Thinking Points Discussion of Chapter 3 – Part 1: Frames

Hello from Australia,

I'd like to start by congratulating Rockridge for their initiative establishing tools for strengthening the progressive discourse.

I've been following Lakoff's (and co-writers Johnson and Turner’s) writing for about a year now and I'm very impressed with the case put forward from the evidence base of cognitive linguistics.

My background is working in the environment movement in Australia. Naturally I've been preoccupied with the business of communicating with my fellow humans. Over the years I've progressed from background assumptions that we are rational (and that all we need is good information) to understandings presented by social psychology (where peer influence and behaviour leads attitude) to second generation cognitive science (where metaphor shapes discourse and political behaviour). It’s been quite a journey and I must say its good to be amongst fellow travellers.

I'd like to share some insights from the Australian scene. Our Prime Minister, John Howard is a consummate conservative and a master of strict father framing. On the strength of his (and his party's) capability to frame the debate, the Coalition (conservative) parties have adroitly controlled and lead mainstream political discourse here for 11 years. This has now come to a very sudden end, mirroring in part developments in your country.

Howard has successfully dominated government based in part on electoral support from blue-collar workers. Some examples of strict father framing he has used includes: xenophobia: calling asylum seekers ‘illegal immigrants’; security frames: standard ‘war on terror’ guff and ‘strong economic management’ statements.

After the 2004 election the Coalition gained control of both houses of parliament and pushed through draconian industrial relations legislation. The union movement had activated the community prior to the legislation passing with mass rallies followed (after the laws passed) by a series of extremely powerful and simple television advertisements making use of Nurturant framing. These ads focused on the impact the laws would have on family life: less time to for parents to spend with children; less able to provide financial security; less security for their children as they enter the workforce. The impact on the debate was dramatic. Opinion polls spiked against the government after every screening. To this day six out of ten Australians oppose the legislation. In a recent state election it was the leading issue.

The government spent hundreds of millions on its own ad campaign. Their feedback told them it was futile and worse….people were telling them they hated the Coalition even more for wasting public money on propaganda. The ads were pulled. There is now nothing the government can do to change public opinion on this matter. To view the ads and other aspects of the campaign go to www.rightsatwork.com.au

The union campaign began to turn the tide of public opinion against the government and has underwritten the good fortunes of the Opposition Labor party (equivalent to Democrats) which has gained a further, I believe now unassailable, advance in the polls with a new leader. The new leader (Kevin Rudd) had done an excellent bit of framing work himself. His message has focused on his values and formative experiences in his life. He has even run TV ads shortly after assuming the leadership on these themes. He has also framed the political discourse in terms of ‘long-term planning and investment’ (what he’s on about) versus ‘short-termism’ (what Howard is on about). This then frames issues such as social investment, addressing global warming and our part in the occupation of Iraq and the specific policy responses pertaining to these issues.

To my mind these examples show the power of framing in the public debate and its effect on a biconceptual electorate. The same people who were supportive of catastrophically xenophobic policies are now favouring the Opposition on the promise it will restore Nurturant values to workplaces.

Of course there are many other parts to this picture. I’d like to raise the issue of ‘public narrative’. We often refer to the ‘public debate’, or ‘conversation’, or the public figure with a ‘story to tell.’ To my mind this highlights the issue of dynamics (or schematics of) narrative in the public/political domain. My observation of Bush, and Howard in Australia, is that the narrative threads entailed both by their framing and the reported consequences of their decisions have now arrived at a kind of narrative ‘conclusion’ (namely disaster). This is clearly true, for example, for the public narratives relating to the occupation of Iraq and global warming (Hurricane Katrina in the U.S, severe national drought in Australia).

This ‘narrative conclusion’ leaves these politicians very much weakened with little opportunity to keep the narrative alive in any way favourable to their interests. In other words, I suppose I’m raising the question of narrative schemas (beginning, middle, climax, resolution) and how this may influence public perception of the political domain. Does cognitive linguistics have any comment on this notion?

I especially liked the long-term vs short-term contrast. This seems like a very good idea. I would love to see it used in the U.S.

In many ways, we can see how long-term planning seems to be something that progressives treasure, while short-term solutions are being offered constantly by the right. Tax cuts are the ultimate example: the middle class gets a short relief today in exchange for worse infrastructure and less of a safety net in the future.

