Thinking Points Discussion of Chapter 3 – Part 2: Insights from Cognitive Sciences
Continuing our discussion of chapter 3 in Thinking Points, we explore the insights provided by the cognitive sciences to discover that many common assumptions about the human mind are flawed. In this section, the second of three installments on chapter 3, we can see that our “common sense” understanding of rational thought leads to erroneous predictions about political behavior.
Chapter 3 of Thinking Points looks at framing, the implications of cognitive science for political behavior, and key words used in political discourse that have been redefined so that they no longer reflect traditional American values. This article explores the middle sections of the chapter to give insight into the workings of the human mind so that we can better understand our political nature.
Lessons From Cognitive Science
In recent decades there have been tremendous strides in the cognitive sciences (neuroscience, cognitive linguistics, cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, etc.) to help us better understand our own minds. Many of the discoveries have challenged the basic tenets of Western philosophy in a manner that calls for re-evaluation of our most basic assumptions about the mind. Chapter 3 of Thinking Points presents the following eight lessons we can learn from these empirical studies.
- The use of frames is largely unconscious. In fact, most of our thoughts -perhaps as much as 98% - are structured in significant ways before they become conscious. The use of frames occurs at the neural level and is not accessible for conscious consideration when they are activated. Thus the right-wing message machine can impose its frames upon an unknowing public - regardless of the political views held by individuals. This is why right-wing language is often used by progressive journalists and politicians without even knowing it!
- Frames define common sense. What is considered to be common sense varies from person to person but always depends on the frames you use. Right-wing think tanks and media conglomerates have embedded their frames in the brains of the public, causing our concepts to shift toward the strict father worldview and changing our understanding of "common sense."
- Repetition can embed frames in the brain. The technique of using repetition of the same words or to express the same idea is effective. As we saw in the discussion of Part 1 about frames, words are structured by surface frames that are connected to deep frames that shape our worldview. Each time these frames are activated in our brains, their neural connections are strengthened and become more pronounced in shaping our thoughts.
- Activation links surface frames to deep frames and inhibits opposition frames. Deep frames provide the foundation for our worldviews. Meaning is not stable when incompatible worldviews emerge together. Our brains do not allow this to happen. When one scenario is activated in the brain, all others that are incompatible with it are suppressed. If this did not happen, our thoughts would easily jumble together and nothing would ever make sense.
- Existing deep frames don't change overnight. Frames are hardwired into our brains. In order to change them we need to weaken existing neural connections and strengthen (or create) alternative connections. This is a labor intensive process that takes time and this is a good thing. If the parts of our brains that provide stable meaning could be altered easily and quickly, we would not be able to make sense of long-term memories or build sophisticated bodies of knowledge over time. Related to politics, this means we need to be persistent when using new frames. Repetition is essential!
- Speak to biconceptuals as you speak to your base. Every one of us has the mental structures in our brains that are necessary to understand strict father and nurturant parent moralities. We call this phenomenon biconceptualism - or as Rockridge staff member Sherry Reson likes to call it, conceptual pluralism. Both moral systems are incompatible and, therefore, the activation of one will inhibit the other. This is why it is so important to speak to swing voters using the values that authentically represent your moral base. If you express values incompatible with your moral base, you will suppress the moral worldview you endorse in the minds of swing voters while simultaneously activating the opposing moral worldview.
- The facts alone will not set you free. Have you ever considered what it means for something to be a fact? A fact - in our everyday use of the word - is a piece of knowledge that is true regardless of opinion or interpretation. Sounds simple enough, but here is the wrench in the gears: any piece of knowledge that is true requires a context to make sense! If I tell you that the Earth is flat, it is a fact based on the context we see standing on its surface. The fact that the Earth is a sphere only makes sense when we consider its shape from a context that is looking down on the surface from above. Facts require a context! And frames provide that context.
- Simply negating the other side's frames only reinforces them. We use frames even when we negate them. A simple meditation exercise I learned once involved sitting for 15 minutes and trying not to think of a white horse. Of course, every time I tried NOT to think of a white horse the image of a white horse popped into my head ("Okay, I'll think about a green tree because it's not a horse and it certainly isn't white. Dang it!") This phenomenon works in politics as well. When Richard Nixon declared, "I am not a crook." Everyone created an image in their minds of Nixon as a crook.
By incorporating these lessons into our understanding of politics, we can see that we need to reconsider our strategies if we want to win. We cannot simply "tell it like it is" without considering how the "it is" gets structured using frames. We need to clearly understand and articulate our progressive values using appropriate frames to be authentic and to activate our moral base in listeners. This process takes time so we need to start today and persist for the long haul.
The Problem of Rationalism
If I were to guess how you will respond to criticisms of rationality, I would probably place you in one of three camps:
- You are inclined to listen with suspicion because you resonate strongly with the value of behaving rationally;
- You are inclined to welcome the message warmly because you have long felt that rationality is missing something important;
- Or you are inclined to wonder what rationality is and why you should care about it.
Just in case any of you fit into the last camp, I will present a brief overview in a moment. But first I wonder if there is a pronounced divide between the other two camps among the rest of you. As you might suspect if you've been following my other posts, I fit into the second camp...though I recognize the importance of rationality as a beneficial component of the human condition. The thing we need to emphasize here is that many aspects of the Theory of Rational Action - which is often used to justify free market economic principles - are flawed in significant ways that are relevant to politics.
Brief Overview of Rationalism
Our understanding of rationality has been informed by the Enlightenment philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He worked diligently to develop the idea of Pure Reason, which he claimed to be the defining attribute of human beings. In order for there to be a form of reason that is universal to all humans, it is necessary to assume that all people reason in the same way.
Reason is defined as our human capacity to think logically, to set ends for ourselves, and to deliberate about the best means for achieving those ends. The doctrines resulting from Kant's work include:
- Morality must be based on pure reason alone.
- The source of morality is our capacity to give moral laws to ourselves.
- All moral laws are universally binding.
- We have an absolute duty to treat rational creatures as ends-in-themselves and never as means only.
