How different is “he is a voice of reason awakening the public” from “he has a voice of reason awakening the public”?

In association with the question on Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Senator Rand Paul in the Time Magazine article “2013 Time 100” that I posted earlier today, I have an additional question about the expression “He is a voice of reason awakening the public” in her remark:

“He is a voice of reason awakening the public to what must be done to restore our prosperity and preserve the blessings of liberty for future generations. His brand of libertarian-leaning conservatism attracts young voters, and recently he inspired the nation with his Capraesque filibuster demanding basic answers about our use of drones.”

I felt somewhat uneasy with the expression, “he is a voice,” because you as an animated being can have a voice, but you cannot be a voice which is an abstract, unanimated ‘object.’

I think there are many similar (possibly metaphoric) expressions like “he is a voice of reason / a mirror of conscience / a walking encyclopedia” that are current. But is the [animated being = unanimated object] equation grammatically right as well as logically congruent?

If so, how different is “he is a voice of reason awakening the public” from “he has a voice of reason awakening the public”?

Solution 1:

This is an example of synedoche.

Synecdoche (pron.: /sɪˈnɛkdəkiː/, si-NEK-də-kee; from Greek synekdoche (συνεκδοχή), meaning "simultaneous understanding") is a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something is used to refer to the whole of something, or vice-versa. Specifically, it is used in one of the following ways:

• Part of something is used to refer to the whole thing (pars pro toto), or
• A thing (a "whole") is used to refer to part of it (totum pro parte) (Use of the term "The Internet" to refer to the World Wide Web, which is only a part of the Internet), or
• A specific class of thing is used to refer to a larger, more general class, or
• A general class of thing is used to refer to a smaller, more specific class, or
• A material is used to refer to an object composed of that material ("he wore Spandex" to refer to someone wearing pants made of Spandex), or
• A container is used to refer to its contents. (Very common in U.S. government circles; the Defense Department being referred to by its headquarters building, e.g. "The Pentagon announced that..." used as shorthand for "The Department of Defense announced that..." or "The White House announced a new policy regarding..." rather than saying "The office of the President of the United States announced...", or "The president announced...")

[Wikipedia]

In this case, it's pars pro toto. His voice stands for him (or him using his voice).

With regard to the difference between the synecdochal He is a voice and the literal He has a voice, the use of a rhetorical device is designed to make the image stronger. All that is important is what the voice is saying.

See John 1:23 for what is possibly the archetypical example — which Sarah Palin almost certainly had in mind.

He said: I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah.

Solution 2:

Consider that this could be a metaphor.

(though, a synedoche seems to be a specific form of metaphor)

All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players

The reason why I'm not convinced this is a synedoche is because I can rationalize that is it not "pars pro toto".

The WWW is *part of * the Internet. Spandex refers to "pants made of Spandex". But the speaker is not naturally classified as 'Reason' or its parts. The speaker's presentation as "the voice of reason" is a metaphor.

"The voice of reason", being itself a synedoche, perhaps extends its nature to that-which-is the voice via metaphor. (this is the best counter I can present to my own argument).