This week's edition on Thinking Points is much easier for me to comment on than last week's. This exposition is strcitly instructional and does not really advocate a particular point of view.

Those of us who are RockRidge Nation regulars believe in the theory of frames. There is empirical and other evidence and our own real life experiences that validate the worth of frames for us.

Having said that, I still am ruminating on my response to last week's edition, precisely for the reasons cited above. My own real life experiences and research lead me to a different conclusion than you on the existence of a political center.

Stay tuned.

Hi everyone. This is my first time commenting at Rockridge, or anywere for that matter.

I am a student of philosophy, but I am not currently enrolled in school. Unfortunately.

I think the discussion on framing has something to do with metaphysical questions in philosophy. What is the nature of ultimate reality? I recently read an article on ethical relativism, and ways to understand why it is that the human family seems to act out in all kinds of different ways.

The article compared our culture to a tribe that had the practice of children eventually having the moral obligaton to kill their parents before their parents got too old. Why? Because the tribe opperated out of a world view that believes we carry our physical bodies with us through eternity. So if the children of that tribe wanted their parents to have the best life, they had the moral obligation to kill their parents before their parent's bodies became too old and infirm.

Our culture, of course, doesn't believe this, and so, doing something like that becomes immoral.

This is known in philosophy as the difference between "values" and "belief". Both of our cultures "value" giving our parents the best life, it's just that our "belief" about reality changes. I guess that is like deep framing.

So, my point is that, it is easy to denounce war protesters as being, "unpatriotic", or "antiAmerican", if we opperate out of the official story.
It's not a queston of "values": should we defend ourselves? It's a question of "belief": is that what we are doing? Sometimes conservatives can interperate our being against the war as our being unreasonable peace lovers- being against self-defence, when all we're really doing is questioning "belief".

I am an informal student of Buddhist philosophy, so I could easily get into discussions of ultimate reality, but I'm trying to restrain myself! Perhaps a value is a guide to our conduct in life that comes out of our beliefs regarding ultimate reality, which in turn are affected by our experience. In some ways there is a chicken and egg problem with Prof. Lakoff's model of family structure. Which came first, the holistic view of life that an individual has, or the family structure that fosters it? Perhaps an even deeper way to look at deep frames is to ask if a person believes that people are basically bad or if he believes that people are basically good. If bad, then the strict father family is neccessary to curb the child's natural impulses and instill proper values through discipline. If good, then the nurturant family is neccessary to bring out the child's natural impulses and instill proper values through understanding. I would argue that both are false, but there I'm getting dangerously close to "ultimate reality".

'Great chapter and some encouraging news from down under. The previous chapters are clearer now after reading the third.

‘Just a few thoughts on the framing of the Iraq War. Conservatives have also done a great job at using the War on Terror framework to supplant the We Need Oil framework. Several years ago, some progressives tried to reframe the issue as an SUV problem. Conservatives (notably Fox News) attacked the effort and it died out. This was likely because it conflicted with the deeper framework that “Americans are angels.” I believe the anti-SUV campaign might have been more successful if it had tried a Duty to Country framework. All should sacrifice some so that some don’t have to sacrifice all.

Notice that Rudy Giuliani is already using the War on Terror framework in his campaigns. In his red meat speeches, he’s saying that terrorists “believe we’re weak” and that “their perverted ideas are stronger than our ideas of freedom…And they’re wrong.” OK Rudy, exactly what would do about it?

Common Sense – Progressives need to be very careful with the notion of Common Sense. In this context, other words for “Common” are “superficial” and “simplistic.” The reason the left is so often characterized as lacking common sense is because we’re willing to put more thought into issues. We take our logical reasoning several more steps than do conservatives. Fossil fuels not only give us energy but also global warming and hurricanes. Torturing prisoners doesn’t just possibly get us more information but also puts future American captives in peril. The whole notion of common sense gives simplistic conservative views an advantage.

Since our positions are based on more considerations, these positions or “feelings” are more difficult to express. But they can be expressed. Progressive candidates need to remember that:

If something is wrong, it’s wrong for a reason. Say the reason.