- Morality can consist only of categorical imperatives such as “Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”
Rationalism is built upon these doctrines. The Theory of Rational Action is an extension of Kant’s philosophy of morality. It is a mathematical theory that treats “rational choice” as being literal, logical, disembodied (existing independent of the human brain), dispassionate, and consciously calculable. This means a rational choice is a decision based on pure reason (devoid of emotion or passion) that has numerical merit as its sole means of comparing choices. In other words, to make a rational choice is to consider all of the options, weigh the benefits against the costs, and choose the option that maximizes self-interest (benefits – costs).
A Good Thing About Rationalism
Rationalism claims reason is what makes us human and all human beings are equally rational. This is a basic truism for democracy. This claim says anyone is capable of participating in government. Prior to the widespread acceptance of universal reason it was accepted as fact that only special people were fit to rule, such as a king or pope. (See how the truth of any fact is dependent upon context!) The discovery of universal reason allowed for the possibility for self-government through collective rule...democracy.
Limitations of Rationalism
Rationalism comes with several false theories about the mind:
- Rationalism claims that all thought is conscious. Cognitive science research shows that most thought is not conscious.
- Rationalism claims that all thought is literal. Yet we know from cognitive science research that thought is dependent upon frames, metaphors, and worldviews.
- Rationalism claims that we all have the same form of reason. We know from cognitive science research that different people have different worldviews and may reach different conclusions from the same facts. Some aspects of reason are universal, but many others are not!
- Rationalism claims that thought uses classical logic. Work in the cognitive sciences shows that logic is bound to the frames that structure our thoughts. "Real" logic does not work in the ways classical logic assumes.
- Rationalism claims that thought is separate from emotions. We have learned that emotions play a critical role in effective decision-making and shape our moral intuitions.
Political Implications Are Profound
If rationalism were true, the world of politics would work very differently than it actually does. Rationalism says that people vote on the basis of their material self-interest, that they are consciously aware of why they voted for what they did, that they can tell a pollster what their most important concerns are, and that they vote for the candidates who best address those concerns.
We now know that this is not the way people actually vote. During the 1980 election there were many people who disagreed with Reagan's position on a broad range of issues but still voted for him because they felt a connection with him personally. People do not vote for candidates who create a list of programs that address their concerns (the Laundry List Trap).
If you believed in rationalism you would believe that the facts will set you free, that you just need to give people the information, and they will make the right decision by reasoning their way through the facts. (My experiences in the world have shown that there are quite a number of people among us who still believe this is true!) What we need to realize is that the hidden structure of the concepts we use - a.k.a. frames - shape the pathway to possible solutions. Here is how it is described in Thinking Points on page 40:
"We know this is false, that if the facts don't fit the frames people have, they will keep the frames (which are, after all, physically in their brains) and ignore, forget, or explain away the facts."
The progressive world is filled with false notions about the human mind. Here are a few of them:
- Rationalist policy makers believe frames, metaphors, and worldviews play no role in characterizing problems or solutions to problems
- Rationalists believe that solutions are rational and that the tools used to arrive at them include classical logic, probability theory, game theory, cost-benefit analysis, and other aspects of the theory of rational action
- Rationalists believe in the classical theory of categories. This leads to the "issue silos" that presume health care is independent from environmental pollution or that social security has nothing to do with foreign policy (one key way these are connected can be seen by looking at the funding of the occupation of Iraq - social security funds are drained away!).
Rationalist-based political campaigns miss out on the heart of American politics. They overlook the symbolic, metaphorical, moral, emotional, and frame-based campaigns. Real rationality recognizes these crucially important aspects of mental life.
Exploring Cognitive Politics
Let's talk about these issues. How has this information shaped your thinking about politics? What do you feel progressives need to do differently than we have in the past? Do you feel like any of the issues that arise from cognitive science findings will be difficult for progressives to deal with? Please share your thoughts with the rest of us. We would love to hear them!
(Part 3 of Chapter 3 will look at key words in politics including life, patriotism, and freedom that meaning entirely different things when framed in strict father and nurturant parent terms. We will explore these issues starting next Monday, April 9th, here on Rockridge Nation.)
If you use a web bookmarking service, you can share this entry.
Frames and rationality
I've been very interested in frames since I read Lakoff's "Elephant" book. But is it my political cynicism that leads me to wonder whether this will just be the next step in the advertising world's attempt to lead us all? Robert Moore, a Jungian, once said that the best archetypal thinkers in the world now work on Madison Avenue.
Too late
Lewis Powell, in the infamous Powell Memo, warned corporate officers that unless they developed Vice President-level public relations positions and began using media, not only to sell their products but to sell their vision of the world, they would doom themselves to the rising tide of Global Communism. They listened. I'm just going to guess that if the Heritage Institute knew enough to hire linguists/cognitive scientists in the 80's, the Madison Avenue honchos were at least a few steps ahead. Misleading the public with scientifically deformed information is, after all, the only business they're in. So in resoponse to your fearful wondering- wonder no more, this is most certainly very old news to them.
Thinking Points: Facts Alone Do Not Set You Free
Facts alone are not enough to turn the political tide in your favor. The facts that you wish to capitalize on must resonate with the voters. It is a fact that the fiscal policies of the current administration are running up huge deficits. Most voters understand that they must live within their means, so you would think that the deficit would be a big deal.
The truth is that the deficit has never been a top drawer issue with voters. It is too ephemeral, or the consequences are too far out in the future. The fact that the deficit is a huge problem just does not resonate with voters.
It is true that facts need to be put in a context that will resonate with voters real world experiences. One way to bring the deficit situation home to voters would be to send them a bill.
Dear Voter: Your share of the deficit this year is $XX,XXX . You can
pay this amount at Treasury.US.Gov, or call 1-800-IMB-ROKE to work out a
payment plan.
Follow that up with collection calls to voters who don't respond and you may get some resonance on this issue.
Paradigm shift
To answer the first question, I find the embodied mind approach very liberating and powerful as a perspective on politics. However, it also comes with challenges: it takes time to understand, become familiar with and….apply.
If the issue is to get the left to adopt this approach I agree that this will require by and large unseating the rationalist paradigm and replacing it with the ‘cognitively real’ paradigm of embodied mind. It will be difficult to deal with, a difficulty on the scale of any other paradigm shift. However, on this point we can draw from the techniques that are typically used in community-based paradigm-shifting campaigns that many of us are involved in. These include:
· Making the learning opportunity accessible to where the audience is.
