Is the Family frame the best or only one to use?
In reading much about the deep framing of the Nurturing Parent(NP) vs the Strong Father (SF)framing it is easy to paint the strong father into the abusive father, but beyond that, those who believe in the SF see the NP as weak and our story is lost on them.
By contrast the Libertarian/Rand model creates a dichotomy between power in the hands of official government, and the same power in private hands. By this method they have dismantled much of government and put the same power into less accountable hands.
This frame can be broken by pointing out an error in logic that the only difference between official government and "privatized" government is one of transparency and accountability. From this you can build the frame of the "Enterprise" by identifying common goals and needs and analyzing each one for its levels of functionality or dysfunctionality, who benefits, and who is held accountable. From this purely "Enterprise" frame, the concept of the "Commons" is quickly intergrated, and most "liberal" concepts are the natural results.
In the "Family" frame the SF mode is an easy choice for one of a Right Wing Authoritarian (RWA)mindset. Particularly if they see their own family as that, and the NP mode can thus be quite threatening. In the "Enterprise" frame the threat becomes the deceitful leader, who cannot be held accountable, and is taking an undo benefit away from the other members of the "enterprise". This not only produces the "Liberal" result, but it frames it as self interest, and thus seen as preferable by a high RWA. At the same time it offers no honorable refuge that one can say they simply prefer the right wing side of the argument, without looking like a thief.
A further advantage of the "Enterprise" model is that it can be deconstructed in detail, and capable of pointing out errors of thought often made by Liberals as well, making it obvious that putting many goals into a single "enterprise" scatters energy as the goals will ultimately have to compete, meaning that while putting large groups and many goals into a single "enterprise" is easy to conceptualize, it is very much harder to operate efficiently, and more importantly effectively.
None assigned
Not Trick - Understanding
<blockquote>My understanding of what the writer stated leads me to think it is somewhat manipulative to try to "trick" someone into seeing your viewpoint by posing the argument as a strict government vs strict private enterprise dichotomy to "win" the argument. I may have missed the point. </blockquote>
(I think your pitch beaned the second baseman)
The whole point of framing is to allow someone to see what they already know in a new light. The point of my discussion was that there is no difference between Defacto and Dejure government beyond the fact that one is called government officially.
By attacking "official" government as naturally corrupt, and Unofficial Government as naturally efficient, they attempt to make a point that is laughable if stated plainly. Yet they not only "get away with it" but have made that the deep frame in nearly every Republican, and Libertarian talking point.
By clearing up the logical error that underlies so much of what makes a conservative. The conservative's own value system and thought processes force him to arrive at a conclusion that is very different than before the (deliberate?) error was noticed. Far from trickery this is natural growth that the conservative can own, and therefore be much more attached to.
Instead of seeing a mass of individuals in a zero sum Social Darwinistic competition for spoils, they see an array of groups set on a goal, each like a ship, that bad, exploitative, or abusive management will not reach its goal well and the majority on the ship will be shafted in any case. So as individuals seek to make sure the goal and methods are at least not exploitative of him, they work against exploitation of anyone.
This might not seem a huge step to an average Liberal, but as one look deeper you discover that almost every goal you have does not involve just you, and without changing who they are, the conservative has changed completely at a goal level.
By contrast the family model finds ways and people who already agree with it, but threatens those who do not.
IMO, you are making a few mistakes here
- You are making the mistake of thinking that the names we use for the mental models are the same as the models themselves. The important part is knowing how they work in our minds, and how to evoke the worldview we want from the person or persons to whom we are speaking. Progressive morality centers on empathy and responsibility and the goal here is to figure out how to communicate the values of protection, freedom, opportunity, fairness, equality, prosperity, community, etc. that flow naturally from those in a way that will awaken them in others. It's not tricking conservatives into thinking it is in their own self-interest...which leads me to my next point.
2. You are making the mistake of thinking that people always vote in their best self-interest. That just isn't so, and it's pointed out many times in Lakoff's work, and in other works. (What's the Matter with Kansas by Thomas Frank comes to mind.)