I have to second the importance of quantifying liberal achievements. I recall being in a debate with people from a conservative website and forwarding them the story of the guy who wakes up, eats food made safe by “some liberal,” drives to work in a car and on roads that were made safe by “some liberal,” and has a safe, well-paying job because of the efforts of “some liberal.” To my shock, they conscientiously circulated among their entire group. There’s hope!

I don't think the choice of frames is always so cut and dry. Going back to the "war on terror" example, I supported the attack against al Quaeda in Afghanistan because we were dealing with an enemy beyond the scope of a mere criminal organization. When you have thousands of people who want to kill you, I don't think you have the luxury of gathering evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But by 2002, after al Quaeda's operations in Afghanistan had been disrupted and the Taliban overthrown, I was in favor of something more like the police problem frame, in this case using diplomacy and police techniques to root out terrorists.

Of course, we could argue about whether our own foreign policy contributed to this problem, and in an ideal world a reexamination of our foreign policy would be part of the solution. I suppose that what I'm trying to say is that different frames could be applied to the same problem depending on the situation. If the problem is terrorist attacks, a war frame could be appropriate during one phase of the operation and a police frame appropriate during another phase.

Thanks for your feedback Joe, Hugo and CBauer. I'm keen on seeing Glenn Smith’s work. It sounds fascinating and a welcome insight on this theme.

To DMullin I would recommend reading “Philosophy in the flesh” which directly addresses the Western tradition of metaphysics from the perspective of cognitive science and the philosophical implications entailed by the embodied mind. I believe that Raymond Gibbs has also just released a book discussing the embodied mind (which is also its title).

http://www.mainstreet.org

I have been asked to serve on my local Economic Restructuring Committee, which is affiliated with www.mainstreet.org. My town is in Southwest Ohio with a population of 14,000. The mayor is a Democrat and the city council are all Republicans.

The committee is beginning to enter into a "visioning" process using the following questions:
1-What is our reason for being?
2-Who are our stakeholders?
3-How would you define who we are?

I am interested in framing my responses in a way that advances a progressive vision. I have invited the people at the Progressive States Network to offer any insights they might have in responding to these questions. http://www.progressivestates.org - Dr. Lakoff sits on the board of this organization.

I would appreciate any insights the Rockridge community has on these questions in the context of what we've been discussing so far as we've read the first three chapters of Thinking Points, especially keeping the concept of biconceptualism in mind.

I'd like to challenge some of the assumptions that progressives fall prey to.

Progressives are mistaken if they think the way to influence the debate about economic justice is to insist that we pursue economic justice because it is the "right" thing to do; the "moral" thing to do; the "Christian" thing to do, etc.

While all that is true, it seems to me that most people really don't care that much about loving their neighbor when it entails some degree, however small, of personal sacrifice. It seems that the way to influence this debate is to do two things: Yes, by all means, appeal to people's inherent love of justice and equality, BUT do so if and only if you also appeal to their self interest and love of freedom.

The reason conservatism often prevails is because 1. self-interest is a huge motivator 2. too many people who claim to love their neighter really hate the idea that their neighbor might be getting something for nothing, 3. most important of all, the 25 percent of the population that is essentially fear-based and authoritarian is also the segment of humanity that tends to be highly driven, ambitious and energetic

which means they tend to go into business and politics in higher numbers than reflective, laid back, live-and-let-live progressives!

Progressives will start winning this debate when they stop relying so much on pushing morality frames, and "right vs. wrong," and "Nurturing mommy versus strict daddy" and focus instead on truisms that progressive ideas serve individual self-interest and promote freedom and individual liberty. Progressives also need to talk more about the unhealthy and unsafe consequences of small government and less regulation.

A society structured on progressive values serves self interest for many reasons. Here are just a few: 1. holds down crime 2. creates a climate of trust -- which is essential to healthy commerce, 3. creates equality, which creates more opportunity for each individual.

As a progressive, the real reason that I believe in equality and support economic justice is because they benefit me personally. How? Because they create a healthy public infrastructure which produces a safe society, and encourages cooperation, which is essential for liberty. More equality means more opportunity for each one of us. In a progressive society there are more opportunities to pursue my own aims in life -- whether it be to own my own business, or pursue an education or create my own social network, or travel freely.

