George Lakoff and the Strict Parent
Politics
| June 25, 2006
| Tim
I've long noted the paradox that the systems which envision people as basicly "good" -- e.g., Marxism/Communism, Nazism, more radical forms of Islam, and some Christian-flavored cults -- have produced a lot of evil and suffering in the world. And the philosophical/religious systems founded on a low moral view of humans -- Christianity, Judaism, capitalism, the US Constitution -- have tended to offer restraints for human evil, or ways of channeling it into productive behavior -- and thus produced many good things. (Though certainly not perfectly so -- nothing's perfect when humans are involved. Just demonstrably more so.)
An interview with George Lakoff reminds me of why I consider "progressivism", at least as he defines it, to reside in the former category. Our worldview is a "mental map" of how we will proceed, and when we make major mistakes -- like thinking humans don't incline toward evil, when, in fact, they do -- people, sometimes millions of them, get hurt. Or even killed.
Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it ["progressivism"] assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.
As I discuss here, Lakoff puts a tremendous emphasis on "framing" an issue. In contrast, while I acknowlege "frames" are rhetorically important in the short run, in the long run (and sometimes short run), truth wins over "framing", or other merely clever forms of rhetoric.
So what is the truth here? Are humans wonderful, and getting better all the time, or are humans inclined towards evil, such that they need restraint? As evidence of my position, I'd offer 100 million dead in the twentieth century, murdered by political systems preaching the same "man-is-good" dogma Lakoff is pushing here. What response has Lakoff to that?
My little meta-discussion here demonstrates the weakness of Lakoff's "framing" tactics: it works well in an echo chamber, but I don't think his argument would work well in a debate if someone offered the challenge I'm giving here. (But perhaps "framing" includes things like preventing debates where such inconvient counterarguments might be raised publicly? Inevitably, I suspect that's where this kind of meme/tactic leads.)
Lakoff continues...
The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline — physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.
So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones — those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant — and those who are on the way...
Here, Lakoff offers a straw-man representation of conservative political philosophy. (Is "framing" merely a way of generating straw-men to debate? It would seem so...)
Conservatives argue that "parent" -- strict or no -- is altogether the wrong image for the state. Look at the term "nanny state", which conservatives employ to show disdain for government acting in a parental role, ordering us around for our own good. But Lakoff "frames" the issue this way, so that you are caught in a false dichotomy: Either the nation must be a "strict" parent, or a "nurturing" parent. Lakoff skips the third option -- and the bona-fide view of conservatives -- that the state should not be a parent at all. (Perhaps it's only a fence.)
And, even so, why must we choose between "strict" and "nurturing" images of the parent? Is Lakoff saying if you truly cared for your child, you would never discipline him or her? It would seem so -- but the fallacy is being "smuggled in" by language he chooses. (I guess that's more "framing" in action.) Simply pointing out the underlying assumption is probably enough to discredit the argument, at least before an American audience. (Outside of Boulder, Colorado, that is.)
(It's these endless "When did you stop beating your wife?" types of arguments which so drive me up the wall. And isn't the re-branding of "liberalism" as "progressivism" -- without really altering anything -- just another attempt at "re-framing" things? It's as if the old product got a bad reputation, so they had to come up with another brand name.)
So why this disconnect, with the liberal wanting a soft, non-judgemental, "nurturing" and certainly non-disciplining parent, and conservatives voters (though apparently not most of their representatives) wanting no such role from the state?
Anybody's who's been paying attention to the US political scene has probably noticed that most people who read the bible in a theologically conservative way don't end up being "progressives", and that very few "progressives" have a high view of the content of the bible. (There exceptions of course, but this is indeed the general trend.)
One reason for this disconnect, I feel, is because the bible, if followed as a guide, tends to teach the view that God is our father. And when you think of your spiritual provider, caretaker, and guardian ("Father") as being "in heaven", you won't be as tempted to create a god-like parent -- dispensing perfect, ultimate justice and providing for our daily bread -- here on earth.
In this view, the bible "innoculates" those who take it seriously against the progressive urge to see government as a cosmic parent, which, I think, explains some part of the political/religious demographics we see today.
