Thinking Points Discussion: Gut Feelings and Political Choice

...While the intellectual concept of "affective images" is complex and erudite, I wonder if the difference between "global warming" and "climate change" isn't a bit more visceral.

"Global," in this context is a sensory-grounded term that evokes images of the "globe," often in the form of the famous "blue marble" image of Earth from space. And, "warming" is a sensory-grounded term that we can all experience, whether it's changing temperature a room, or a "heart-warming" experience. So, "global warming" is something we can experience directly, as a concept, because we can give it shape and texture and color and feelings directly associated with it.

What Luntz does is change those words into analogs that are devoid of sensory experience: We can experience "weather," but we can't experience "climate." And "change" is a nominalization that is so vague and non-specific that it is virtually meaningless.

My nominalizing sensory-grounded language, those who would defuse the impact of "global warming" into something they can then challenge, because the nominalization "climate" is a term most people can't even define! They think "climate" is a synonym for "weather," which is most definately is not.

My concern is that we make these topics to sophisticated for people to apply to their daily lives, and that make it hard for them to see how they're being manipulated, and hard for them to synthesize new "frames."

As I read DeMasio's wonderful works, I'm constantly struck with how often he's speaking about (and, usually, in) sensory-grounded experience.

Let's make it easier for people to understand and apply, even if it means sacrificing the ego-puffing "precision" that mere mortals often attribute to "scientists" who don't want to get down in the dirt and communicate with real people.

And, your criticism of my choice of works facilitates additional collaboration and communication precisely how?

Tone is a property largely created by the receiver, especially in a text-only medium. One of the enduring handicaps in this medium is that because it is digital it's hard to glean interpretive information from the text. If I write, "What are you doing?" does it mean "What are YOU doing?" or "What are you DOING?" (Pronouce them out loud for fullest effect.) So, in the absence of those interpretive hints, most readers impose their own default interpretation, extracting a personal meaning the author may or may not have intended. I fear that's what's happened in your response to my post. (I've only been building on-line communities for corporations for 15 years, so I'm probably a mere novice in these things; what else will I learn here?)

"Nominalization" is a process (in part) of transforming sensory-grounded language into sensory-free language. It is, I believe, a common term of art in linguistics. For example, "comfortable" is a nominalization: Does "Are you comfortable?" mean mean "emotional comfort" (e.g., "I'm comfortable with your way of dealing with that), or does it mean "how's the temperature in this room?" Face-to-face, our interpretations are facilited by the non-verbal components of the transmission, which are distinctly lacking in ASCII (hence, capitalizations and emoticons :-) ).

As for "ego-puffing," it's a common practice I note in those who observe language largely from an academic perspective. Some people do it, some don't. I read Lakoff, I don't make that observation. I find Damasio very enlightening; he could have used formal language of neurology, which would have made his insights impenetrable to me, no matter how ego-fulfilling they might have been. What I specifically suggested is that we encourage expression of complex concepts in common language. Often, a metaphor conveys more than the language of an academic journal, especially when we're trying to reach a literate, but non-specialized audience.

After all, this discussion of meta-language it intended (I presume) to reshape the linguistic behavior of progressive writers, speakers and leaders. The more sensory-grounded our language, I suspect, the more effective we can be. Sensory-free language encourages listeners/readers to insert their own interpretations; it is the language of hypnosis, of influence, of manipulation. Sensory-grounded languages encourages listeners/readers to tap into their own store of experience to derive meaning; it is the language of precision, of outcome, of motivation. Each has contributing purposes (read any ad: Make sensory-free claims of "better" {than what?}, then a call to action {"buy now, before it's all gone!"}).

I hope my distinctions, albeit it different from yours, enriches the dialog. I will be careful to be more contextually precise to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretations in the future.

In Australia the issue galvanising the public mind is that presented by ‘Work Choices’. This is the Orwellian name given to legislation passed last year by the conservative government attacking one hundred years of progressive development of employee rights in the workplace. Apart from abolishing a raft of benefits and conditions and restricting the opportunity for collective bargaining, the legislation also severely constrains the opportunity for unions to conduct advocacy and representation on behalf of their constituency.

