Digby has the right idea about FRAMING, and on why Lackoff's frames suck

[DalvaThree]

I pieced this together from two different posts of his. But I think he has the right idea. Note: Lackoff has the right idea (no doubt), but his many of his ideas for re-frames are DOA.

"Along with Mark Schmitt, I'm not a big fan of Lakoff's new book. As I've written many times, I think his analysis of the art and science of framing is right on the money, but I think his actual frames are just terrible. He's an idea man, not a political strategist. I'll repeat what I've said before. The mere fact that he frames the Democrats as 'nurturant parents (mommies)' disqualifies him from political action. That frame is exactly what's killing us. It may be sexism or it may just be the times in which we live, but we should drop it like a hot potato."

snip

"In response to my post on framing below, reader Sara pointed me to Eliot Spitzer's speech at the National Press Club yesterday for a great example of re-framing the Democratic argument, and it is a really good one.
I urge you to listen to the whole thing because Spitzer is such a great example of the 'fighting liberal' we need more of. He points out that the rules of integrity that we all agree and understand must be enforced to keep the system running efficiently can only be done by government. Business cannot be relied upon to self-regulate because those who reject the practices of their competitors is almost always at a disadvantage. It's a race to the bottom in which each enterprise excuses its behavior by saying it is not quite as bad as the other guy.

(I was struck at how this frames the issue of 'the market' in terms that recognize Democrats as the 'enforcers of the rules' while casting the Republican business elite as the out of control party boys who can't be relied upon to police their own behavior. As I was listening I had a picture of a kid saying that they'd love to join in the binge drinking and drag racing fun, but their father is a tough cop and they'd better not. Strict father gives the kids a way to avoid peer pressure.)"

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com /

I think it's also important to realize that sometimes we need to reframe and sometimes we have to take back the words. For example, Lackoff says to reframe tort reform by calling trial lawyers 'public interest lawyers.' I think that is a crappy nanny-state type of frame. Instead we just need to take back the word trial - which is a great process that was set up by our founders whereby ordinary citizens make important decisions of fact in legal cases. A trial is a FUNDAMENTALLY AMERICAN AND DEMOCRATIC instituion. See that's how it's done.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Hmmmm... looks like Lakoff's doing something right...

...if he's inspiring hit pieces.

NGU.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. I don't think Digby is really hitting Lakoff..he fundamentally agrees

with Lakoff about the SOURCE of the problem..he differs on the solution

[ClassWarrior]

5. And what are "Digby's" credentials?

Isn't he the dog on some sitcom?

NGU.

[robbedvoter]

15. No dear. An extremely respected blogger over the past 4 years

Sorry if your idol has been somewhat diverged from, but Digby's credentials established themselves via the force of his ideas. And yeah, the mommy party will be the party that gets stuck in divorce by the daddy party appointed judges - condemned to poverty and humiliation.

[ClassWarrior]

21. Hmmm... blogger... PhD... blogger... PhD...

Ohhhhh. My bad...

Do you mean "extremely respected" as in Walt's post #6?...

<laughing and shaking my head>

NGU.

[Just Me]

37. I believe we should be open to "brain-storming" by a variety,...

,...of participants. This fellow has something to contribute, too. We all do.

Btw, did you happen to read "What Are We Fighting For?" by Chaudhry? If not, it's a www.alternet.org/story/21099
The author interviews Naomi Klein whose credentials may earn your respect and meet your high standards.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Excellent point...

I cringed when I read Lakoff presenting us as the nurturing parent. I think Digby has a valid point...Lakoff is correct on the issue but does fall short on the response

[tk2kewl]

8. I think there are places for nurturant frames and places for strict father

frames. I don't think we need to cast ourselves into only one of these types. The Spritzer example is a good one. "Fair play" is an important strict father frame that we can combine with nurturant frames like this:

Without environmental regulation, the industries that spend the least on reducing pollution will add more to their bottom line. Rules are critical to ensure a level playing field for industry, and more importantly to ensure a healthy environment for our children.

