Does George Lakoff know something conservatives don't?

[OneBlueSky]

though this is from 1996, it's an interesting exploration of the differences between conservatives and liberals . . . the format is an interview of Lakoff by Howard Alker . . .

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Bulletins/bulletin-fall96/lakoff.html

In his new book, Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don't, Santa Fe Institute Science Board Member George Lakoff traces the political beliefs of both conservatives and liberals to metaphors for the ideal family. Not surprisingly, conservatives and liberals have different versions of that ideal family. For conservatives, political metaphors evolve from a strict-father family model; for liberals, a nurturant-parent model. Lakoff claims that our common nation-as-family metaphor projects these opposed family models onto politics. Family-based morality, he argues, can explain why liberal and conservative views cluster together: what one's views on gun control have to do with one's views on environmentalism, social programs, taxes, abortion and so on.

(snip)

ALKER: George, could you summarize some of the key features of the different family-morality models?
LAKOFF: First, for conservatives, the strict-father model takes as a background the assumption that the world is fundamentally dangerous and difficult and that people are fundamentally not good. They have to be made good. It's the father who teaches children right from wrong and assumes there is an absolute right and wrong. He teaches them right from wrong by setting strict rules for their behavior and enforcing them through punishment.

ALKER: And rewards, right?
LAKOFF: Reward and punishment are central to the whole idea. In the newspaper today, Bob Dole was talking about tough love and about how punishing people is part of tough love. That's part of the strict-father model. What the strict-father model attempts to accomplish is this: it is assumed children have to learn self-discipline and self-reliance and respect for authority. Now another important part of this model, in America but not in other countries, has to do with what happens when such children mature. The slogan, "eighteen and out," is common. The mature children are supposed to be off on their own as soon as possible. Good parents don't interfere in their lives. If the nation is the family and the government is the parent, in the strict-family model, the government shouldn't meddle in their lives. When I looked at the liberal model of the family, I found it a very different model. It assumes the main thing a parent has to do is care for and care about his child. It is through being cared for and cared about that children become responsible, self-disciplined and self-reliant. The purpose is to make children become nurturers, too. Obedience for children comes out of love and respect for parents, not out of fear of punishment. Instead of punishment, you have restitution.

(snip)

ALKER: The grounds for these different positions -- is there a scientific basis for them?
LAKOFF: How can you choose between these moralities? That's something I had to ask myself once I found them. Was there a reason why I believed what I believed? Was there any empirical way to go about deciding between these moral positions? The answer I found was, yes, there was. Since they're family-based models, you look at the research on the family to find out what studies have been done on how family structures affect the development of children. People who have done work in different, unrelated traditions of research have all come to the same conclusion. Namely, the strict-father model is dysfunctional. It turns out even if you start with a strict-father model's criteria of what a child should be, the facts about child rearing show the model gives the opposite results. In the strict-father model, you want your children to be socialized. Well, the strict-father model produces less socialized children than nurturing parents. Similarly, the strict-father model wants the children to be self-disciplined so they can resist temptations. It turns out it doesn't make them resist temptations any better than anyone else. The strict father wants children to have a strong conscience. And children of strict fathers have a less strong conscience. And so on, with all the other desiderata.

- much more . . .

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Bulletins/bulletin-fall96/lakoff.html

[OneBlueSky]

1. kick . . . interesting article here, folks . . . n/t

.