Fortunately for the wellbeing of Australians (now and future) the union movement has cleverly and comprehensively framed the debate around family values. The messages in television advertisements shows instances of family life and security that would be compromised, undermined and lost as a consequence of the new laws. The television advertisements have been complimented by an extensive grassroots campaign in marginal seats based around festivals, bar-b-ques and street stalls, making the messages and, importantly, the people, of the campaign accessible and, crucially, ‘normal’ by their everyday on-the-street presence.

The polls show a consistent and strong swing to the Labor opposition. I believe they will form the next government. Not before, however, a fair tonnage of mud has been slung by the incumbents in all directions. At present, the target of their smear is unions and unionists. As you can expect the vitriol directed towards unionist campaigners builds on a well-established conservative tradition. It is one that frames unions and unionists as mafia-like organisations run by thugs. It is a desperate attempt to associate negative emotions with a progressive organisation.

This time around however the rightwing spin machine has its work cut out for them. This is due to several factors. The first is the pro-active nature of the union campaign. Organisation was underway well before the legislation passed. Work Choices was framed by the union campaign even before it hit the street. The second and most sustaining aspect of the campaign is its grassroots element. The real faces of unions and unionists are out on the pavement, they are normal people with normal families, and normal aspirations for wellbeing, just like everyone else. This makes it difficult for conservatives to style the prototypical unionist as a thug: it doesn’t match with that nice young woman they chatted to on the corner who was giving useful advice.

There may also be a few other things at work on a more metaphorical plane. We are acquainted with the NATION AS FAMILY metaphor. The union framing, which speaks to the adverse impact the laws have on the family, effectively resonates with this metaphor, invoking in the public mind the impression that the laws are a threat to the national wellbeing. Another metaphor at work may be: AN ORGANISATION IS A FORCE. This metaphor incorporates FORCE and BALANCE schemas. It depicts society as composed of competing and complimentary forces, often expressed as ‘interests’. In the Australian case, through the instrument of the Work Choice laws, the business forces are dominant. There is a perception that countervailing forces have been severely constrained. This overwhelming and unconstrained force of business on the one hand and constrained force of unions on the other is perceived as an imbalance. All imbalances must be corrected to prevent irretrievable collapse.

By way of evidence, I sat in on a presentation of in-depth social polling recently. It showed that although, for a number of reasons, union membership has been in steady decline, a body of the public still acknowledge and value the role of unions. This value has sharply increased since the introduction of Work Choices. Clearly, while people may not belong to a union, they do see them as a necessary countervailing force that brings balance to the social realm of competing forces. This metaphor is activated by message frames that emphasise ‘restoring balance’, ‘fairness’ and ‘equal partnership’, or not being ‘lopsided’, ‘out of kilter’ ‘all one way’ and ‘imbalanced’.

Kind regards,

Daniel

Over the last thirty years the Republicans have waged semantic war to make the word “liberal” have a negative meaning. The Democrats followed their usual weak defensive approach rather than mounting a strong counter-campaign. They stopped using the word to describe themselves, and have come up with what they think is a great alternative, “progressive”. Now that “liberal”is a dirty word it won’t take long for the Republicans to point out that the “liberal” Democrats are hiding behind “progressive”.

Democrats should fight back using a two-pronged approach. First, we should state repeatedly that we are proud to be liberal, which means to have goals of economic and social equality, to support all citizens, not just the wealthy. We should equate liberal with working to improve the lives of ALL the people.

Second, we should attack the present use of “conservative”. Historically, conservatism was a proud position. Conservatives wanted to make sure we kept all of our present benefits. One of the most important parts of being a conservative was fiscal responsibility – everyone should pay their way and we don’t spend what we don’t have.

True conservatives would never drive our country into the crushing debt that this and the prior Republican administrations have. These new Republicans have stolen the word “conservative.” Their schemes have nothing to do with conservative philosophy. They have swindled our future and the future of our children to line their pockets and the pockets of their wealthy friends and corporations.

Occam