On edit:

We can have a lot of fun with the "fair play" frame. The "win at any cost" mentality that permeates pro sports (see A-Rod in ALCS) is rampant in the corporate world and has infected our electoral system.

[BurtWorm]

39. Just one point: Lakoff's "nurturant parent" is not a mommy (or a daddy)

Which is key to his point about the differences between conservative and progressive frames. The conservative view of family has a strict male at the head. The progressive view has a nurturant parent or parents, which can be either male or female. The point is the style of parenting (authoritarian vs. educatory), not the gender of the parent.

[ClassWarrior]

4. And if you're going to criticize someone's words, get the words right.

It's not "public interest lawyers." It's public protection attorney. So much for the credibility of your argument.

NGU.

[DalvaThree]

7. It's the same basic thing

We need to stick with trial lawyers. We can win back the word 'trial' - and we should, trials are as American as apple pie.

[ClassWarrior]

22. You criticized a specific set of words, not a "basic thing."

<LOL>

NGU.

[Walt Starr]

6. Digby has just proven himself to be an ignorant asshole

The "Nurturing parent" is NOT a Frame. It's a simple fact. It's not something to be played up to in an election, it's a fact to take into account during analysis while formulating frames.

Digby obviously couldn't grab his own ass with both hands.

[DalvaThree]

9. But most of Lackoff's new frames flow from that idea

Lackoff's frames are like wet noodles. They would only make the situation worse.

If you would read both of Digby's posts on this subject you would see how we can take the wind out of the sails of the right wing and re-frame the debate in a way where liberals are fighters and enforcers of long agreed upon rules. In other words, we become the new conservatives, and the right wing becomes a bunch of snakes trying to get rich quick and escape the consequences of their own actions.

[ClassWarrior]

10. It sounds like you haven't even read Lakoff. His name is even misspelled.

You don't seem to even understand what "frame" means.

NGU.

[DalvaThree]

11. I've read his interviews, saw him on Moyers

and saw his ideas for frames.

[Walt Starr]

35. Until you read "Don't Think of an Elephant"

You are unschooled about his ideas.

[Fridays Child]

12. Words have different connotations to different people.

But, whatever words you pick to frame your argument, the media need to stop marketing earworm memes exclusively for the benefit of the Neocon Movement. That'll happen when the two are no longer joined at the hip, economically. How to do the surgery to separate them seems to be the question.

I was thinking, yesterday, about the 24-7 TV news cycle and how it's similar to the constant drone of the "re-education" arms of totalitarian regimes. Granted, we tune in voluntarily. Or do we? Would we be better off, freer, if we had less exposure to the news, such as it is? "Foxworld" seems to be turning Americans into mindless automatons.

And here's a frightening anecdote: My friend's daughter's middle school classmates are incredulous that anyone would ever criticize the president. Worse yet, they believe it is, or should be, illegal.

[tk2kewl]

17. I like your Gore-Dean pic

:thumbsup:

[jbm]

13. I don't like the 'nurturing parent' description either...

I think Lakoff is brilliant, but it doesn't mean his ideas are absolutely perfect. I think it's ok to blend the wisdom of Lakoff with the wisdom of others and utilize any information that works for you. Here's another article you might find useful:


http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/article.php?id=1010

<snip>

Any parent frame fails the test; it is inevitably one-directional, and hierarchical. So let’s bury the family metaphor and search for a more robust frame—one that suggests communities that work for all because they are connected, responsible, compassionate and therefore strong.

When Lakoff expands on his nurturant parent frame, he also notes that “the basic progressive vision is of community – of America as family, a caring responsible family.” He includes “mutual responsibility” and “community-building” as central pieces of an effective progressive framing, suggesting he, too, chaffs within the limits of the nuclear family metaphor. And his examples of progressive reframing are more embedded in a community than a nurturant parent metaphor: such as the progressive rationale for taxes being “membership dues” contributed in order to reap the benefits of a community to replace the Right’s message of taxes as an affliction for which they offer “tax relief.” Here his progressive frame is about mutuality, not nurturing.
<snip>

[ClassWarrior]

20. I'm guessing you're not a parent - because community-building...

...is key in parenting. Ever hear of "it takes a village?" That's what's so robust about parenting as a model (and note that it's a MODEL, simply a shorthand way of putting things in context) - because anyone can relate to both sides of the equation.