Lakoff says it is conservatives who believe the world is dangerous. Well, we do notice people die, by the millions, in various unnecessary and unpleasant ways, and believe we need to try to work to stop that. Is that all he's referring to? Do "progressives" deny that? I often wonder why the ones I know seem so unmoved by this: I'll mention millions dead due to this or that policy, and it gets a yawn. Communism? Ach, it's Joseph McCarthy who was the real threat. Terrorism? Hey, Bush is just scaring you. And he's the "real" terrorist! Growing illiteracy and the failure of schools? People who raise that spectre out are anti-school, anti-children, or anti-black racists. (Like that Bill Cosby guy.) Appalling crime rate? Bringing that up is another racist political scare tactic. (Never mind that most victims are minorities.)
But yet, on the microscopic scale, it's seem to me that it is liberal policies which attempt to prevent even the smallest pain: Prisons must not be uncomfortable. Competitive sports must be avoided, so children won't be exposed to the humiliation of losing a game. Immigrants and their children must not be put through the (admitted) difficulty of learning the local language. A possible one-degree change in global temperature -- though we've lived through such events in the past -- is an unimaginable horror. Every hurt must be monetarily compensated by someone with deep pockets. And even Lakoff himself speaks ominously about the possibility of "painful punishments." (Are there any other kind?)
It's a bit like the old saying: A million dead is a statistic, a single death -- now that's a tragedy. It often appears the liberal political platform is more concerned with avoiding inconvenience and hurt feelings than preventing crime against innocent people, terrorism, and genocide.
Deconstructing Lakoff would be more fun if it weren't accompanied by the sinking knowledge that Lakoff a popular author and top Democratic strategist -- thus his mistakes and fallacies will be absorbed by millions, with much damage -- and that my pathetic blog has a mere two hundred hits a day, mostly people Googling the old stuff.
My comforts?
Perhaps there is another, much more capable and clear conservative voice offering the same view I'm arguing here.
Perhaps Lakoff's errors will cancel: though he promulgates a historically-proven harmful view of humanity as needing little restraint, prehaps the same muddled thinking also makes his "frames" easily to eviscerate by an opponent with sound thinking, good facts, and some basic training or intuition about logic.
Or perhaps Lakoff is just another flash in the pan. (But can we underestimate the "memetic" damage of a million people absorbing advice which seems to boil down to: "Spin. Lie. Employ straw men. The state is your parent."?) Perhaps the fact that Kerry lost the election discredits this kind of strategy.
But, sadly, there are those who imagine Kerry carried the day -- thus the fault lies with those evil, scheming Republicans, not Kerry's personality, strategies, stances, and messages -- including Lakoff-framed ones.
I suspect Lakoff will indeed be a flash in the pan. He seems to be getting the attention he is simply because Democrats want to know why they keep failing, and "you need better rhetoric" is easier to accept (and act according to) than "you're out of ideas and out of step with the American public."
My first exposure to Lakoff was his book Metaphors We Live By. This was a fascinating read that was more pure philosophy/linguistics than politics. I think anyone (political conservative or political liberal) would like it. Don't Think of an Elephant (a really fun, quick read--probably quicker than the reviews you are reading) is a political application of his first work.
One example that I'm sure you've heard is the frame that is invoked by the words "tax relief." This phrase is so much a part of our thoughts that it doesn't seem odd at all. When "taxes" are paired with "relief," though, it suggests that taxes are bad. They are like oppressive slave-owners and the "good guy" is the person that relieves us from them.
But are taxes really something that we should be relieved from? It's easy to think so. I need all the money I can get. But then I think about what those taxes buy me. I get to drive of freeways that I didn't make, have the use of police officers and firefighters if I need them, have a military that will fight for my freedoms, have a court system that will protect my rights, etc. Taxes aren't evil, they are my part in passing on this legacy that others, with their tax dollars, have left for me.
But what about progressive taxation? A small minority of people are paying the majority of taxes just because they have succeeded. Is this fair?
Well, when I drive on the freeway, it's just me. A wealthy person usually has employees that use the freeway to get to work and trucks that ship products to his or her businesses. They use the freeways more than me. A wealthy person has more to loss and has more need for police officers. When a criminal drives by my house, I doubt they think, "What a score that would be!" They do so when they see a wealthier person's home.
Progressive taxation makes sense to me because wealthier persons make more use of the infrastructure than poorer people.