· Use peer learning, social learning and learning-by-doing.
· Breaking down the content into clear, digestible and useable parts.
· Provide tools to facilitate the application of the learning.
· Provide back-up support and refresher courses.
As we know there are many barriers between people who work in busy, resource constrained progressive NGOs and applying these techniques in the course of the day. If we want to shift the paradigm then we have to get on an organisational footing that supports the activities suggested above.
One of the disappointments of Thinking Points for me has been that it is not a workbook. It is a good reader and goes much further towards breaking down the theory and evidence behind the embodied mind and communication than other texts. However it doesn’t provide tools for application. For example, what methods would I use to get a group of people to articulate their values? What exercises, techniques, methods are effective and fun to help craft these value dispositions into framing statements?
Rockridge needs to go a step further and develop learning tools, train peer mentors, etc. They have some excellent resources for crafting this approach namely a deep understanding of how we work. Is the barrier time and resources? Let me know if you have something along these lines.
Kind regards,
Daniel
Moving from reader to workbook.
How can we work with artists to focus their work on the six contested concepts of chapter 6?
Hi Joe
I live in Richmond, VA and I'm active both in the Network of Spiritual Progressives and a Low-Power FM community radio station (www.wrir.org). I did a small, informal workshop on "DToaE" with my NSP chaptermates, and it went over well. I'd be interested in further cultivating both my framing-related analytical skills and my ability to teach them to the progressives I meet. There is a possibility that a chaptermate and I will be offered an opportunity to repeat the workshop for a broader audience of church members at the Unitarian Universalist church that is the physical host of our chapter. Please pass any developments along. Thanks for the great work you do.
Andrew Large
PS I have a young friend nearing the end of his undergraduate work. He is quite impressively, outstandingly bright, I think brilliant and his political values are progressive. I'm trying to talk him away from his current direction of cryptography/information security, and get him to consider going into linguistics/cognitive science. I trust that more top-shelf progressive intellects will be needed in the coming years to staff the wave of progressive thinktanks to come. Am I coaching him wisely? He has already recieved a compelling offer from an outstanding grad program, but I've gotten him to the point where he's considering this alternative. How could I put him in contact with a progressive cognitive scientist working in that field to discuss the curriculum, skills and carreer prospects?
Nurturing role models?
It sounds like Rockridge needs a good role model for a healthy nurturing parent style. One of the greatest tricks I learned as a teacher was to treat my students the same way that I want to be treated. You know, the golden rule. It's worked wonders, and has helped me be truly effective in nurturing people to be healthy and happy, physically, emotionally, and intellectually. I've found it a thousand times more effective than when I treated others like inferiors or enemies.
But there really aren't many truly good role models of this technique in the world. I can think of only a couple (Byron Katie and Marshall Rosenberg, and neither of these folks are very famous). So many folks end up resorting to authoritarian, "us against them" behavior when things start to get frustrating. I certainly still do it sometimes, even though I know it goes against everything I want for the world. (I even had to rewrite this comment a few times after realizing how I myself was resorting to authoritarian language in scolding Rockridge for using authoritarian language!)
So I'd absolutely love it of Rockridge could find some healthy person or group who would help nurture those of us who want to be more effective nurturers! I want to learn how to talk to people in ways that doesn't create stress, fear, anger, suffering, or enemies, since those things stand in the way of helping people grow to be healthy and compassionate and effective.
Any ideas?
-Turil
Be the change you wish to see...
Hi Turil,
Thank you so much for your comment about the need for role models of nurturance. I resonate strongly with this sentiment and have strived for years to become a good nurturer myself...it's a life-long process!
Many of the skills necessary to be such a role model are already known by social psychologists. One skill that I have learned relates to framing:
If you frame your relationship to another person in the context of competition, your partner is by default an opponent who is different from you. Whereas, if you frame your relationship in the context of cooperation, your partner will be a collaborator who is similar to you.
Naturally there is a lot more to it than this - and I could probably write a book on the subject if there were time - but this is one component that relates to the work we do here at Rockridge. If you have other insights, please share them with the rest of us. It may be difficult to find one person (a hero) who fills the role model position, but I am confident that it is easy to find all of the right attributes in the combination of people we each know in our communities. Maybe another part of the solution is to look for the contributions of many people and move away from the hero myth that tells us to look for a savior as an individual.
...just a thought.
All the best,
Joe
Frames and Brainwashing
Lakoff's ideas about frames are convincing. What is less convincing is his notion that Progressives can somehow take a higher road than Conservatives. When the frame becomes politics, ideals become mud-splattered. The more you wash the dirt, the muddier it becomes.
Frames and Brainwashing, Part 2
My objection to the framing paradigm is the same reason I switched from being a lawyer (prosecutor) to teaching psychology (at least in part). As a prosecutor, you should be concerned with seeking the truth. In reality, you are usually working backwards from what is supposedly the truth to finding evidence to fit your version of the truth. As such, you are subject to the confirmation bias, ignoring evidence contrary to your side, or using your skills to overcome it. Is it possible to switch sides and become convinced that you are on the wrong side of the fence? Sure. It's just not very likely. I believe adoption of a framing paradigm is similar. You begin as a liberal, progressive, conservative, whatever, and work backwards to fit the frame to accommodate your version of the truth. The problem is that in adopting your frame you assume that you already have the completed masterpiece and need only display it persuasively. Ultimately, framing becomes an exercise in seeking ways to look good rather than searching for good.
Lawyer for Truth
Hi psychout,
You are right to notice that the use of frames can be self-serving...and this is the basis of spin. Spin is the use of frames to distort or mislead for the sake of hidden motives. The real challenge is to figure out what the truth is, considering how it is not nearly as straightforward to figure out when we realize how our minds work.
Luckily, there is a way to know when you are right...and then choose the best frames to honestly convey your understanding of "the truth". In the book Philosophy in the Flesh, Lakoff and Johnson describe the importance of methodology for ensuring that conclusions are valid. They are speaking in the context of philosophical investigations - where they argue for methodological principles that separate initial assumptions from possible outcomes. Here is what they say:
"What needs to be avoided in science are assumptions that predetermine the results of the inquiry before any data is looked at. We also need to avoid all assumptions that circumscribe what is to count as data in such a way as to predetermine the outcome. To keep the data from being artificially circumscribed, we need assumptions that will guarantee an appropriately wide range of data. To make sense of the data - to see the structure in it - we need to require that maximal generalizations be stated wherever possible."