Look, many of us have lived and traveled in nations that have small goverment. They are not nice places to live. You do not trust the food, you worry about the air, you boil the water. You avoid buying most products. I have lived and traveled in nations where there is no public infrastructure to speak of; where there is no EPA. No FDA. No consumer protection. No welfare, no Medicaid or medicare. And a fragile system of justice. And yes, where taxes are also low or non-existent -- and where free enterprise flourishes! Because everyone is "free" to prostitute their 10 year old daughters so they might be able to buy medicine for their 80-year-old mothers. Everyone is "free" to send their 12-year-old son onto the street corner to sell sticks of chewing gum for penny, in hopes that he will come home at night with a nickle. Where businessmen are "free" to pay their employees a dollar a day to sweep the asbestos up off the factory floor -- with their hands.

These are NOT NICE PLACES TO LIVE! These are not good places to raise children. These are not safe, strong societies. And no, most of the people in these environments ARE NOT FREE. We have already been there, done that, and have seen the wisdom of a better way!

Yet this is the kind of environment that the predators -- i.e. Reagan Republicans are pulling the U.S. backwards into. The predators want to drag us backwards and destroy the middle class, and they are winning the hearts and minds of poor and middle class chumps, because the chumps hate the idea that someome who is only a little bit poorer than they are might be getting something for nothing.

The questions I'd like to see progressives ask more of the chumps are, "Even if you do become rich, do you want to have to live behind razor wire? do you want to have to hire body guards? Do you want to step over crippled beggars every time you go into the street? Do you want to worry about your children catching cholera or typhoid, because "small government" means no public health department? Do you want to always worry that you might be poisoned or injured by unsafe food, medicine or other products -- like exploding tires, or poison Vioxx and other unsafe American-made pharmaceuticals? Do you want to see your opportunities limited to the view you can see outyour window, to the wall that surrounds your compound, because "small" government has created an environment of mistrust and fear? An environment where "small government" has stifled investment and willingness of teh business community to take risk?

The chumps that reflexivley support the conservative agenda hate the thought that the single mother down the street is getting a welfare check while sitting home and watching Oprah, or that a former co-worker is getting a disability check, when he just saw him at the car wash the other day, hosing down his new pick-up truck. This rankles the chump 10 times more than the reality that half of every tax dollar he spends is giving a military subcontractor -- who he will never see -- a lavish lifestyle, complete with million dollar mansion, free cruises and golf resort vacations, etc.

Now tell me I'm wrong! :-)

Joe,

I have heard Professor Lakoff speak many times and have read a number of his books and articles. I have the deepest respect for many of his theories and his ability to articulate these important concepts to the Progressive audience - and I agree with a majority of his ideas.

That said, I think there is a flaw in his theory and what makes it difficult to root out is that it lives in his very basic theory itself(as set in in Moral Politics)of what makes a person a Progressive and what makes up the Progressive world view. He posits that people are Progressives because we have a positive vision of human nature and that our motives for being progressives are basically unselfish. Lakoff claims that the Conservative World View is that "the world is a scary and dangerous place" and their moral politics logically follows from there. Conversely, he believes that Progressives believe that human nature and the world we live in is basically good the rest of our ideas flow from this.

Like Jesse, I, however, am a Progressive out of purely selfish motives - exactly as outlined by Joe in his posting. Further, I am a Progressive EXACTLY BECAUSE the "world is a scary and dangerous place!! As Jesse outlined in his posting, without protections provided by communities/governments we have the "freedom" to lose our limbs in an industrial accident and have no health care, no disability coverage and the best "freedom" of all - the freedom to watch our spouse and children starve to death, be homeless or go to work at age 10 to support the whole family!! It isn't because I want to help Jesse's family that I am progressive. It is because I a) want to help MY family and b) I don't want to live in a country where I have to see Jesse's 10 year daughter along with hundreds of other "Jesse's daughters" vying for space on the street corner to beg for money or to sell their bodies!! Motivation b) is selfish because there is a psychic cost to living in that kind of brutal culture - and it is not the kind of country I was raised to want to live in.

Frankly, Prof. Lakoff's explanation of the six different types of progressives AND his theories of "bi-conceptualism" honestly do not begin to address this core difference in our concept of what a Progressive is.

