Reframing a small planet
Frances Moore Lappé, author of Diet for a Small Planet — a book that influenced my wife and me waaaay back when — has published an important essay that out-Lakoffs Lakoff. Here’s a summary-by-snippets:
Lakoff’s central idea is that conservatives see the world through a “strict father” frame emphasizing discipline, self-reliance, forceful defense, while progressives see the world through a “nurturant parent” frame—supportive, nourishing, emphasizing mutual responsibility.
…Certainly, much of Lakoff’s advice about communicating progressive ideas is powerfully insightful and right on target.
But two big dangers loom.
First: Too narrowly focusing on getting the frame right might delude progressives into believing that’s all they need to win, …
…Second, the frame Lakoff identifies with progressives – “nurturant parent” – itself needs critical thought.
Nurturant parent – what could be worse for progressives?
They’re already stereotyped as coddlers of the lazy poor; dubbed “bleeding hearts” who refuse to require people to take responsibility for themselves…
… Maybe, in many respects, we’re moving beyond hierarchy, which any parent-centered frame necessarily must be…
…We need to ask: What frames best embrace the growing appreciation that human beings are going beyond one-directional communication, moving from “one-to-many” directives toward “many-to-many” multi-logues? What frame suggests mutuality – mutual responsibility, cooperation, teamwork, dialogue, synergy, inter-connectedness, and the co-creation of meaning?
Any parent frame fails the test; it is inevitably one-directional, and hierarchical. So let’s bury the family metaphor and search for a more robust frame…
…let’s reframe the entire conversation to one that begins with a definition of citizens as responsible grown-ups, not helpless children. In this progressive moral vision we strive to live in strong communities…
There is much, much more good stuff in this article. For example, I’ve left out the bits about Open Source, reframing the ecological question, and how the crisis of the Catholic church fits in. This is, IMO, a must read. In fact, I feel bad about attempting to summarize it. [Thanks to Jock Gill for the link.]
Categories: Uncategorized dw
David,
I also blogged Lappe’s essay as a comment on my “Security is Development” post over on Greater Democracy.
http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/archives/000316.html
A key thing is the realization that there are meta frames. So the Family is the meta frame that contains BOTH the strict and nurturing parents. Thus, if we are not careful, Lakoff’s Nurturing Parent only serves to keep us trapped in the same meta frame with the GOP. Since they currently control that frame, we can not win unless we extract ourselves from an over dependence on the Family frame.
This leads to the realization that frames are fractal. What the GOP has done is to assemble a set of frames into a larger meta frame that is quite fractal in nature. Ie all of the sub frames are somewhat alike and related to the meta frame which turns out to be greater than the sum of its parts.
The problem with the readers of Lakoff is that they are too often looking for a silver bullet – a single magic frame. What is actaully required is a new Liberal/Progressive meta frame that stands independently, is greater than the sum of its parts, and is clearly external to the GOP’s meta frame. Contrast this with the current situation in Washington, DC where we now have the meta frame of a single “Money Party”. The money party frame has a Strict component and a Nurturing component, but it is all one party dominated by the Stricts. Thus we get the politics of money, but not the politics of People.
Jock
I view this somewhat differently: Modernism’s emphasis on logic and reason versus Postmodernism’s love affair with chaos. This is best demonstrated in the appeal of God. To the Modernist, God, the Father, reigns supreme, whereas the Postmodern ideal is God, the (Holy) Spirit. One is distant; the other is in us and among us.
Another view is God, the just, versus God, the merciful. That our Creator is both is a difficult concept for humans to grasp, which is why our frames come out as either/or.
Beyond Lakoff
Frances Moore Lappe, author of
Following this thread of “faith as frames”, it would be intriguing to look at the massive shifts in the political landscape from the 1930’s on (the majority of today’s US Red States would be look a lot cooler on the spectrum).
Terry’s notion of Modernism’s emphasis on logic and reason versus Postmodernism’s love affair with chaos reflects the cycle that most revolutions go through.
First, overthrow the Establishment (whether conservative or liberal) through embracing strange bedfellows in a chaotic, creative collaboration of moxy, blood, sweat and tears.
“Oh, Momma!”
Next, after the dust settles, establish the New Order requiring dogma lubricated by policy, bureaucracy and a clear list of Who’s With Us and Who’s Against Us.
“Whoa, Daddy!”
I lived in Eastern Europe in the 90s when all the former Iron Curtain captive states cycled rapidly through democracy-autocracy-democracy [as per the recent Ukrainian elections].
In the end, when the populace is running scared, into who’s arms are they going to flee–the jovial embrace of Howard the Deaniac or the iron pectorals of Arnold the Govinator?
We’ve seen it over and over, this shifting tide:
Eisenhower-Nixon to Kennedy-Johnson to Nixon-Ford to Carter to Reagan-Bush to Clinton-Gore to Neo-Cons!
Question is: How will the Democrats frame themselves in the next round?
Kerry found it impossible to sound like the kindly senator from Massachusetts and the blood-n-guts veteran hell-bent on “tracking down terrorist and killing them.”