They go on to state that certain commitments will ensure that this happens:
The Cognitive Reality Commitment: An adequate theory of concepts and reason must provide an account of mind that is cognitively and neurally realistic
The Convergent Evidence Commitment: An adequate theory of concepts and reason must be committed to the search for converging evidence from as many sources as possible.
The Generalization and Comprehensiveness Commitment: An adequate theory must provide empirical generalizations over the widest possible range of phenomena.
By taking these commitments to heart, it becomes possible to apply our understanding of the human mind (including framing) to lay claim to the truth when we speak about political issues. The general validity that follows from the application of these principles is morally and practically valid in a way that the strict father worldview of conservatives is not. This is where the high road can be taken by progressives.
We embrace the truth - or at least make honest efforts to do so.
I hope this is helpful to you. Please keep sharing your thoughts and concerns so we can all talk about them.
All the best,
Joe
Political Realism?
Joe,
So plans for political action should be based on realistic assumptions about how people can be expected to think and behave according to broadly accepted scientific evidence. If I read Lakoff and Johnson correctly then the problem in America and much of the world today is that many of the assumptions that we make about people and their ways of thinking and behaving are based on some ideas from the Western Philosophical tradition which are cognitively unrealistic. This is a problem in our entire society, not just on one or the other side of the political fence.
The problem with the Conservative agenda as it is formulated using the system of Strict Father Moral reasoning is that it is making excellent use of valid forms of reasoning premised on assumptions about people brought to you by the Western Philosophical perspective and that are also basically wrong. The results of implementing this kind of agenda will not be what it’s proponents believe it to should be, except to the degree that the reasoning that was used to make the flawed predictions places the blame for any failures on individuals and not the political plan.
The Progressive agenda will have a similar problem of causing unanticipated consequences when it uses the same flawed assumptions as the premises for its agenda. Lakoff and Rockridge are doing their best to strategically redirect the Progressive side towards more realistic planning. Skillful framing is just one of the crucial skills that are necessary for improvement.
This line of reasoning about the challenges to our political system has me thinking that perhaps some of the political disconnection of the American public could be about the lack of credible narratives about how the “public” actually thinks and acts. I know that I have been reluctant to get involved because I have never heard a candidate and only a scarce few political advocates talk about “the people” in ways that really make sense to me. I have a difficult time feeling connected to leaders who sound to me like they are pandering to the least common denominator of the American public and/or making assertions that just don’t make sense in my world.
Truth & Goodness
Your argument is very interesting because it is logically solid, but fails on it’s fundamental premise. I understand the argument as follows: First, it is based on the assumption that there is a singular truth or more accurately there is one supreme truth which is “objectively” better than all other forms of truth.
"As a prosecutor, you should be concerned with seeking the truth."
Second, that there is a discrepancy between the way a prosecutor should act to discover that one supreme truth and the way prosecutors actually act which results in some lesser form of truth being revealed instead of the singular truth.
"In reality, you are usually working backwards from what is supposedly the truth to finding evidence to fit your version of the truth."
This structures your analogy as follows: there is a single concept to be discovered in political discourse but there is a discrepancy between the way that people are supposed to act in the process of discovering it and the way that they are actually acting which has a bias against the possibility of finding out the singular form of that concept that is supposed to be discovered.
Your criticism does, in fact, follow that logical form. The singular concept is the Good and the lesser version is Looking Good. Framing is claimed to be a faulty form of political showmanship that only serves to make someone look good while neglecting the more important process of truly finding the Good.
The problem with the argument is in the premises, not the logic of the analogy. The common idea that there is a single monolithic “objective” truth to be discovered in any given situation is not accurate given the findings of cognitive science (as agrued by Lakoff and Johnson in Philosophy In The Flesh.) There are in fact multiple ways of conceiving of most situations and many of them can be “objectively” true. This is because of the ways that we human beings are built with the kinds of brains and bodies that we have. It is the shared structural elements of our common humanity that provide us with the amazing amount of shared ideas about what constitutes the “truth” of most situations, and spares us from the absurd consequences of both absolutely relative truth and absolutely absolute truth. We, in fact, have some “truths” that are shared by all human beings, and for practical purposes, those truths are absolute. The concreteness and basic reality of the material world is one such truth. But in many other situations the truth of the matter will depend on which conceptual structures you have learned, been conditioned to use, or that were activated as you thought and reasoned about the situation. Thus you can have multiple “true” understandings of the same situation.
If there are a multiplicity of possible truths for interpreting a situation, especially when someone’s fate is in the hands of a large, powerful organization like the government, then it is perfectly appropriate for advocates on both sides to operate on the assumption that their job is to make different claims about what constitutes relevant facts and then interpret those facts according to one of several possible theories of what should be officially declared to be the “truth” in deciding that person’s fate.
In the political realm we have the same problem with Goodness as the courts have with Truth. There are multiple “objectively” correct ways of conceiving of Goodness. Ideally, people would understand that there are multiple ways of correctly thinking about what constitutes the Good. Our political process is how we influence which concepts of the Good are going to be used to make decisions about how we formulate the rules of the game we impose on each other as a society. Lakoff and Rockridge are operating on the assumptions that 1) Conservatives have one concept of Goodness and Progressives have a different and better concept of Goodness and 2) that Conservatives have a better system of activating their concepts of Goodness than progressives do, as shown by their recent successes.
Framing is not a misguided process that detracts from our political process as you have argued. Framing is a fundamental tool of the political process, in the same way that the mutual opposition of advocates in our court system is one of it’s fundamental tools. Understanding the nature of conceptual frames can be valuable for all citizens. We are wired for understanding the world through frames, therefore it is not optional and we are better off mastering the use and defending against the abuse of frames in all aspects of our society; economic, political and personal.