For people like Jesse, myself, my husband and a bunch of friends that I have discussed these ideas with - we think that if you start with the premise that some Progressives come to our beliefs BECAUSE the world is a scary and dangerous place and BECAUSE we selfishly want to have a better life for ourselves and our families -then you would come to somewhat different conclusions on how to better frame Progressive ideas that would "speak" to potential progressives who start with our moral premises. This is Jesse's core point - and I agree 100% with him.

If Progressives, like myself are motivated by our real fears about this scary and dangerous world we live in - then Prof. Lakoff is WRONG that Progressives have to avoid activating fear frames. If we are motivated by self-interest, then maybe the frames we use should take that into account.

Lastly, I want to call attention to Jesse's last paragraph - one of the truest things I have ever seen on any blog anywhere - and something I would love to hear you and Prof. Lakoff address. There is a red-blooded anger that I have seen so many times in Conservatives like my own brother and brother-in-law when they talk about about the low-level welfare cheat and the like, that is totally missing from their voice when they talk about a Ken Lay, a Halliburton or other white collar cheating where the amount of money stolen from us (the taxpayer) is 1000 times more than that stolen by the poor welfare cheat.

If Prof. Lakoff could use his brilliant mind to not only explain why this is, but how to frame the above so that the Conservative turns his "righteous" anger towards the Ken Lay instead of the little guy, I believe we would have the basis for winning any debate against the Right Wing. Anger CAN and SHOULD be used by Progressives in framing but the anger needs to be channeled against the real villians.

I was just skimming over an article that will be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday. If you have a Times Select subscription you can read it now at http://select.nytimes.com/preview/2007/04/01/magazine/1154670658081.html?8tpw&;emc=tpw The gist of it is that corporate America is now becoming interested in the idea of universal health care guaranteed by the government. They focus on Steve Burd, CEO of Safeway, who has battled with unions over cuts to employee health benefits in the past. Burd has a personal experience with the problems with the health care system, because his son injured his back and as a result can't obtain insurance coverage.

The argument is that universal health coverage will level the playing field, so that a company like Safeway that provides coverage isn't at a disadvantage against a company like Wal-Mart that doesn't provide coverage. I think I heard that the cost of health benefits adds $1000 to the cost of every car GM makes, which puts it at a disadvantage in the global economy. Could it be that corporate America is waking up to a progressive vision? They seem to see their self-interest tied to the national interest in health care at least.

I realize I am jumping in to the middle of the posts here, but thought I'd make one point. Wendy- you make the point that you are a progressive because the world is a scary place and needs social safety nets, health care etc- that your motivations are selfish. But consider this-- why do you care if everyone else has those safety nets?
Why do you care if everyone has health insurance, why not have an ideology which says you will work harder than everyone else, and deserve more than everyone else and therefore have a better life?

I think you point of view assumes the need to provide fair and equitable coverage to everyone. This is progressive, and in some ways it is an empathetic, non-strict-father point of view. You assume the need to care for others.

Thoughts?

In my experience, Lakoff is right: activating these frames do not help. Although using this tactic is good if you need to persuade a selfish person into doing something that is good for society. But only on specific issues.

The reason why appealing to ideas of justice, fairness, and compassion works is because you are challenging the self-image of the person. Even the most egocentric, selfish humans see themselves as good people.

And it feels good to be good, as Avenue Q has taught us. And there are even studies that show that we get a pleasant rush of good-feeling chemicals in our brain when we are compassionate.

My wife actually knows a person who switched her support for the war after several people pointed out that she couldn't truly be pro-life when the war that we started was bringing the death of Iraqi children. She even became a fierce peace activist.

This is a much better outcome than my experience of persuading people to get against the war because of selfish reasons. Some do denounce the war, but only because it is too expensive, too stupidly ran, or strategically incorrect.

They are no more progressive than when they supported the war. But my wife's friend who they appealed to higher values is.


Once again, appealing to self-interest is good if you need a tactical alliance now, but in my experience it doesn't lead to people becoming progressives.


 

I agree with you in part and there is ample evidence to show that voters for conservative candidates and parties regularly do so against their economic self-interest. As my post from Australia above confirms a conservative government has been consistently returned for 11 years on the strength of xenophobia and other variants of the Strict Father metaphor. This is despite the conservative attack on the institutions that support the social contract.
 
