problem (PDF) Prints of the Trolley Problem Trolley Problem standalone prints Trolley Problem and Variants prints

Newer

RRandom

Older