3. I had another point, but I really can't remember what it is.
4. This isn't a point about this, this is just my standard disclaimer that all thoughts here are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone else on this site.
Not for general consumption
My understanding is that the SF and NP models are more for a Progressive's understanding of motivators rather than a model to campaign with the general public. I would agree that many natural SF people would see the NP as weaker for whatever reason, and since I have a better understanding of SF people after studying the model, I know I would never directly try to ask them to be more nurturing, they would laugh.
However, if I asked them about their grandma's health, they would go all soft and concerned sounding (which is slipping into a NP mode). Understanding SF types makes you better able to tailor a message for them - which does not mean handing them directly any of the info from Rockridge/Thinking Points. These tools are informing Progressives to strike out on their own.
That was it!
That was my third point that I forgot...thanks, Think :)
General consumption is our strength and their weakness
It appears to me that the Platonic model of the Philosopher kings, aside from being dishonorable and manipulative, and thoroughly debunked as self selection is an automatic disqualifier (as the Neocons have so thoroughly proven).
People vote against their interest, not because they are thoughtless or stupid, but because they are using frames that make them think they are voting absolutely in their own interest.
That is why Conservative leaders haul out the SF frame at every opportunity, and worse try and create conditions that injure children, to create the very Authoritarian Pathology that gives them power. The abusive father description may very well be the proper counter frame, as "protecting the children" is a standard mantra. As you point out suggesting nurturing will have them laughing in your face, but protecting themselves from abuse by others will get a much more positive response.
The Family Frame will help progressives see the damage and causes progressives care about and will go a long way to helping progressives focus on what it is to be a progressive, but Dobson, Ayn Rand and the rest have handed out coherent ways of thinking (if horribly flawed)that cause their adherents to arrive at most winger positions, and feel good about doing so. I feel that the "Enterprise" frame will stop that in its tracks and make it as easy to sell as the "flat Earth" cosmology.
the family models
- As i understand it from reading <i>Elephant</i> and <i>Moral Politics</i>, Lakoff didn't invent the family models, he DISCOVERED them
- it is already how people think, he just illuminated the thought processes.
While it is true that SF types see NP as weak, don't some NP types see SF as ultimately weak, too? You can tell how chauvinistically Strong Father types see the weakness in Nurturant Parents by them continually calling it Nurturant Mother instead of Parent....
Do you guys experience that too? Or is it just the blogs I frequent? Heck, some of the liberals can't get it right!
The family frame is just a frame
The family frame is at the heart of how the left thinks about it point, and how the right thinks about its point, and I get that Rockridge wants to reach out to "biconceptuals" to think in terms that enhance the Nutritive Parent side of the argument. But unless you are attacking the SF model as the abusive father that is a way that damages children, thus moving some SF folk to reconsider, you are mostly preaching to the choir.
A knock-down "Nanny State" Vs "Abusive Drunk" fight could probably be won in the end, but not without damage and causalities. By framing the argument in a way that leaves only one reasonable side, the other side is exposed as the abusive, unreasonable, Gang Of Pirates that they are, and can have no place to stand.
As noted above I believe the "Enterprise" frame does just that, and leads naturally to almost all Progressive positions, and does so by making the false arguments of the Right visible, and thus without power to persuade. The "Family" frame does not do this without assaulting the SF mode as abusive parent.
New! Enterprise model vs nurturant parent
I find the enterprise model to be somewhat convoluted. The fact that a strong parent model advocate might consider a nurturing parent model to be weak is not surprising. This does not mean, however, that you won't appeal to the nurturing side of those who embody both strict parent and nurturing parent modalities, and I think that is the majority of people.
My understanding of what the writer stated leads me to think it is somewhat manipulative to try to "trick" someone into seeing your viewpoint by posing the argument as a strict government vs strict private enterprise dichotomy to "win" the argument. I may have missed the point.
panychocolate