Portions of the electorate are apparently regularly convinced that it is more important to hate single mothers, or asylum seekers than address a threat to labour laws or the minimum wage, or for that matter protect the opportunity to nurture a business against the might of multi-national corporations with disproportionate market control.
  
However, as I understand it ‘self-interest’ is entailed by the Nurturant metaphor. It is couched as personal well-being and directly follows the values of empathy and responsibility. Being responsible for one’s own well-being is part of nurturing social well-being.
 
The example of union advertising that I cite above is instructive on this point. They didn’t talk about protecting collective bargaining or the laws of arbitration. They talked about the impact the laws would have on the ability to nurture a family. This goes to the heart of well-being. They showed that if we don’t act in common against these laws we would lose the opportunity to nurture our families. And, I’d venture, that along side the direct appeal to personal/family well-being there was a metaphoric resonance. That is, if the laws passed it would harm the metaphoric family, Australia.

We need to be careful about how self-interest is framed. Adding a dash of self-interest, especially individual self-interest, isn’t going to work by itself and could risk working against us. For example, the risk of according ‘self-interest’ a higher priority is that it would evoke the Strict Father frame. The Strict Father frame accords a higher priority to ‘self-interest’ within its moral order. This would then work against the aims of Nurturant framing. Further, as ‘Thinking Points’ and ‘Moral Politics’ demonstrates, a progressive candidate that gives priority to ‘self-interest’ frames risks contradicting their Nurturant values and coming across as inauthentic.

Kind regards,

Daniel

I was reading David Brooks, the conservative columnist for the New York Times, today, and it was fascinating to see him talking about the "new paradigm", which he thinks the Republicans have to adopt. Speaking of the growth of Reaganism in the 70's, he says, "People were right to have what Tyler Cowen, in a brilliant essay in Cato Unbound, calls the “liberty vs. power” paradigm burned into their minds — the idea that big government means less personal liberty."

He goes on to say, "But today, many of those old problems have receded or been addressed. Today the big threats to people’s future prospects come from complex, decentralized phenomena: Islamic extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, economic and social segmentation.

Normal, nonideological people are less concerned about the threat to their freedom from an overweening state than from the threats posed by these amorphous yet pervasive phenomena. The “liberty vs. power” paradigm is less germane. It’s been replaced in the public consciousness with a “security leads to freedom” paradigm. People with a secure base are more free to take risks and explore the possibilities of their world.

People with secure health care can switch jobs more easily. People who feel free from terror can live their lives more loosely. People who come from stable homes and pass through engaged schools are free to choose from a wider range of opportunities."

I thought it was interesting that he as a conservative talked of security not just in the strict father sense of protection from external enemies but also in the nurturant family sense of providing a supportive environment, e.g. secure health care and good schools. I'm not suggesting that the Republicans are going to usher in a golden age of community, but perhaps it signals a nascent shift in the terms of the debate.

There are some conservatives that can see the writing on the wall. However hard they have tried to build up Islam as the new communism, it just doesn't work that well because of the lack of an enemy state.

Those who can see how the population is shifting understand that they only have a certain amount of time before ex-conservatives start becoming progressives. So, and this is deliciously ironic, they are trying to steer the conservative movement into a progressive-light to retain political power.


I think that we should encourage David Brook's plan :)

Hi Joe

Thanks for the added comment on metaphysics and framing. I have recently been introduced to George Lakoff's ideas on framing. Nuturing parent= progressive politics. I just finished his books "Whose Freedom?" and "Thinking Points." Alot of worldview issues like theology, and politics came together for me. I now have a renewed interest in metaphysical questions, and appreciated the validation.

I can see that accepting Bush's declaration that we must wage a War on Terror obligated us to behave according to the conventions of war. And once Iraq was associated with this War... Frightening, really, how words and rhetoric can dictate our actions, manipulate us into buying someone's interpretation of a situation.

During World War II, the term "resistance" represented an opposition to Hitler and his aryan viewpoint that didn't focus solely on a military strategy, did it not? The resistance was intellectual, civic, diplomatic, undercover, etc.

After 9/11, if we had mounted a resistance instead of strictly a war, we would have encouraged more diverse solutions to the dangers posed by terrorists...and perhaps we would have kept our European allies as well.