Given the public nature of political discourse there is one final problem I have with this argument; the implied assumption that finding the good and looking good can be done independently in politics. If looking good is the only concern, then there is indeed a problem, but finding the good for political purposes cannot be done in private, therefore finding the good and looking good are always going to be intermingled in the political realm. There is no basis for judging an argument either way simply based on whether it makes someone look good. So, even if framing is an exercise in looking good, that does not preclude it from also being a valuable tool for finding the good.
If Lakoff and Johnson are correct in their arguments for the discrepancy between the “commonsense” ideas about Goodness and Truth passed down to us in Western Philosophy and what cognitive science is finding out about how we think and reason about Goodness and Truth using frames and metaphors, then we are going to be better off accepting the necessity of widespread public discourse to arrive at shared understandings of Goodness and Truth rather than entrusting officials, experts, and authorities with the job of “finding” them on our behalf for the public good. The logic of the Strict Father metaphor would suggest that we are better off trusting officials, experts, and authorities with the job of defining and enforcing Goodness and Truth. The logic of the Nurturing Parent suggests that we are better off with widespread public discourse and a system that holds officials, experts, and authorities transparently accountable to the widely shared meanings of Goodness and Truth that result. Everyone has a version of both goodness and truth, there is no escaping that fact. The question is whether we have a system of governance that also accepts that fact and has in place systemic ways to overcome the unfair biases that we inherently bring into the system. In every case we are always, as you say, “working backwards.” We have no other way to work. Understanding framing is just one of the ways that we can begin to work with the reality of being human rather than continuing to operate on the mistaken assumption that any individual can find The Truth or know The Good.
Great Points - Slight Misunderstanding
Hi donberg,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts in this discussion. You have helped to clarify several aspects of my argument that I did not take the time to flesh out. At the same time, I wonder if I wasn't quite clear enough in my explanation because you misunderstood a few parts of what I was trying to say.
When I suggested that a person can be correct and use frames to demonstrate their understanding of "the truth", I was implicitly using the assumption of embodied realism...which is not the same thing as political realism. The distinction is subtle and very easily overlooked. Embodied realism is the claim that:
1. There is a world independent of our understanding of it
2. We can have a stable knowledge of it
Claim 1 uses the word "world" to refer to the common physical reality that we all share. As you articulate very well, the metaphorical "world" of politics is not the common physical world. It is filled with contested concepts and does not have a single universal truth that we can have stable knowledge of. This is because the world of politics is an abstraction from the concrete bodily experiences that give meaning to our metaphors. Put into simpler terms, the world of politics requires context-dependent interpretive schemes to make sense...meaning that we need to explore various frames to make sense of it.
And I completely agree with you that we should engage in open public debates about the meanings of different frames and whether they capture "the good" for our society in a democratic manner.
Then you say:
"Framing is not a misguided process that detracts from our political process as you have argued."
I never said this. In fact, I said the opposite by describing how framing needs to be used honestly for the sake of accurately presenting each person's understanding of the world as it contributes to public discourse.
You also referred to the phrase "working backwards" as though I was the one who said it. It was actually psychout who used that phrase to describe what he found to be dissatisfying about his work as a lawyer. He expressed concerns that match your criticisms very well.
Ultimately, I think we are all talking about the same things and are all on the same side. Your contributions to this discussion broaden and deepen the scope of what we are trying to say. Thank you for sharing your insights with us.
All the best,
Joe
Joe, I'm pretty sure
he was replying to psychout's post, not yours. After all, the post is under the post from psychout, not under your post. Maybe we need a different structure on this blog to make it easier connect replies with posts?
Replying to psychout not Joe
That's correct, my comments were a reply to psychout's Brainwashing post part 2. Your post occurred between the time I read his post and posted my reply to his.
Two suggestions/requests for this site:
1. clearer visual cues to show how replies relate to previous posts
2. create an option for e-mail notification of replies to your posts
2 Replies confused
I replied to psychout with my post called Truth and Goodness and the post called Political Realism was my reply to Joe. The visual structure of the page makes it hard to tell and I neglected to address the Truth and Goodness reply to psychout directly.
Truth
You say that shared structural elements of our common humanity provide us with shared ideas about what constitutes truth of most situations, sparing us from absurd consequences of both absolutely relative truth and absolutely absolute truth. You go on to provide the example of the concreteness and basic reality of the material world as one such truth.
I presume you are not suggesting common physical structure determines common humanity.
Relative truth must definitely not be considered truth; it is but perception, which is always temporary, subject to change and process, dependant upon the belief in space and time and a multitude of interpretations reflecting our own internal frames of reference. The fact that perception is part of the process at all undermines its connection to the realm of knowledge.
Your example of shared truth found in a concrete and basic reality of a material world would be disputed by those who espouse an eastern philosophical view of what constitutes reality. Physical worlds will crumble, but ideas based in knowledge or Truth cannot.
Absolute Truth, I should venture, is what we ultimately strive for, and would do well not to avoid. Though you may be opposed to something you presume must be rigid for its unalterable quality, I would suggest that you consider it is this very eternal aspect to truth which constitutes and is the basis for our shared humanity.
Further, you might consider that Knowledge likely preceeded time and perception, and all that we consider to be the physical universe derived from It's source. Again, I'm suggesting that only Absolute Truth could be responsible for your humanity.
As to politics and Truth, the two are mutually exclusive. If we strive for mutual respect and put life above corporate concerns, we'll be on our way to a better world. But the arena and framing of politics are driven by corporatism. Education should be key, but within an educational system sculpted by big money, how do the requisite changes transpire in time for meaningful change? I suspect that the right decisions will come about only after there are no other options left, with little earthly life left to exploit or manipulate. Politics and corporations will have to undergo significant structural and philisophical changes to survive in a world that is truly functional. It's too bad that we will have to lose so much to arrive at such a point.
re: Truth
Natalia,
You said, “I presume you are not suggesting common physical structure determines common humanity. “
To be clear physical structure determines the possibilities for common understanding, not common humanity.
The Tao Te Ching says, “The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.” This is referring to the deeper, broader, higher aspects of our being and is entirely consistent with Embodied Realism as I understand it.
I understand Embodied Realism as proposed by Lakoff and Johnson in Philosophy in the Flesh to be making the claim that our common physical structure determines our ability to share any understanding of any kind. What has been found in the field of cognitive science is that all the ways that we have to understand each other are entirely based on having the kinds of bodies we have.
