Two Slaps for George Lakoff

[dsnail]

Two Slaps for George Lakoff
by Doug Ireland
May 26, 2005

George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant unfortunately is a best-seller among Democratic progressives seeking a way out of their post-election doldrums (the caption for the illustration at left is "Crying Donkey".) Frankly, Lakoff's New Age-y psycholinguistics are an illusory substitute for real politics that leave me cold, and many of the reasons why can be found in two new articles that offer sound critiques of him. Longtime author-activist Frances Moore Lappé has penned "Time for Progressives to Grow Up: Beyond Lakoff’s strict father vs. nurturant parent, a strong community manifesto," which the Guerilla News Network has posted and Utne Reader Web Watch features as this week's lead choice. She argues that, "rather than reacting to 'strict father' frame by searching for a better use of a 'nurturing parent' frame, let’s reframe the entire conversation to one that begins with a definition of citizens as responsible grown-ups, not helpless children. In this progressive moral vision we strive to live in strong communities—safer and more viable than ones that rely on a strict father, who on deeper examination may turn out to be only a stubborn loner, a bully bringing on the very threats from which he claims to protect us?"
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/05/two_slaps_at_ge.html

[Larkspur]

1. Lappé also congratualated Lakoff for promoting the reframing tactic

Ireland obviously missed that part --
Let’s salute George Lakoff and his colleagues for rallying progressives to frame our “issues” in a compelling moral vision. But rather than reacting to the “strict father” frame by searching for a better use of a “nurturing parent” frame, let’s reframe the entire conversation to one that begins with a definition of citizens as responsible grown-ups, not helpless children.

But Lappé also warned progressives not to just rely on re-framing. Framing is just one tactic we need to use.

I do agree with Lappé's critique of Lakoff's "Strict Father" vs "Nurturing Parent.' I prefer Riane Eisler's Dominating paradigm vs Partnership paradigm, but Lappé's suggestion of framing progresssives as a "strong community" or of mutuality is also good. However, I didn't see Lappé's critique of this as a "slap" on Lakoff, but as a way to improve it.

[dsnail]

2. Hyperbole and Links?

I agree Lappe wasn't exactly "slapping" Lakoff, and that Ireland is being a bit hyperbolic here. Any net links for the Eisler paradigm you mentioned?

Thanks!

[Larkspur]

4. Here's Eisler's web site -- The Partnership Way

http://www.partnershipway.org/

The paradigm is explained more fully in her books, specifically The Partnership Way http://www.partnershipway.org/html/subpages/partnership.htm

There are also more books listed under her bookstore web page http://www.partnershipway.org/html/bookstore.htm

[dsnail]

5. Thanks!

Thanks a bunch, Larkspur, it's much appreciated!

[WhiteTara]

8. welcome to DU dsnail

:hi:

[DinahMoeHum]

3. CommonDreams has Lappe's essay out. . .

Link:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0526-28.htm

(snip)
...the frame Lakoff identifies with progressives – “nurturant parent” – itself needs critical thought.

Nurturant parent – what could be worse for progressives? They’re already stereotyped as coddlers of the lazy poor; dubbed “bleeding hearts” who refuse to require people to take responsibility for themselves. A nurturant parent framing may confirm the caricature. Lakoff is careful to distinguish his parent model from “mother,” but I fear it is too easily received as a soft mother alternative to strict father.

The question few seem to be asking is: Are “strict father” (Right) versus “nurturant parent” (Left) our only choices, or can we move beyond the nuclear family metaphors?

If the Left is indeed stuck with nuclear-family metaphors, they’re seriously out of luck; in scary times like these “strong father” will win out over what is seen as “soft mother” every time. Thankfully, the narrow, Western psychoanalytic, nuclear-family frame itself is becoming dated. Maybe we’re entering a new stage that has much in common with eras before the invention of the nuclear family. Maybe, in many respects, we’re moving beyond hierarchy, which any parent-centered frame necessarily must be. Big shifts are underway:
(snip)


much much more, of course...


:think:

[getmeouttahere]

6. I think the last sentence makes Lakoff's point....

at least in my view.

[aneerkoinos]

7. New Age-y psycholinguistics???

This whole discussion is very queer.

"Framing" seen as merely a tactical political weapon is ... whatto say ... fucking petty and stupid and anti-wisdom and anti-decent.

Lakoff is a brilliant linguist and semanticist, and I'll take any day "New Age-y psycholinguistics" (as in real understanding and wisdom) over Old Age-y Whining and Scared Linguistic Fundamentalism of Either-Orism.

Please, wipe your snotty nose, go do philosophy & linguistics 101 and then come back to discuss adult things in charmingly childish ways. Like, try reading "Women, Fire and Dangerous Things" with investing some though in the process, instead of repeating the latest idiot pundit.

[geckosfeet]

9. Mr.Irelands analysis is interesting,,, I would argue against slapping

Mr.Lakoff though.

The post contains some strikingly astute assimilations of Lakoffs use of the framing mechanism. Good! Lakoffs primary postulate of course, is that our ability to change the political extremism we are witnessing hinges on our ability to re-frame our political arguments and positions.

I share the sense that Lakoffs strict-father and nurturing-parent models were at times a bit fuzzy. They almost seemed like afterthoughts. Not deeply articulated metaphors developed to put an understandable face on the framing mechanism. The metaphors succeeded at putting on that face but were ultimately a bit unsatisfying.

I would however, like to reflect a bit further on one generality Lakoff put forth in his book. This regards wedge issues and the rights effective use use of them.

Progressives come to the debate from many different directions. The ability to respect and nurture each others individual contributions is not a fuzzy new age-y concept. It is an essential part of the progressive frame and ultimately leads to, and belongs to, the old concept of "party planks".

The right has been at this for 20 or more years. They have an organized agenda and understand what their base will respond to. They have built grassroots organizations, think tanks and well funded news organizations to promote their agendas. To dismiss the strict father model neglects the effectiveness and productivity of the achievements of the right. Right now, they RULE us. The right has vilified progressives and progressive thought. Let us recognize this aspect of their bullying nature and counter it.