[Tharmas]

Book Review: George Lakoff, The Political Mind

The right wing does not just control the political dialog in the US using emotionally charged narratives, but in doing so they have literally restructured our brains at the level of neural connections. The liberal response, to try to argue against them using reason and structured debate, has been and will continue to be doomed to failure. So argues cognitive linguist George Lakoff in his book The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain. Lakoff, author of Don’t Think of an Elephant! and a number of other books (which I haven’t yet read) makes several strong claims about cognitive linguistics in The Political Mind, including that cognitive linguistics Offers unique insights into the nature of thought and thinking. Unites Chomsky’s abstract linguistic models with the actual content of the language being spoken and knowledge of the structure and function of brains. Offers the promise of revolutionizing philosophy in general. In the mean time Lakoff shows how Conservative framing of the political landscape for the past several decades in the US has instinctively taken advantage of the real way people think in order to redefine the dialog in Conservative terms going in.

Here is how we think, says Lakoff. We think in terms of metaphors, narratives, frames, image schemas, metonymies, and prototypes, among others.

Meaning is embodied, he says, meaning that we have physical and emotional roots to all our cognitive functions and understanding. “There is no abstract meaning floating in the air,” he says. He gives a wonderful description of the concept of communication. Most of the metaphors we use for describing communication are physical and involve using our bodies or motion. He concludes:

Overall, the concept of communication is mostly metaphorical. What would communicating be without sending messages and getting ideas across? Without showing or pointing out? Without taking someone through an argument step by step? Without feeding people information? If you strip away all the metaphor, it’s not clear how you would think about communication or communicate what communication is.

Beneath all this is the structure of the brain. Here Lakoff seems confident but offers less detail. We are to understand that the neurons in the brain form pathways connecting disparate loci and piecing them together, hence metaphor. As a crude example when we think of or remember a red car, the brain pulls together the concept of red and the memory of car from two completely different locations and puts them together.

This is what framing is all about. Words that are frequently associated create a frame. Doctor, nurse, patient, gurney, become part of a “hospital” frame in our brain. The neural pathways that connect those words have become stronger through repeated association, Lakoff asserts. Waitress, menu, cook, dishes, customer etc. become part of a restaurant frame. The “narrative” for that frame has the customer ordering a meal, the cook preparing it, the waitress serving it, etc. A sub-narrative is the buyer/seller narrative, and so forth.

[Tharmas]

Part Two of Review

What does all this have to do with politics? Plenty, Lakoff argues. Conservatives in America have instinctively used emotional, metaphorical arguments for years, and consequently they have not only communicated a lot better but their agenda has become almost the only agenda.

Neoliberals have thrown in the towel, Lakoff argues, and accepted conservative frames, only hoping to modify or deflect the worst features.

For example, take the phrase, beloved of Conservatives, “tax relief,” and the question that gets asked of all candidates, are you for it, and how much relief are you for?

Lakoff parses the phrase “tax relief” and shows how it works. What is the frame? The word “relief” exists in a verbal frame of sickness, disease, and disaster, and what’s more proposes a savior narrative – who will give relief, who will save us from this disaster? Taxes become associated with the evil thing that needs relieving.

But to the Progressive, taxes are a common contribution to a collective fund for public good – to empower society as a whole, including business – by maintaining the infrastructure, maintaining schools, the common defense, etc. To a progressive the phrase “tax relief” should sound as strange as saying “infrastructure relief” or “education relief.” No playing the neoliberal game for Lakoff, which would be accepting the premise of “tax relief” but then merely trying to shift the tax burden around somewhat.

Tax relief is merely one example Lakoff gives. If you’re an old Liberal like myself, at several places in the book Lakoff will get your blood boiling. The point is, as he keeps pointing out, once the genii is out of the bottle it can’t ever be put back in. Once you hear a phrase like “nanny state,” or “welfare queen,” however nonsensical, it’s in your head forever.

Where do Conservatives come from, as opposed to Progressives? The answer, according to Lakoff, is in the neural pathways laid down in the first impressionable years of life – in the family structure. Those that come from relatively authoritarian families (or who hold that image of the family as the central metaphor), where discipline is emphasized and structure is top down, tend to become conservatives. Those from more open, nurturing families tend to become more liberal in their political beliefs.

For all of us, Lakoff argues, the family is the primary metaphor. Government is seen as a metaphorical family, as are businesses, sports teams, etc.

This conservative tendency explains such phenomena as how a conservative can be against gay marriage on the grounds that it’s anti family, and be against abortion rights but for capital punishment. “Family” is patriarchal and authoritarian and those are the values that mustn’t be challenged.

Lakoff hedges his bets, though, stressing that most people have a little of both tendencies depending on the situation.

How much of all this is convincing? I’m certainly willing to accept that you don’t win elections with rational arguments. Time and again I’ve seen whole groups of people vote against their rational interests (which is one of Lakoff’s big issues). I’ll be curious to see how much of this really has to do with the actual structure of the brain as we find out more.

[Don Alhambra]

I think there is definitely a genetic component to some political beliefs, no matter how the upbringing is. My ex-gf's adopted brother is a libertarian Ron Paul supporter in a family of liberals, for example.

[Tharmas]

I'm willing to accept a genetic component of the grossest sort - like basic personality types being on the whole attracted to one type of political structure over another, but it strikes me that there are too many nuances of political ideology, and too many variations, for there to be a strong genetic correlation.

Besides, don't the usual anecdotes run that way, even when not adopted, e.g. the "hippie" parents with the right winger son, or vice-versa.

I've also read birth order arguments. Older children would be more conservative, while younger siblings are more liberal.

Take your pick.

[Don Alhambra]

*shrug* my ex and her sister are both liberals, and they're way older than the adopted brother.

[Gurdur]

Oh, great stuff, Tharmas, many thanks! Will add comments soon.

[verte]

Originally Posted by Tharmas

I'm willing to accept a genetic component of the grossest sort - like basic personality types being on the whole attracted to one type of political structure over another, but it strikes me that there are too many nuances of political ideology, and too many variations, for there to be a strong genetic correlation.

Besides, don't the usual anecdotes run that way, even when not adopted, e.g. the "hippie" parents with the right winger son, or vice-versa.

I've also read birth order arguments. Older children would be more conservative, while younger siblings are more liberal.

Take your pick.

I'm the oldest, from a family of die-hard Fox News watching, gun-toting, conspiracy theory spouting, Defense of Marriage supporting, GWB boot licking dweebosaurs.

My theory is I was switched at birth and I should have been given to normal people at the hospital.

[Tharmas]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

Oh, great stuff, Tharmas, many thanks! Will add comments soon.

Thanks! Take your time, but I look forward to your comments.