Not the Mommy!

Digby and Tristero and Tristero are right.  Lakoff's use of the strict-parent / nurturant parent models to exemplify differences in American politics shows how painfully Berkelified Lakoff is.  I was so boggled by this when I first read it in the Lakoff pieces posted at the Rockridge Institute website, that I actually wrote them an email expressing that concern, which was summarily ignored, which was to be expected (and yes, I signed it with my real name).

From what I can tell of Lakoff's explicitly political arguments from his articles and various book excerpts (it's currently a bit hard to get hold of the most recent political book locally -- I'm waiting on Amazon), he's spot on about rhetoric and framing the debate, and his analysis of the dictatorial father model of the right-wing world view seems pretty good.

But that "nurturant parent" language translates directly into "mommy" and then you're right down the slope into "nanny state", "momma's boy", "sissy", and all the other things that American men call each other to indicate unfitness to carry the Y chromosome.**  Frankly, that would blow up in our faces if it were actually used in the near future, and I worry a bit that it will blow up in our faces merely by the fact that some people associated with the Democratic establishment are taking it seriously. 

The left in the United States clearly needs to set up a self-reinforcing, internally consistent moral frame and language, but Lakoff's proposal for the underlying principles has a high probability of getting our clocks cleaned.  The one exception I'd note is that Lakoff is clear that he thinks the left should move to the left, not compromise to the right.  Given the gender gap between the two parties in the United States, it is possible that language evoking the nurturant parent model may over time pull enough women in to offset the loss of pretty much every unreconstructed man in the middle of the spectrum.

But for the next couple election cycles?  Ouch.

---

*Please don't start about the need to rework society so that kind of insult is no longer an insult.  I'll stipulate right now that such a world would be a good thing for all sorts of reasons, but we're talking about how to win today and in the next 20 years not in some desirable future where sexism is eliminated and we all acknowledge the unique contributions and equal power of the lingam and the yoni.

[Edited from original to make clear to which of George Lakoff's books I was referring.]

Comments

[djw]

it's currently a bit hard for an ordinary schmuck to get hold of his actual books

Looks like most of them are plentiful--new and used--at amazon.

[paperwight]

Sorry. I mean the current one in which he's clarifying his position for the masses, which I've order, but haven't yet got -- I've had no luck in local bookstores at all.

[coturnix]

Lakoff has written explicitly how the progressives need to take over the position of strength and paint conservatives as sissies. The people on Kos who have obviously not read "Moral Politics" or "Don't think of an Elephant", mix up the explanatory metaphor with practical framing advice.

[paperwight]

I understand the metaphor that Lakoff is using, and I am in the process of becoming educated on his practical arguments. The problem that worries me a bit is that the metaphor is not itself helpful, though the overall practical advice is.

[Carlandra]

people always have something to say about him
just because he loves his mother does not mean he is a momma's boy or they have to say that he is a momma's boy and a sissy, that is not right. I think he will get mad because he is not a momma's boy, it might also hurt his feelings

[tristero]

We're all grownups. Grownups in a democracy govern themselves on the fundamental principle that all citizens have equal rights.

That is where liberalism and a liberal philosophy begins. Not in the nursery.

I've read Moral Politics. Lakoff's discussion of rhetoric and its vital importance is very good. But the nice mommy/strict daddy stuff has major, major problems:

1. It does not in any way, shape, or form describe the fundamental mindset of any thoughtful liberal I know. I have no desire to nurture anyone. I have no desire to be nurtured. My liberalism simply does not fit such a simple-minded metaphor. When I relate to my fellow citizens in a free society, I am not a child, nor am I a parent. Nor would such relationships be desirable.

2. On a practical level in devising a workable political strategy for liberals, nice mommy/strict daddy is, not to mince words, one of the stupidest fucking ideas I've ever heard. Paperwight elucidates with precision many of the reasons why this is so.

3. A nice mommy/strict daddy explanatory frame is far from helpful in generating frames that will persuade others. Again, not to mince words, frames that are based on such a model will invariably sound paternalistic, in the Kipling White Man's Burden sense of paternalistic.

