The Inflexible Worldview Dot [George Lakoff: Don't Think of an Elephant}

Lakoff's book is definitely one of the nodes on the "Connect the Dots" network, so I guess I should write something about it.

Lakoff's slim book is easily read and grasped. I'm not going to do it justice here, but for my immediate purposes, two of his major assertions are of interest in the network of inter-related ideas I'm trying to grow:

1. People perceive the world in 'frames'. These are somewhat like a world-view. They are ways of seeing the world that individuals construct over the course of their lives. By the time they are adults, they may be 'locked into' these frames. Because their frames can be so powerful, facts which contradict their frames can be ignored. That is to say, normal rational processes become less important than preserving the frame. The frame trumps the facts. Facts and opinions that contradict the frame/worldview just bounce off.

2. Lakoff posits that in America there are two predominant frames, both built around the family as a basic unit, but which Americans also extrapolate and apply to our social structure. The first frame is one with the strict father (or 'mean daddy' as I like to call it - think George Bush Sr., James Dobson, Margaret Thatcher, Bob Dole). In this worldview, the father guides the children with a strong hand. He punishes when necessary. It's all for the good of the child, because discipline will lead to success. Being a good person is equated with success (especially $$ success).  The other frame is the nurturant parent (think Bill Clinton, Oprah, Jimmy Carter). The nurturant parent provides encouragement and support to the child, but allows them to make their own choices.

While I'm not sure that I quite agree that these are the central warring frames in our society, it is an interesting framework to consider. Particularly interesting is how Lakoff uses the strict father frame to explain everything extreme conservatives believe in, from tax policy to foreign policy to social policy.  I'm  a sucker for a unified theory that explains things, and Lakoff seems to be well on his way.

I think that Carter's book, and a great book by Susan Faludi called Stiffed really add to the discussion of Lakoff/DTOAE. Carter really lays out in more detail the notion of how fundamentalist religious beliefs are interbreeding with fundamentalist political beliefs (a kind of political "literalism" that supports the strict father model).   Faludi's book is all about the late 20th century crisis of masculinity. Faludi's book is quite complex and ranges far, but some of her more interesting reflections are about how changes in the workplace have de-masculinized men, leaving them needing other outlets for their historical masculine identity urges. Think Promise Keepers, growth in NRA membership, anti-gay hysteria, and pre-emptive war as a policy.  Think the security state and rampant fear as a convenient excuse for the re-introduction of 'traditional' male behaviors and the return of the strict father family model, where everyone but the guy in power is just supposed to shut up and follow the rules.

[added Sept 08] Maybe Lakoff's work, rather than being it's own 'dot', is more of an intersection of several other dots:  fundamentalism, masculinity, and less than flexible brains. This last group refers to the growing scientific evidence that humans seem to have many built-in biological restrictions that screw with their ability to accurately understand the world, especially when it comes to reinterpreting previously established 'facts' ... plus much much more.

Comments

[dtraversscott]

If anyone likes ...Elephant, check out Lakoff's Metaphors We Live By written with Mark Johnson. More in-depth, scholarly treatment of same ideas but still accessible and engaging.