NGU.

[jbm]

23. you would be guessing wrong...

I've been a parent for quite some time. As a mom, I don't believe for one second that there is anything weak about the nurturing parent, but as an observer of humanity, I can think of many conservative types who see women as being incompetent fools.

I don't understand why the idea of using a model that steps away from images that might be perceived as weak is evoking such a strong and negative reaction from some. Is there something sacred about the 'nurturing parent' idea that I'm not getting?

[ClassWarrior]

24. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said it was weak.

I think a nurturant parent (not "nurturing parent"), is the best, strongest kind of parent one can be. So-called "strict fathers" are weaklings overcompensating for their own inadequacies.

NGU.

[MontecitoDem]

26. I'm with you...

I really don't like the parent models he presents. It's too black-and-white, right-and-wrong, etc. And lends itself too easily to negative gender-stereotypes.

I did enjoy his book and agree we need to be stating our positions positively in our own words - not just reacting to what the opposition is putting out there.

If nothing else, all the focus on Lakoff has got the conversation going again about what we stand for!

[eridani]

28. The government should NOT be our parent,

whether strict or nurturing. We should be ADULTS consulting as equals to run the public sphere.


http://www.counterpunch.org/smith05052003.html

'Customer' and 'consumer' were not the only words being used to change the nature of citizenship. David Kemmis, the mayor of Missoula, MT, pointed out that the word 'taxpayer' now "regularly holds the place which in a true democracy would be occupied by 'citizen.' Taxpayers bear a dual relationship to government, neither half of which has anything at all to do with democracy. Taxpayers pay tribute to the government and they receive services from it. So does every subject of a totalitarian regime. What taxpayers do not do, and what people who call themselves taxpayers have long since stopped even imagining themselves doing, is governing."

Then there was growing use of the term "stakeholder" that covertly diminished the citizens' role to that of a minor participant. Ironically, 'stakeholder' literally means a person who holds the money while two other people bet. Whoever wins, the stakeholder gets nothing.

Another phrase that started cropping up was 'civil society,' a patronizing description of people who, in a democracy, are meant to be running the place. The term has come to used in elite circles with roughly the same condescension of a bishop talking about a church altar guild.

[ClassWarrior]

29. Yeah, and I should be a billionaire.

:eyes:

NGU.

[AP]

33. People should be the nurturant parents of government, and should expect

of government what they expect of themselves, which includes lending a helping hand and not throwing its citizens to the wolves.

[AP]

32. I think the term is lame, myself, but I think what he's trying to capture

with it is accurate.

It's not exactly a "benevolent paternalism" which is a term with meaning that should be problemating for progressives, since it's been the source of a lot of misery for people. But it's definitely along those lines.

[kodi]

14. the fundamental need is a cogent articulation of the social contract

Digby's on target; while Lackoff has described adequately the game he has less adequately described the fundamentals of the strategies necessary to win it.

And once again, I wish to add what William Pfaff of the International Herald Tribune said several years ago>>>>>>

"The normal and proper aim of the corporate community is to make money for its managers and for the owners of business all the better if its members also contribute to the general prosperity. However, business acts on the prevailing business philosophy, which claims that corporate self-interest eventually produces the general interest. This comfortable belief rests on misinterpretation of the theory of market rationality proposed by Adam Smith.

"He would have found the market primitivism of the current day unrecognizable. He saw the necessity for public intervention to create or sustain the public interest, and took for granted the existence of a government responsible to the community as a whole, providing the structure within which the economy functions.

