Chapter 4: Metaphors of Terror

In Chapter 4, Lakoff starts by giving us a scientific backing for metaphors. For him, metaphors are powerful; the reason why is because it all happens in our brain. Since the images created by the metaphorical constructions hit the premotor cortex of our brains that contains the mirror neurons, which fire when we perform an action or when we see the same action performed by someone else; this brings us to immediately relate the two images and evoke one or another. Lakoff has the gift to seduce the audience with the power of metaphorical language. He paints quite the picture about 9/11 when he refers to the buildings as people and society.

Lakoff then gives us his thoughts on the so called War on Terror and how the Bush administration sought to frame it. According to Lakoff, George W. Bush and his fellow conservatives wrongly characterized the events of September 11 as battle in a larger war. Lakoff believes that such a characterization led to more unnecessary blood shed. Instead, Bush should have framed the attacks as a criminal act. He also argues that the United States would have had a better impact on the world had it simply acted like it wanted the rest of the world to act.

However, there are several problems with Lakoff's argument.

First, it lacks any shred of empirical evidence. At the end of the chapter, all we are left with is a man who has a worldview and wants to share it with us.

Second, he pokes fun at conservatives for maintaining different assumptions about the world and humanity. He states that conservatives simplistically believe,

that evil is inherent, an essential trait, that determines how you will act in the world. Evil people do evil things. No further explanation is necessary. There can be no social causes of evil, religious rationale for evil, reasons or arguments for evil.

Yet, Lakoff's own assumptions about the causes of terrorism do not square with reality. He argues that if you improve the social conditions in Muslim countries, you might see a decrease in the amount of would-be terrorists who are willing to give up on their lives. However, empirical research has suggested, for example, that many of the Saudi terrorists were rich or upper middle class and show no signs of psychological problems. Osama bin Laden himself was born with a silver spoon. This is not to say that social conditions do not play a role, or even a large role. Untangling the causes of Islamic terrorism is not an easy task. But believing in evil is no more simplistic than in not believing in evil. Lakoff seems to be a pains to convince us that the men who flew into the twin towers were good men gone adrift by the unfortunate circumstances of society.

Lastly, Lakoff's critique of the Bush administration does not take into account the enormous effort that Bush undertook to distinguish between the terrorists and the religion of Islam.  Lakoff is correct to argue that politicians seek to frame events for their political good. But his steady adherence to liberal doctrine causes him to miss ways in which Bush sought to use metaphors for peace.

In short, Lakoff does not really have anything rich to say. He repeats an already known truth that politicians use metaphors for their political goals and then proceeds to explain to us that the particular way in which Bush used metaphors is really bad.

Don't think of an elephant

            -3- What's in a Word? Plenty, If it's Marriage

George Lakoff picked a controversial topic among conservatives and progressives. He used marriage to illustrate the differences between the two parties.

He starts the chapter giving a North American definition of marriage: marriage as an institution, the public expression of lifelong commitment. However, it is not marriage itself which is controversial; it is marriage between individuals of the same sex. Conservatives have put on the table two important concepts: definition and sanctity. According to the author, what progressives have to do is fight the definition of marriage and sanctity given by Republicans and create their new concepts.  Democrats think that the idea of marriage as a concept for heterosexual unions is just a cultural stereotype. Lakoff thinks that marriage evokes the idea of sex, and Americans do not approve gay sex; under this conception, gay people are not “marriage material” since they are supposedly wild, deviant and have irresponsible lifestyle.

What is interesting is the suspicion that Lakoff has about the choice of George W. Bush to not use the term gay marriage in his State of the Union address. He suspects that Bush would not call marriage to civil unions between gay people, because marriage is exclusively for a man and a woman; it would be as senseless as saying “gay apple or gay telephone”.

“Contemporary conservative politics turns theses family values into political values: hierarchical authority, individual discipline, military might”; following the same line, marriage in the strict family must be heterosexual marriage. On the other hand, the nurturant parent model has two equal, protective and caring parents, who teach their children to take care of others.

Civil unions are a threat to conservatives because they create families that do not follow the strict family model. Lakoff suggests leaving civil unions to the state and marriages to the churches, as it is done in Vermont. However, I don’t think progressive activists will be willing to give up on their desire to have “gay marriages” with all the social and cultural connotations. Regardless of my personal values, I applaud Lakoff’s ability to use metaphoric language to illustrate and simplify the political values of both parties.

Don't think of an elephant.