If American liberalism needs an overarching explanatory frame (obviously, I think most "meta-theories" in the social sciences are a waste of time), I would suggest looking at the Common Sense and the Declaration of Independence for inspiration, as well as other documents that discuss the nature of the state's obligations to its citizens, the individual citizen's' obligations to the state, and every citizen's obligation to each other. They are not entirely apropos today, but there are very astute things said that are.

[Chris]

I've got to say that I agree with both coturnix and Paperwight (look, I spelled it right this time!). The "frames" that we use in practical political discourse are tied to the nuturant parent morality, but don't have to envoke that specific metaphor. It's a nice metaphor for describing what many progressives (probably a better term than liberals, or the left, here) think, and pace tristero's comments, it's not meant to encompass all liberals or types of liberalism.

However, I think Paperwight is correct that while the metaphor might serve a valuable expositotry purpose, we liberals shouldn't take it too seriously. However, I think my reasons for thinking this are a bit different. I happen to work in Lakoff's field, and know him personally. I've been reading his work, and the work of other cognitive linguists, for years, and have even published on it. From the perspective of how our minds work, how they process conceptual and linguistic information, there is no reason to take Lakoff's view of conceptual metaphors seriously. Framing is very real, but the conceptual metaphors aren't. They're at best heuristics for people like Lakoff to describe world-veiws. In no way do they embody, or influence those world views in the ways that Lakoff believes that they do (which is why you can just not read whole portions of his books on politics). If we take them too seriously, we run the risk of missing out on the benefits of his insights on framing, by trying to influence cognition using a horribly inaccurate (and inexact) model of it.

A more viable theory comes from Gilles Fauconnier, who's also delved into political discourse, once relating my favorite counterfactual of all time: "If Clinton had been the Titanic, the iceberg would have sunk." Unfortunately, Fauconnier has yet to write anything practical about politics. He is concerned primarily with the types of mappings used in political discourse (one example he talks about a lot is the mappings between Korea and Vietnam in the political discourse of the early and mid-1960s). Even more unfortunate still, mainstream cognitive scientists have yet to do so. We know a lot about decision making, motivations, implicit attitudes (and how to prime or influence them), etc., and we know a shitload (technical term) about concepts and categories, analogical reasoning (my personal specialty), and the way memory works. All of these are important for the goals that Lakoff sets for himself, but people in my field just don't seem to be intersted in thinking seriously about the political applications of these ideas. It's a shame, because most of us are liberals (you know, being part of the leftist university system and all). Shame on us!

For the real nerds out there who are just discovering Lakoff, and who would like to read more about the theoretical perspective underlying his applied work in politics, I'll link a few books. If you want dissenting views, the understanding of which might aid in better utilizing Lakoff's insights about framing, email me or something.

Metaphors We Live By By Lakoff and Mark Johnson. This is an introduction to the conceptual metaphor perspective, and its easily read by non-experts.

Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things Lakoff's lengthier, much denser exposition of the conceptual metaphor view

The Way We Think by Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner. This is an extensive look at Fauconnier's approach, which is similar to, but better than Lakoff's. He talks about some political analogies at length. I reviewed this book, and I still haven't decided whether it's written for lay people or experts, but motivated non-experts should be able to get something out of it.

Also, don't forget to read Lakoff's papers on the Gulf war (here). It goes well with Baudrillard's The Gulf War Did Not Take Place. Why? Because I said so.

[coturnix]

For the people who worry about the "mommy state" read pages 96-97 in "Elephant" for Lakoff's response. Also see my response on
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com

Apparently the post on Kos bumped the amazon sales of the book up to #10 or so...viva la blog!

[Leslie]

Agree with you. Lakoff's nuturant parent/strict dad model is clumsy and it opens up stereotyping. But Lakoff himself might be the first to say so. The metaphor is just a starting point. As Chris remarks above, the frames are more important and we need to work on them.