To me those inexpressible, ineffable aspects of our being are, as the Tao Te Ching suggests, important components of what it means to be human. But every time a sage, or anyone else, attempts to describe, explain or in any way share their experience and understanding they are forced, by the nature of his/her body and the bodies of those whom s/he intends to share with, to use bodily concepts in order to be understood.
This does not preclude the possibility of Absolute Truth or spiritual realities but it does mean that all the shared understandings that we can have about those concepts are inherently body-based concepts. If you take the findings of cognitive science seriously then there are some challenging discoveries in what as been found. Embodied Realism raises serious questions about the validity of a priori assumptions like your statement, “Relative truth must definitely not be considered truth…”
For instance let’s pretend that you and I agree to meet outside a large building that neither of us have ever seen or been to before at noon. We each arrive at the building on time but after waiting around a while without finding each other you figure that I’m late and call me on my cell phone. I am grateful that you called and ask you where you are on the assumption that you are late. You say you are at the building where we agreed to meet, it’s a big glass fronted skyscraper and you are waiting by a brick planter. I say that can’t be true because I’m standing in front of the building we agreed to meet at and it’s a big blue building with a lot of stone work and hardly any glass at all, plus the planters in front are all wooden.
We are both describing the truth from our perspective by observing the features of the building we understand is the correct building. From my perspective your description of the building is false; from your perspective my description of the building is false. It turns out that we are standing on opposite sides of the same building, which has different facades on each side. We are each speaking the truth, but from the other person’s perspective that same statement is false. Each of our truths are very real, “objectively” true and only true relative to our individual perspective.
You might argue that this leaves open the possibility of there being an absolute truth about the building once all the perspectives are taken into account, but it is the requirement of cognitive realism that precludes us from that line of thought. We can never know what all the possible perspectives could be, let alone have a way of knowing that we have accurately accounted for all the possible perspectives. This is especially true when we talk about subjects such as politics where there is not even a simple material structure to agree on. The best we achieve are a limited set of expectations about how to account for different perspectives.
My story is flawed by the fact that since we are adults who have probably had a lot of experience with buildings then our expectations about what is possible would include the possibility of different facades. But the example is very pertinent if instead of the building we agree to meet around a political issue, but your perspective is based on nurturing parent moral logic and mine is based on strict father moral logic. The discussion will be very difficult if we are not prepared with expectations that can assist us in dealing with the possibility of very different ways of understanding what the situation under discussion actually is and what it means. The whole point of the Rockridge Institute and Lakoff’s recent work is to help us deal effectively with relative truth as not only real a real kind of truth but a very important kind of truth.
truth by process
Response to Frames and Brainwashing, Part 2 by psychout:
IANAL, but my understanding is that the legal system is intended to approach truth by setting up a collective process of balanced advocacy.
So while it is not an individual lawyer's goal to reach the truth individually, the point is that setting up vigorous advocacy on "both sides" of a question of truth is the least imperfect way to arrive at the truth, given the realities of human existence.
The process approaches truth as best it can (ideally), not any individual participant in the process. And while even a perfect process in this mold would be imperfect in its reach for absolute truth, it is also true that the process has systematic imperfections (wealth can buy better representation, etc.).
So, in the political realm, framing may be part of one-sided advocacy, but free speech and diversity of participation is what ideally would yield the best chance for "political truth" whatever that might be (I'm not sure that political and justice really are truly comparable in this way).
In philosophical terms, "truth" of an absolute nature is very hard to come by. Really, the best we can do is a sort of best-evidence working paradigm. That's why there is an ineliminable collective component to establishing any sort of truth beyond the immediacy of one's own direct subjective experience (which is shaped by one's expectations, as well...).
I see framing as a tool for effective communication in the effort to advocate for positions that are established in other ways. So yes, it's not the "road to truth" per se. But that is not its mission or purpose, so to hold it to that standard seems tangential.
Conservatives use framing to achieve their political goals by engaging their constituency (and by getting out in front of a crowd that they can use to their own purposes). Progressives have different political goals, and framing can be used to engage the constituency for those goals. The goals differ, based on differing value systems.
Political framing is just about communicating those values effectively to one's constituency in the political realm - recognizing that cognitive frames are at work, and then adapting one's rhetoric to fit the frames one believes in, in order to engage as many people as possible to vote for the candidates whose values fit one's goals. (And perhaps to disengage the constituency of one's opponents.)
Bottom line, I think you may be trying to hold this process of shaping political speech to a higher standard than it is intended. However, I suspect you may have been doing the same for the justice system, too.
When it comes to absolute truth, it is like the rest of life: perfection is not an option, so what is the least imperfect path?
Challenges for female progressive candidates
- Hi Joe,
Re: "Do you feel like any of the issues that arise from cognitive science findings will be difficult for progressives to deal with?"
Interesting article at:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/28/scaring_the_pants_off_men.php
"Scaring The Pants Off Men" by Paul Waldman
Points out that conservatives are likely to attack strong female progressive leaders, trying to portray them as bad leaders (attacking them using crude - some might say anachronistic -- stereotypes of female personality types). I think Waldman gets it wrong by attributing this to "insecure masculinity" (as if compensating by trying to appear macho) -- this clearly fits the strong father frame in at least a superficial way: women can't be fathers.
However, recognizing this does not immediately suggest to me an effective response. A direct response might be to try to portray conservative leaders as unreliable, emotional, wacky, etc., while portraying progressive leaders as steady and clear-headed, etc. However, this might simply be the pitfall of responding within the conservative frame, thus activating it, with all the negative effects from that activation.
So, female progressives seem to be in a quandary: they can't just stop being female. Of course, that didn't stop Margaret Thatcher or Ann Coulter. So, what can we learn from their experiences that can serve as a guide to female progressives?
How can we activate the nurturing frame in the face of attacks within the father frame, without activating the father frame in the response?
I know George has likely addressed this in some way in his writings, and I may even have read it in passing (I have read "Whose Freedom" and am reading "Thinking Points" as this discussion proceeds), but if so I have not retained it yet. I need more context, perhaps a narrative to set the association in place. Can you help here?