                                                       -2- Enter the Terminator

                  http://education.makemeheal.com/index.php/Schwarzenegger,_Arnold

In 2003 the actor and bodybuilder Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor in California; how on earth did this happen? George Lakoff believes that his success is product of the way his campaign was framed.

In order to have a successful campaign, the different implications of the social context have to be framed. In this example of Arnie Schwarzenegger we can spot the different frames  used to take the actor to his victory:

·         The Voter Revolt frame, assuming that the Democrat Gray Davis was incompetent or corrupt; but they stood up and righteously replaced him for someone better.

·         The Great Noncommunicator frame where Davis was set, assuming he was a responsible administrator and a competent governor; unfortunately he was unable to communicate his achievements.

·         The Kooky Californians frame, Californians cannot distinguish Sci-Fi from reality, thus a movie hero could be also be a hero in the real world.

·         The people beat the politicians frame, Arnie framed the Republicans as “the people” and democrats as politics.

·         The just a celebrity frame does not give a reason about why Swarzenegger would win; however Lakoff is able to relate this event to something that democrats have not realized, the idea that voters have about the nation as their family, their values, the cultural stereotypes and culture heroes. The strict Father against the nurturant parent. Arnie had the ultimate strictness; he was not only tough but also extraordinary.

·         The Up by His Bootstraps frame, this frames Arnold Swarzenegger just by his own qualities as a human being.

According with George Lakoff, The Voters revolt is where Arnie’s campaign can be framed; it was the fact that the other candidate was not good and needed to be replaced.

Don’t think of an elephant

-1- How to take back public discourse

Since we start reading the work of George Lakkof, we notice his political views. He is obviously a Democrat who recognizes that the Right has some good tactics that helped them to win the presidency in 2004 with their nominee George W. Bush. These tactics I am referring to can be easily referred to as Framing. The following lines summarize in 14 points the keys of framing in order to successfully take back public discourse according to Lakkof:

1.    Recognize what others have done right and where you are failing.
Regarding this point the Democratic author gives us a very good example, mentioning how that Republican George Bush, in 2004, effectively used framing by creating a new concept such as “tax relief.” This term was flowing from the White House to all the media, and from the media to the voters.

2.    Don’t think of an elephant.

This means that by negating the frame presented by the other party you are just giving it strength. The example given is pretty graphic - Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal. When he denied being a “crook,” everyone thought of him as a “crook” because he was using the frame given by others.

3.    Frame the truth from your perspective.

The conservative perspective of George W. Bush viewed taxes as some type of affliction that needed to be removed. The way he framed his truth made voters see him as a hero that was about to bring them relief.

4.    Speak from your moral perspective at all times.

This can be related to the reinforcement theory contained in the study The People’s Choice by Lazarsfeld, Berelson and Gaudet. The aim is not the partisans of the contrary side, but to reinforce your moral perspective among your people. Here lies the importance of family values since Americans conceive their Nation as a family.

5.    Understand from where the other parties are coming.

In this case Lakkof tries to understand the reason why Republicans think what they think, to predict what they will say according to their psychology. The illustrative example of the conception of the State as a strict father (Republican) and Nurturant parent family (progressive). To explain this he refers to a conservative Christian writer James Dobson, who thinks that there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong; children are born bad, therefore they just want to do what pleases them, thus they have to be made good and moral. Dobson relates morality with prosperity. He links his ideas to Adam Smith and his view of capitalism, pointing that by pursuing your own profit you are already helping everyone. In consequence, those who do good to others are not maximizing the potential of that society because they get in the way of those that seek their own profit. Thus doing good to others is not moral; which means that social programs are not moral. It is very interesting how the morality and obedience, reflected on prosperity have to be rewarded with a tax cut for example.

6.    Think strategically across issue areas.

It is about a hidden plan that is focused on a specific area but deliberately produces effects in many other areas, such as tax cuts that may seem straightforward, but as a result there is not money for social programs.

7.    Think of the consequences of proposals.

8.    Remember that voters vote according to their identity and values. Voters relate the Nation as their family, so despite the fact that many other issues are important, standing to defend the family values and framing the truth from that perspective will always get the attention of the voters.

9.    Unite and cooperate. , such as socioeconomic progressives, Identity politics progressives, etc. The important thing is to recognize that they all are part of something general a higher category and how irrational it is to go against their own interests, as conservatives did in 2000, when the 99% voted their conservative values. 

10. Play Offense, not defense. , such as socioeconomic progressives, Identity politics progressives, etc. The important thing is to recognize that they all are part of something general a higher category and how irrational it is to go against their own interests, as conservatives did in 2000, when the 99% voted their conservative values. 

11. Activate your model in swing voters.