Fri - March 18, 2005

Don't think of an elephant



I went to George Lakoff's talk last night.
He started with Terry Schiavo, and asked Why does the right wing take a side on this?* He then gave a wonderfully lucid talk, which illuminated the message from his books Moral Politics and Don't Think of an Elephant. I understand much more than I did before what the deal is with framing. Framing is not the same as "spin". It is not limited to politics or other message-insinuating, but is a universal aspect of human cognition: frames are the metaphorical contexts that define what "common sense" is. Lakoff's oft-used example of "tax relief" as a right-wing frame is an exceptionally good one. It is not simply the case that if a person hears the phrase "tax relief", they will think to themselves, "Yes, tax cuts are like relief, and Bush is like a hero for proposing it, and the Democrats are villains for opposing it". It goes deeper than this: the word "relief" unconsciously activates a frame that affects how the word "tax" is perceived in the first place. If someone hears "tax relief" often enough, part of their brain will begin to think of taxes as something bad they need relief from. It becomes common sense that taxes are bad. But just so, with the right framing, it can become common sense that taxes are how we support our community, that social security is good and right (it cares for the elderly; one generation supports the generation that raised it..), and so on. Framing is not about tricking people into agreeing with you on your issues, it is about enabling people to understand issues.

Much concrete advice, somewhat lacking in DTOAE, was presented as well. In particular, he made a convincing argument that right- or center- leaning maneuvers on the part of the democratic party are misguided and detrimental. Shifting right hurts the party in three ways: by alienating progressives (obviously), undermining integrity (the party effectively is saying "well, that didn't work, let's try something else"..), and most relevantly for Lakoff, and least obviously, by activating the wrong frames in people. It is an important part of Lakoff's thesis, though not emphasized enough, that everyone has the same frames in their brains; they just are not all active. Even the most nurturing progressive types have the "strict father" model in their brain, and it can be activated under the right circumstances, and vice versa. For people who often have both frames active at different times (i.e., swing voters), the degree of exposure to a given frame will be very important in guiding their decisions. The advice seems to be: lead by example.

What really got me, though, was the very end of his talk. He actually got a little choked up when he said E pluribus unum, and how those words still mean something. It was very moving; here was the conclusion of an intellectual talk, but the slight trembling in his voice activated an entirely new frame to see things in; there was palpable feeling that progressivism was not just one side of an arbitrary coin, but something we should believe in, and something everyone will benefit from, no matter what their brain is like. It made me realize, also, that the completely understandable vitriol on lefty-blogs (i.e., people who use the word "rethuglicans") may be detrimental too (should I stop reading the Rude Pundit??)
--In any case that shouldn't be what we do; it isn't us versus them. We're supposed to help everyone. I understand the feelings that give rise to anti-right vitriol, but I think we will go farther toward activating the nurturing frame in people, and hence supporting our cause, if we keep in mind a quote (from Booker T. Washington):
"I will not permit any man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him."


(* --update: the Schiavo case, hopefully soon to be concluded, is simply the abortion controversy from the other end. I think the reason the right wing takes a side is that it is the logical outcome of the absolutism of the strict father model applied to religion. There must be an absolute right and wrong; what makes killing wrong is the presence of a soul, etc. I won't write more about it; for me, it's a private matter for the people involved - which makes the Senate actions all the more disgraceful.)

Posted at 03:46 PM     Read More   |

Wed - September 15, 2004

Redefeat Bush


I attended a meeting of "Re-defeat Bush", at Café de la Paz last night. It's an organization whose activities include calling people in Oregon who are not registered to vote, to try to get them to register in time for the election. Somehow the organization obtained a list of single women between 20 and 45 living in the greater Portland area - in other words, a demographic likely to vote five-to-one against W. It was interesting calling a bunch of random people in Portland, and getting the kind of responses I usually give to people who call me at home (not especially nice ones..). But all the same, I would be very glad to get a call from someone who was willing to go out of their way to help me register to vote. Apathy sucks, doesn't it? You can have all the good intentions in the world, but - (this theme keeps coming up here, doesn't it) - in the end, you have to act. I too have felt the kind of apathy that says, "Sure, I should go vote, but.. meh. What are ya gonna do." And then the rationalization, confabulation, and other means of reducing cognitive dissonance set in. I think it's good to nudge people over that hump.
In 1984, the apathy of the proles assured Big Brother's domination forever. I don't think we're headed that way yet, but it doesn't hurt to stave it off a little...

UPDATE (1/17/05): And now (okay, 2 months ago) ReDefeat Bush has emailed me with the subject "Overturn the Stolen Election". Err, okay.. I suppose cognitive dissonance cuts both ways. I'm not sure about protesting Bush's inauguration either; 4 years ago it made sense, but now it's almost tantamount to protesting democracy itself. I would rather see protests every time a piece of news that shows how terrible this administration is reaches us; but who has the time to protest every day?

Posted at 11:17 PM     Read More   |

©