Avoid the Moral Order and Promote Nurturance
Hi dano,
Thank you for bringing up the subject of female progressive leaders. I am very sensitive to the feminist critiques of social institutions (I think my favorite book on this subject is Joni Seager's "Earth Follies: Coming to Feminist Terms with the Global Environmental Crisis" - which does a fabulous job of exploring how dominance hierarchies shape major public institutions).
Since I am not a woman, I cannot speak directly about the experiences women have in the political arena. So I will not attempt a thorough answer to your questions...it seems more worthwhile to hear many different perspectives on this one and I hope others will chime in with additional thoughts - hint, hint.
There are two comments that I will make that I hope will be helpful to you:
Comment 1
A "common sense" assumption of the strict father worldview is that there exists a natural order in the animal kingdom. Humans are at the top. Lions, dogs, and horses are somewhere in the middle. Insects and slugs are near the bottom. When we apply moral values to this natural order, we get the moral order. Men are superior to women, humans are superior to nature, that sort of thing. Many conservatives automatically use the moral order. A consequence of this is that every time a woman is compared to a man, the moral hierarchy automatically arises in their minds. If the man is found to be above the woman, all is well. If the woman is found to be above the man, there is internal strife. So the take home message is to avoid framing female leadership as a compare/contrast between men and women. It is counterproductive to female leaders (and creates tension with conservative men) to reinforce the idea of a dominance hierarchy.
Comment 2
The vast body of research in developmental and social psychology reveals that humans are naturally nurturers. We all seek comfort and companionship. We form strong social bonds with individuals and groups that we identify with. Fathers and mothers form strong bonds with their children. What we need to avoid is the strict father framing of the word "nurture" which is taken to mean something more like "pamper" and indicates moral weakness. Instead, we need to express the nurturant parent version of nurturance (preferably without using the word "nurture") by talking about female progressive leaders as responsible and capable people who care about our communities and understand what needs to be done to improve them.
Combining both of these comments, we get a story that has women being naturally capable of leading in their communities without comparing them to men who have historically held the same positions in our society.
This is only a sketch for the beginning of what needs to be a much longer discussion. Please share with us more of your thoughts about how you have attempted to bypass the moral order trap and encourage other progressive women to share their insights with the rest of us.
Thanks,
Joe
But how does that work in a context of competition?
Thanks Joe,
I am not a woman either, but since our general topic is about how to think and talk about cognitive framing of progressive issues in the political arena generally, I would hope that these ideas have substance regardless of whom is talking about them. I don't think one must be female to be a feminist in the sense of creating a truly "merit-based market" for political leadership and expression, employment participation and compensation, etc.
So, can we talk about tangible and detailed actions?
Re: your comment 1: I do understand the "moral order" concept in the strict father frame, which is obviously why conservatives are trained to attack female progressive candidates and officials in gender-loaded terms. So, how does one avoid the gender comparison when the attack is made on those terms, especially when those terms are made implicit but not stated explicitly - by using crude misogynistic stereotypes that engage the frame, such as the example in the Waldman article about comments by Michael Savage?
Here's Waldman's hearsay on Savage's comments:
'The response in some quarters was unsurprising. Michael Savage, whose hateful rants are reportedly heard by 8 million radio listeners every day, hit the roof. Referring repeatedly to “foul-mouthed, foul-tempered women in high places bossing men around,” he opined that the image of a woman giving a man orders would lead to more terrorist attacks (or something like that—it was a little hard to follow).'
Ideally, one might try to simply dispose of such comments as "irrelevant" and move on to a progressive (nurturing) framing of leadership, but I'm not sure how effective that might be. Of course, people like Savage are speaking to their base and hoping to engage the biconceptuals in their frame, so any response is not likely to hit home with strict father framers. So the real question seems to be how to form the response in a way that cleaves the biconceptuals from the strict father frame in this sort of context.
I suppose that each particular context is unique in some ways, and that the response will vary according to the immediate topic at hand. One problem is that if one responds explicitly to the implicit framing in someone's statement, they can deny that they meant what is implied - kind of code-talk to get the frame activated without having to own up to it (say, using geography to refer to race). This is the sort of "stealth framing" that conservatives have engaged in for quite a while now. It's hard to call them on this stealth-framing, without engaging the frame itself.
Do we simply set it aside and repeat our own nurturing-framed statements, or is there a response that makes sense? This is ultimately a tactical question, hopefully to be guided by an overarching strategic vision.
Also, has George and/or Rockridge examined in any detail why/how conservative female leaders (or pundits) are able to avoid the trap? Is it simply that they are given a free pass by the powers that be because they support the right agenda? True, in some cases they are married to a powerful leader (Dole, Cheney) and I suppose they get their "legitimacy" from their spouses by association. In other cases there is a professional mentor relationship (Condoleezza Rice mentored by George Shultz, Brent Scowcroft, Josef Korbel) that establishes credentials. So these "acceptable by association" figures might be embraced on the basis of their connections and some degree of tangible track record.
But, just because conservatives have a double-standard for applying the "common sense" aspects of their frame doesn't mean that such hypocrisy is consciously detected by the people they are talking to or that, if it is detected, it undermines the frame. As we know, people will explain away a whole lot in order to adhere to the frame.
As noted by a couple others previously, it's one thing to understand what is going on, but it is quite another thing to figure out how to respond to it productively. I suppose the point of this blog discussion is specifically to explore those details (in the context of discussing the book), so I hope that anyone with more ideas will join in. If I had "the answer" I would offer it immediately, but I don't, which is why I was asking the question in the first place.
I'm very interested in developing more of an instinct for how to respond in the field on the basis of theory. (Note: I have enough science background to use the word "theory" in the sense of "working evidence-supported operational paradigm" - not in the sense of "mere hypothesis" ... that's yet another rhetorical twist that conservative anti-science folks love to bandy about, but I digress.)
Translating Lakoff's tremendous work into practical terms is not an automatic thing, and I'd like to see more ideas along these lines.
Promote Ingroup or Cooperate
Hi Dano,
I recognize your struggles to transform cog sci insights into practical strategies for success. It is an experience common to all of us participating in these discussions (and many more who have read Lakoff's work). I will say up front that, like you, I don't have the answer to this question. And it is a vital question. What I do have at this point (my answer is under construction!) is a handful of thoughts/insights into the nature of the problem that I am struggling with myself.
