"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

[ClassWarrior]

Posted by request...

No Center, No Centrists
by George Lakoff,
Author and Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at UC Berkeley

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care.

The progressive view of government is simple. Progressive government has two aspects: protection and empowerment. Protection is far more than the military, police, and fire departments. It includes consumer protection, worker protection, environmental protection, public health, food and drug safety; social security, and other safety nets. It also includes protection from the government itself, and hence a balance of powers, openness, fundamental rights, and so on...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[aikoaiko]

1. I'm going to think about what an "inaccurate metaphor" means.

And almost all metaphors serve the people who create them or use them.

My first impulse is that George is unhappy that the metaphor is effective but not congruent with his politics.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Prof. Lakoff is unhappy that the metaphor is effective but not congruent with reality.

NGU.

[aikoaiko]

3. As I understand it that is the point of all metaphors to some degree

The figurative is not the same as the literal.

If the political beliefs were on a continuum, then saying your in the center could be literal.

Like I said, the idea of an inaccurate metaphor is interesting because all metaphors are "inaccurate" in some way.

[ClassWarrior]

4. That's his the point. They're not on a continuum. Maybe you should trouble yourself to read...

...the article before offering your opinion on it.

:eyes:

NGU.

[aikoaiko]

6. I did read the article, but I guess I didn't make myself clear to you.

If liberal and conservative were on a continuum then calling someone a centrist would NOT be a metaphor. Bring in the center would be literal not figurative.

Because liberal and conservative is not a continuum, then centrist is a metaphor because it uses the idea of being in the center for something that is NOT literally center.

eta: Let me give you an example. Many people like to say the human brain is computer. That's a metaphor because the brain is not a computer, but when you call it a computer you think about the brain differently than if you think of it as a non-digital machine.

[ClassWarrior]

8. Then it's a metaphor with no practical value, because someone who's...

...hard rightwing in half of his or her values and hard leftwing in the other half would "average out" to centrist. When obviously he or she isn't.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

9. Or, if you prefer, a faulty metaphor.

NGU.

[aikoaiko]

10. Ah, but for the so called centrist, it is practical and works well.

[ClassWarrior]

12. Yes, it obscures his/her extremism. So it works well... as a lie.

NGU.

[aikoaiko]

13. Thats where you and I part, I think. Metaphors can't be a lie or even inaccurate.

They can impact people's thinking differently. The idea of centrist politics resonates too well with a many people to dismiss it as inaccurate or a lie.

[ClassWarrior]

14. Okay, then it's faulty. Why are you hung up on the word "inaccurate?" Why do you so desparately...

...want to discredit this world linguistics expert's theory?

:shrug:

NGU.

[aikoaiko]

15. Because I"m tired of the "pick a side", "you're with us or against us" polarizing position.

On both the left and the right, you'll hear the same criticism of moderates or centrists. There is a political center that is diverse and difficult to understand and predict.


And I think he is selling out the idea of what a metaphor is to discredit centrists. I may not have made myself clear. I like Lakoff's work on metaphors and the importance of metaphors in creating ideas. I just don't like him pimping his ideas to the point of distortion.

Metaphors are not accurate or inaccurate, faulty or correct, or right or wrong. Some metaphors merely function better than others. That so many people talk about centrists and the political center is proof that it functions well. In the Lakoff editorial, he is making the case that the political center metaphor shouldn't be accepted. He is being prescriptive instead of what he should be -- descriptive. Lakoff doesn't like the centrist metaphor because it is an effective metaphor.

At least my interest in your OP has kicked it up more than anyone's else's interest in Lakoff's opinion.

[ClassWarrior]

16. If you think this is a "pick a side", "you're with us or against us" polarizing position...

...you haven't read the article, and probably have never read anything by Lakoff.

NGU.

[aikoaiko]

18. Sigh, see you're doing it too.

[ClassWarrior]

19. Too? You mean I'm not the first one to point out that what you're saying doesn't correspond...

...with the point of the article?

:shrug:

NGU.

[BeFree]

5. yeah, bury it

Personally, the wisdom of democracy - that more people involved in a decision that effects everyone will lead to a more perfect union - is what takes this country to its highest levels.

The failures come when powerful subsets take over the decision making and turn it into their personal power building activity. Ego-centric, if you will.

Progressives take in all the information they can and use it to make decisions that are best for everyone.

It's not that hard to do. Just get rid of the me and make it all happen for the We.

[Armstead]

7. knr

[depakid]

11. Once again, the professor has it right...

and it's up to the "party of science" and it's supporters to implement Lakoff's suggestion.

Unfortunately- all too often in the past it's been the party of fundamentalists that more diligently- and successfully put the principles into play.

[Greyhound]

17. Indeed. Odd how often the self-evident needs explanation to so many.

Or maybe it's not odd considering how much most people know about most things.
:kick:

[Electric Monk]

20. It's really hard to explain something to someone who has a vested interest in not understanding it.

That's a quote, or at least a paraphrase of one, but I forget who from or when. It's pretty late, sorry, maybe I'll remember tomorrow.

[Greyhound]

21. I think this was it...

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!", and it was Upton Sinclair.
:hi:

[ClassWarrior]

22. Great quote. Al Gore used that in "An Inconvenient Truth."

NGU.