The words "tax relief" invoke a very negative picture of taxation. It ignores its positive character. It ignores the fact that when we pay taxes, we are passing along a legacy that was passed along to us.
This is what Lakoff warns against in his books (which it sounds as if you have never read). While I don't go with him everywhere he wants me to, I think he is definitely on to something. He also makes a convincing case that this is an intentional strategy that conservatives have been using for over twenty years.
I think you should pick up his Metaphors . . . book. It's the theory without the political application, and I doubt there would be much you would disagree with (other than the fact that he overstates the importance of the book).
A few things;
First, I think what you mention here, progressives incorrectly identifying evil and using ineffective means to fight it because of a mistaken view of human nature, is one of my biggest disagreements with that philosophy. Stanley Kubrik did a lot of films to the tune of your expressed view, and I think they got the critical acclaim they did largely because their message was misunderstood. In Dr. Strangelove, for example, people are shown as basically evil with the 'progressives' being totally ineffective at curbing this. But the film became a cult classic in part because it was seen as against the excesses of the cold war. The same goes for "A Clockwork Orange."
And isn't the re-branding of "liberalism" as "progressivism" -- without really altering anything -- just another attempt at "re-framing" things?
Classic liberalism is a specific philosophy and generally considered to be right leaning and anti-authoritarian (close to libertarianism.) Progressivism is a little more specific and thus more useful a term. You couldn't be sure exactly what I meant if I said that someone got a 'liberal education.'
I often wonder why the ones I know seem so unmoved by this: I'll mention millions dead due to this or that policy, and it gets a yawn. Communism? Ach, it's Joseph McCarthy who was the real threat.
Because every polititian in this country who wanted the slightest increase in government spending seems to have been derided by someone as a 'communist.'
There have been 50 years of crying wolf through mislabeling. And eventually, people just tune things out.
Also, there were people killed in supposedly anti-communist actions. Just look at how the US supported the Alcatel in El Salvador and you see what I mean.
The true threat that the USSR represented notwithstanding, and not knowing the specific details of your conversations, I'd say that the 'red scare' was abused and people react to that abuse in different ways.
A few things;
First, I think what you mention here, progressives incorrectly identifying evil and using ineffective means to fight it because of a mistaken view of human nature, is one of my biggest disagreements with that philosophy. Stanley Kubrik did a lot of films to the tune of your expressed view, and I think they got the critical acclaim they did largely because their message was misunderstood. In Dr. Strangelove, for example, people are shown as basically evil with the 'progressives' being totally ineffective at curbing this. But the film became a cult classic in part because it was seen as against the excesses of the cold war. The same goes for "A Clockwork Orange."
And isn't the re-branding of "liberalism" as "progressivism" -- without really altering anything -- just another attempt at "re-framing" things?
Classic liberalism is a specific philosophy and generally considered to be right leaning and anti-authoritarian (close to libertarianism.) Progressivism is a little more specific and thus more useful a term. You couldn't be sure exactly what I meant if I said that someone got a 'liberal education.'
I often wonder why the ones I know seem so unmoved by this: I'll mention millions dead due to this or that policy, and it gets a yawn. Communism? Ach, it's Joseph McCarthy who was the real threat.
Because every polititian in this country who wanted the slightest increase in government spending seems to have been derided by someone as a 'communist.'
There have been 50 years of crying wolf through mislabeling. And eventually, people just tune things out.
Also, there were people killed in supposedly anti-communist actions. Just look at how the US supported the Alcatel in El Salvador and you see what I mean.
The true threat that the USSR represented notwithstanding, and not knowing the specific details of your conversations, I'd say that the 'red scare' was abused and people react to that abuse in different ways.
Hi, The "Red Scare" was actually a threat. You are probably not old enough to know this but the Rosenbergs were quite properly executed for espionage. Stalin actually killed thousands of Polish POWS in Katyn Forest and mudered millions more in the Ukraine and elsewhere. Between Hitler and Stalin, there is little to choose. Both were collectivists.
Let's take a look at one of the last Stalinist states left on earth, aside from Myanmar. (Even Cuba has relaxed a little but not much.) North Korea shows the actual morality of Stalin. It consists of , "Give us food and products or we will hurt you." That is the same morality as used by Al Capone and other thugs.