"Classical political thought says that the purpose of government is to do justice for its citizens. Part of this obligation is to foster conditions in which wealth is produced. The obligation is not met by substituting the wealth-producer for the government.

"Business looks after the interests of businessmen and corporation stockholders. Stark and selfish self-interest obviously is not what motivates most American businessmen and -women, but it is the doctrine of the contemporary corporation and of the modern American business school."

"It does not automatically serve the general interest, as any 18th century rationalist would acknowledge - or any 21st century realist."

William Pfaff

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0126-01.htm

[elperromagico]

16. Digby or Lakoff - I'm sure neither considers "suck" a suitable frame.

:D ;)

[Devil Dog Dem]

18. Good post

eom

[Teaser]

19. L-A-K-O-F-F. It's spelled: L-A-K-O-F-F

How credible, exactly, are your critiques of the man's ideas if you haven't (clearly) even read his work enough to know how to spell his friggin' name?

[omega minimo]

25. Reframing "Nanny-state" "Pink Tutu" "Mommies" slams

What do these terms have in common? Yeah, they refer to females. The suggestion in the original post is that we should avoid appearing weak, with attendant language implying feminine failings.

I had never read the "pink tutu wing of the Democratic party" before seeing it twice this week on DU. Googled it and got smirkingchimp.com. Is this a trend? Why?

We need to get away from cliched attitudes, and hackneyed expressions, that reinforce sexist attitudes that are part of the original problems we are trying to address.

In the resurgent progressive grassroots happenings locally, I've noticed comments that "frame" like right wing speak, even at meetings about Lakoff and framing.

There are other ways to relate the concept of "dominion" vs. "stewardship." In the family metaphor, "nurturing" or "abusive" need not infer identification with either gender.

If it takes some effort for some people to refrain from sexist cliches in expressing themselves and "framing" issues, well GOOD. Maybe some new ideas will develop from there.

[moggie12]

27. Hi DalvaThree -- I agreed with your analysis

Lakoff appeals to intellectuals.

Politics is not an intellectual enterprise. Much of it revolves around appealing to people's gut instincts, fears, self-interest, patriotism, etc., etc.

I bet most Democratic consultants still don't realize why "Strong at Home, Respected in the World" was such a bad campaign slogan.

[Just Me]

30. I agree. Politicians appeal to emotions rather than logic.

Moreover, I do believe it's impossible to overcome the "environment of fear/danger" created by the right-wing propaganda machine with a "nuturant" model or frame. That environment was created on purpose.

I think that our communication style is one facet of the problem and that it is important to portray ourselves as convicted on issues which impact every citizen. However, we must also address the environment/context being created, and whether or not we have the power to change that context or whether we must be aggressive within that context.

At any rate, this is a discussion central to success in the future. I hope it continues.

[AP]

34. FDR overcame fear with a nurturant progressive value system.

In fact, I think it's the only way to overcome fear.

[Just Me]

38. Yes. However, he still communicated his idea as a "fighter".

He spoke with passion and conviction and with a "fighting" and/or "warrior" attitude about what best serves the interests of "the people".

I think there is a difference between nurturing ideas/policies and a means of galvanizing people through effective communication.

[AP]

40. I have a tape of his speeches and I have to say that IMO he didn't

do that.

He framed WW2 as an ideological war between democracy and fascism and that what America was fighting for was the ability to get paid a fair wage for you work and the accumulation of wealth in the middle class.

Putting on a sweater and having fireside chats about not fearing anything but fear and about working together for a better tomorrow isn't exactly a fighting/warrior stance.

FDR's rhetoric and speeches changed very litltle between the first 8 years when he was fighting economic royalists at home and the last years when he was fighting economic fascists abroad.

[AP]

31. Often, I don't recognize the Lakoff I've read in other people's...

...interpretations.

Lakoff advocates reframing terminology in the few situations where Republicans know that people would never accept the policy application of their conservative value system. Nobody wants pollution, so they call their environmental policies "Clear Skies" initiatives, or whatever. Lakoff says that you can't let them get away with that.