As I have studied social psychology and cultural anthropology, I keep coming across the importance of ingroups. An ingroup is the group of people that a person identifies with - and it is typically framed so as to be opposed to a perceived outgroup. My initial attempt to answer your question was to promote a broad notion of ingroup that includes all people - thereby transcending the gender battle that ensues when we conceptualize ourselves as members of one gender group or the other.
As the title for your latest post indicates, we have a framing obstacle when we speak in terms of competition. An interesting thing to note is that we can frame fellow participants in an activity as competitors or cooperators. When a situation is framed as a zero-sum game (winner gains at the expense of the loser) people automatically begin to apply machiavellian strategies to win as much as they can. However, if the game is framed as a non-zero-sum game (by working together we can each gain more than we can by working separately), people automatically form coalitions and work together.
These two insights will ultimately play into our long-term effective strategies. I am sure there are many more...and I have some simmering in the back of my mind already.
With this in mind, how can you develop insights into developing reflexes to respond more effectively? Well, for starters you can learn what framing is and how it works (it seems you have a pretty good handle on this one). Then you need to learn explicitly what your values are and how they apply to new situations. This takes practice. Then you practice talking about issues through your values - starting with friends and branching out - to see if you are making progress at expressing yourself effectively. At the same time, you can pay attention to the ways you respond to the language used by others you disagree with. When you get that "gut feeling" that they are saying something bothersome to you, try to deconstruct their words into the underlying values they have expressed. You can do this by exploring the frames they use to see what kinds of inferences they draw from their words.
Ultimately, we will need to do more than this. But it is a good start, I think.
What do you think?
-Joe
signals in the noise
Thanks again Joe,
This is beginning to make a bit of sense to me.
I like the idea of re-framing the whole political process as generally beneficial rather than purely us/them antagonistic. And of course that makes sense, because the progressive frame addresses common benefits, while the conservative frame tends to proceed from the "market competition" value system. By allowing the competitive frame to dominate the political game, we already start to fall into the conservative deep frame. So, you've already helped me right there, by reminding me of one of my favorite truisms: We Are All "Us".
_____
As for ingroups, this overlaps with the idea of "tribalism" in culture. I have background in music, which is highly tribal and diverse in nature. In my efforts to envision a merit-based market for music, I embrace the full diversity of these tribes on an equitable basis and seek to enable the full "long tail" market structure. This comes from my background in some of the less dominant tribes (i.e., less successful from a commercial standpoint). So the idea is that by enabling all tribes on their own terms, the several tribes I might identify will benefit on a fair basis as well.
The difference in politics is that we have to come to some sort of collective agreement about policies that affect us collectively, whereas to a large extent music tribes can more easily exist in a "live and let live" dynamic. So the us/them dichotomy tends to have more traction in politics. (It exists in music culture, but I think it has less tangible effect on "them" in music than in politics.)
I think that one must nevertheless acknowledge that if one ingroup is currently in a position of disproportionate political power, then establishing policy that is fair to all may not benefit those at the tippy top, and they still regard the game as competitive. But in the process, we need to distinguish the privileged leaders from their constituency. I would agree that most of the conservative constituency would benefit from progressive policy, even if conservative leaders may not.
So, this points to cleaving the conservative constituency from the conservative leadership in areas where their interests diverge. In essence, flip the "elitist" rhetorical game on its head from being directed at "liberal elites" to power elites, and detach the frame of "trickle-down" from conservative power elites to their conservative constituency, as it really doesn't trickle down as claimed.
But, the problem with this is that I've now regressed to talking about policy in a rationalistic manner (old habits die hard) or re-spinning the rhetoric of the "opposition" (old habits yet again), and I'm losing track of the deep frame dynamics (I suppose the "elite" frame is part of the equation, but it's only a surface frame, I think). In the moral order frame, it's sort of okay for the leader to be "elite" - that's what he's supposed to be, with the followers being the faithful sheep.
_____
So, can we bring this back to the specific case of female progressive leaders, in a framing context?
If we can expand the political ingroup to we are all "us" the gender distinction drops away, as well as the zero-sum competition, but this still doesn't address the distinction between leaders and constituents. It is the high-leadership role in the moral-order frame that is specifically gender-dependent, while followers can be anything (the "big tent" of the GOP...). Is there a surface frame available to us that disengages that as well?
The only thing I can think of is the populist "I am one of you" dance of the "commoner" background, but that is immediately vulnerable to the reality that massive funding must still be raised to have a realistic chance of winning election to major office, thus all politicians still are easy to place in an "elite" category. This seemingly hurts progressives more than conservatives, because such elitism is expected and "normal" in the moral order frame.
So now, how do we apply we are all "us" to the privilege of leadership? Ideally, a thriving democracy has a great deal of bottom-up voice in governance (in digital tech terms, think of "wiki-governance" as the goal). And, many contemporary treatises on leadership talk about "leading from the middle" or "leadership at any level" (blogs like this allow for this dynamic more readily).
While we don't want leaders to be simplistically poll-driven (because polls create a fictitious "average constituent" as Lakoff notes), we do want leaders to be responsive to constituent interests generally and specifically. So perhaps leadership can be re-attached to the constituency by embracing more of this wiki dynamic in practical terms. All serious candidates now have email lists and web sites along the lines of MoveOn.
New! Educating the Populace
Hi Daniel,
I love your idea of making a workbook. You have correctly noted that our limitation here at Rockridge is resources. I have been working here for a little less than a month and am devoted to educational initiatives (as I hope you can tell by the efforts I make in putting these discussions together). We are exploring ways to create training workshops, develop curriculum materials for journalism schools (as part of a big media project that we are initiating to help journalists understand the political nature of framing), and I hope to develop web-based educational materials throughout the coming months.
At the same time, I am only one person and this is only part of the work I do at Rockridge. One thing we need is more funding to allow us to hire more staff and take on bigger projects. The other thing we need is insightful contributions from the progressive community, such as the gems that arise in these discussions. There is a lot that we can all do together. Right now we are actively engaged in figuring out how to get these ideas out there and make them accessible to as many people as possible.
The community we serve includes people like you. We earnestly want to help empower you with the work that we do and are dedicated to seeking the best practices to accomplish this mission.
Thanks,
Joe