Last time the N. Koreans shot off missiles, the Clinton Administration went on a "Peace Offensive" and committed donations of many tons of food and worked with Sotuh Korea, (which is quite rationally afraid of its northern brethren) to give the North Korean regime what it needed. Moral of the story- Threats work.
Kim Jong Il has learned that thuggish behavior is rewarded. The behavior that is rewarded is the behavior one will receive. Until such time as such behavior is unprofitable, Kim Jong Il will continue it. Human behavior is quite simple really. He will make bigger missiles and bigger bombs and get more money and food for a country that has intelligent people and resources sufficient to make it as wealthy as its neighbor to the south. The man is a thug as was Stalin.
You probably do not recall the 1956 uprising in Hungary or the 1968 uprising in Czechoslovakia. Both were the result of collectivist systems that failed. The collapse of the Soviet Union was the experession of the same thing but repercussions are still being felt. China calls itself Communist but is basically fitting the definition of a fascist state in which private enterprise is permitted as long as it coincides with government policy. Actually, not that different from US behavior, come to think of it.
I consider myself a liberal in the same sense as Washington and Hamilton and Hancock. Statists are not liberals but Conservatives in the sense of Stalin and Mao.
Alan - I'm not saying "Communism was never a threat." I'm saying fear of that threat was misused (and is misused) to lead people to attack things that do not represent Communist philosophy.
Democratic socialsm, as inefficient as it might be, is generally not murderous towards its citizens. It is sheer dishonesty to lump that political philosophy in with Stalinism.
I know who the Rosenbergs were. True, I'm not old enough to have read the news reports as they came off the presses, but I'm not historically illiterate either.
Democratic Socialism and Communism may not be the exact same thing, but they both lead to the same place, one is just not as far along the path as the other.
As for Lakoff, he seems to me like the anti-Coulter. He seems, from the quotes you've provided, to be a rather tame author who nevertheless doesn't like to rely to heavily on "facts" and "the truth" when he write. Ann Coulter is just the opposite, rude, inflamatory, sometimes down right insulting, but despite that what she usually says is factual and true despite the way she "frames" it. If anyone saw her on Leno, you'll know what I mean. Sitting down in front of an audience full of New Yorkers and most likely 80% or better liberal, she nevertheless got round after round of applause because she was, in fact, truthful, honest, and factual. And all this while funny but dishonest liberal schill George Carlin is sitting right next to her not saying a word. Priceless.
Democratic Socialism and Communism may not be the exact same thing, but they both lead to the same place, one is just not as far along the path as the other.
I'm sorry, but this is exactly the type of crying wolf that I was refering to. Thanks for the demonstratoin of why so many people are apt to think that dangerous ideologies like Communism are warm and fuzzy, with some folks pointing to places like Sweeden and saying "it's essentially the same thing as Stalinism, just a little less so."
Your assertion, it seems, is that Sweeden is just a generation away from a massive internal bloodbath? That's usually what Stalin is hated most for. It won't happen, though, and you don't have a shred of evidence to support the claim that it will.
I should qualify that; You can't prove that such a moral catastrophe is more likely in Sweeden than in a country like the US.
There is no "crying wolf" element present, only logic. Do you deny the fact that Socialism and Communism are closely related idealogies? The simple fact is, if I would have said in 1917 that Communism could/would lead to the slaughter of millions, you could have said the same thing. "There is no proof, there is no evidence of such a thing." Then you would have been right. There would have been no tangible evidence, but you could have still made that prediction based simply on the merits of the idealogy itself. Can you honestly tell me that back in the 1930's one couldn't read Mien Kampf, look at Hitler and say with all honesty "That's a potenial genocidal maniac if I ever saw one." The same thing applied to Communism, and the same thing applies to Democratic Socialism, you don't have to have video of the government sponsored slaughter of its population to see that, the way the idealogy is headed, its perfectly reasonable to say that it could indeed wind up as the Communism of the 21st Century.
You also talk about evidence. Tell me, do serial killers not usually follow similar patterns? Is it not possible to extrapolate that certain people are more likely to become criminals than others simply based on similar patterns? Obviously it is, since law enforcement does it all the time. The evidence that you suggest I do not have is the pattern. We've already seen what these type of idealogies can and often do lead to, they lead to 100 million dead in the last 100 years, they lead to nearly complete govenment control of all aspects of civilian life, and they lead to repressed liberties. The pattern itself is the evidence. The reason you lock child molestors up for a long time is because their condition cannot be cured, they have a very large chance of re-offending, so to protect the children, you lock them up and throw away the key. Leftist idealogies follow the same basic philosophies, and these philosophies are the kind that promote and lead to totalitarian governments, therefore, I do not trust these forms of government, plain and simple. My evidence is the past, the ancestors of modern leftism which have proven themselves to be very, very dangerous.