But Lakoff's bigger argument is not about terminology. It's about competing value systems. And 90% of his argument is showing how and why people buy the conservative value system -- and when they do, there's no need for Orwellian terminology to hide what they're really trying to achieve. There's no need to cover up all the "survival of the fittest" terminology when so many people are content to have a survival of the fittest world. And there's no need to pretend you're not fear mongering when you're successfully scaring people into supporting conservative politicians and policies with your fear mongering.

Most of Lakoff's 800 page book Moral Politics is not about coming up with new terminology to counter the Republican's Orwellian language. Most of it is an argument about starting from a paradigm that articulates progressive values. He says Republicans are so successful because they start with the value system and then they plug in the policies to fit the value system. Democrats on the other hand have a laundry list of policy proposals which they justify with statistics and they never bother to try to show people how they all fit together within a values-based framework.

I agree that Lakoff is not a political scientist, and therefore some of his conclusions (for example, about the role Nader played in 2000) I think are way off. But in terms of identifying the cognitive frameworks and the use of language in politics, I think he's hit the target. And his argument about what all the disparate progressive policies have in common is very convincing (although another weak part of his book is when he practically applies his theories to real policy debates -- it's kind of like the movie Apollo 13, where the best part is how the NASA guys put the pieces together to fix the capsule, but they never show it; Lakoff is very lazy and glosses over the practical applications, and that could be the best part of the book).

I think it's definitely the case, as Lakoff argues, that conservatives believe that people are better off when the world is a harsh place that doesn't coddle the weak, and that progressives tend to think that we're all better off when we're all better off, and that there's a lot of power in collective action to make sure that we, as a society, can run on all cylinders.

In fact, I don't see how the example from Spitzer above doesn't fit within that paradigm.

In any event, when progressives talk about "framing the debate" whether they're criticizing like Digby above, or they think they're doing it like the DU "Frame the Debate" Group -- often I think they're confused.

When Lakoff is talking about framing, he means a values framework, and not counter Orwellian terminology framing. If you're just trying to come up with alternative terms, you're doing the smallest part of the argument. What Lakoff is really telling progressives to think about is articulating policies within a unified theory of liberalism that is anchored in a system of values.

People don't remember every policy and every statistic. But if they know what you believe, they can project out your behavior onto just about every policy position imaginable.

It's like the movie Star Wars. A big part of making a good movie is good characters. How do you tell an audience about a character? Do you do it by giving them a laundry list of actions that they'd engage in? No. You try to develop their character by implying their motivations and their beliefs through showing a few actions, by sharing their thoughts, by how they dress, by telling you where they came from, through a hair cut, how they walk, etc.

If it's done well then the viewer should be able to imagine what that character would do in situations that aren't even represented in the movie.

Think of Han Solo. I bet you could talk for hours about what Han Solo is like and what he'd do in various circumstances, and you can imagine what his childhood was like and what he's going to be like as a father and an old man. Where'd you get those ideas? Not because you saw them, but because of great characterization.

I think a lot of Americans don't have a clue what Democrats would do when confronted with various policies or dilemmas because the Democrats don't spend any time "characterizing" themselves -- ie, telling people what their values are. Oh, I take that back. Voters would presume that Democrats would act the way Republicans characterize them as acting because the vacuum that the Democrats leave in defining themselves is being filled by characterizations created by Republicans.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

36. Bullseye

I stopped going into the "Frame the Debate" Forum because it consisted of people trotting out "clever" catch phrases for policy initiatives. From what I've seen (I haven't finished the book yet) Lakoff is talking about larger issues than that.

[AP]

41. If I were a Republican, I'd be so pleased to read the "Frame the Debate"

group.

Until Democrats start coming up with a way to articulate a progressive values system that encompasses everything they believe in and gets people to put issues in the right order of priorities, the Republicans will continue to win elections despite not having a majority of Americans agreeing with their individual policies.

I don't see the Frame the Debate group coming anywhere close to beginning that discussion.