You bring up the strawman of Sweden. I never pointed out any specific country, nore would I, lest I make the same basic mistake that Marx himself made about Communism, predicting the occurance of events in one country or kind of culture (Communist revolution in industrial nations) and have the complete opposite happen (Communist revolution in a largely agrarian, monarchily society). I don't make predictions, all I do is examine the merits of the idealogy, look at past idealogy that resemble it, and come to the conclusion that they are so closely related that one could easily follow the same path to the same destination as the other.
Do you deny the fact that Socialism and Communism are closely related idealogies?
Yes, emphatically. That's my whole point. I know Marx used the terms interchangably, but in modern times they refer to very different socieites. Socialism is democratic and recognizes individual rights. Communism does not. Both have a long track record on which they can be judged. Communism's record includes massive slaughter and human rights abuses. Socialism's does not. (not in great excess of the abuses seen in more capitalistic societies, anyways.) If two ideologies have significantly different track records, it follows that they're significantly different.
Tell me, do serial killers not usually follow similar patterns?
You don't convict a person based on their modus operandi. You convict a person based on evidence. A modus operandi may be used to track down a serial killer. However if you 'act like a serial killer' but don't break any laws, there's no legal grounds to convict you of murder. But your analogy still doesn't hold. Socialism has a different MO, namely that it honors democracy and respects human rights. And it often has a (somewhat constrained) free market as well.
We've already seen what these type of idealogies can and often do lead to, they lead to 100 million dead in the last 100 years
You're doing the bait and switch again. Communists killed so and so many, therefore socialism is murderous. However this misses the fundamental sticking point in our debate, that democratic socialism is a different ideology than communism and should be evaluated separately from it. Since you haven't proved to me that socialism and communism are identical, to me this is a strawman argument.
The murders you refer to all happened in non-democratic countries, am I right? Do you have any counterexamples where democratic socialist countries fell to massive bloodshed? The prerequisite for these massive deaths is the abolition of democracy and individual rights. Socialist democracies maintain democracy and individual rights.
You bring up the strawman of Sweden.
It's not a strawman, it's a totally legitimate example of a socialist country. Are you trying to say that Sweden is not an example of a socialist country? Why is Sweden a strawman? Please explain.
lest I make the same basic mistake that Marx himself made about Communism, predicting the occurance of events in one country or kind of culture (Communist revolution in industrial nations) and have the complete opposite happen
In other words, you don't want to make any testable predictions because you're afraid they'll be shown wrong. But you are making predictions. Most of the communist revolutions were not preceeded by socialist governments. That argues against your assertion that socialism is some kind of slippery slope to communism. Even in Nazi Germany, the democratic socialists were an opposition party to the Nazis. In every single case of genocide you've brought up so far, democratic socialists OPPOSED the genocide.
Marx was wrong about the type of society which would fall to communism. But he did the right thing in making a prediction about it. If you can't make a testable prediction about the types of human rights violations a particular society will commit (on average), then you simply don't have an argument in regards to the likelihood of a society committing genocide.
Regarding Marx; he made his predictions about the types of society which would become communist and they were proved wrong. They were proved wrong so consistantly, in fact, that we can revise his predictions in light of the new evidence.
I'm not saying "socialism is the best way to go" nor am I saying "socialism is a rotten way to go." I'm saying this; socialism is a distinctly different ideology than communism with distinctly different outcomes and history has proven this. Historical evidence supports that socialist societies are not on a slippery slope to becoming communist socieites (Using the modern definitions of socialist and communist.)
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« It's the Facts, Stupid |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Hatin' on Ann Coulter »
|
I suspect Lakoff will indeed be a flash in the pan. He seems to be getting the attention he is simply because Democrats want to know why they keep failing, and "you need better rhetoric" is easier to accept (and act according to) than "you're out of ideas and out of step with the American public."
Posted by: Varenius on June 26, 2006 01:02 PM