Friday, July 23, 2010

summarizing framing

At some point (soon?) I'll get back to blogging. In the meantime, if you have any interest in understanding what I've been winding around, trying to summarize... about the way our brains use metaphors to create meaning, how language is understood via metaphors, and how we use language (through metaphors) to create our values AND how the radical right has understood this since Nixon but exploded into it with Reagan and how we progressives are only helping them win. Well, this is a decent summary that I hope you might take the time to read: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

More from me another day.

3 comments:

  1. This is the important paragraph:

    "So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it."

    I would soften it a bit, for ex not use value terms like "good" and "spoiled" -- of course he is using the techniques of framing here -- but he describes the general idea. Key phrase or concept as the AD's of the world would put it: "Social programs ... [enslave] people by ... keeping them dependent." I do believe people who depend on government have the ability to free themselves of that dependency. But many people choose not to. It is human nature to weigh costs and benefits and if the benefits you need don't really have much of a cost, well. Why change?

    So, us non-progressives don't want to see the mass of humanity elect to be dependent upon those who live within more independent value systems. The consequences of too much of that kind of imbalance are historically disastrous.
    ReplyDelete
  2. You wrote: "It is human nature to weigh costs and benefits and if the benefits you need don't really have much of a cost, well. Why change?"

    As you see it.

    It's my opinion that our decisions are based on our morality which is formed through metaphors. It's nice to imagine logic (costs/benefits) play into it, but that's only one way of looking at it. It's not the way I think most people live.

    When you say you believe people can get out of the situations (where they've started receiving protection from the government in the form of help with food or shelter), I'd really like to see you try and live in those circumstances and—without relying on family connections or friends you know from this life—get yourself out of it. The cycle of poverty is almost impossible to break out of and most people want to get out of it, Don. The system's fucked up. More "handouts" isn't the solution, but neither is claiming the deck is stacked fairly for all of us if we just work hard enough. That's a load of steaming sloppy bullshit.
    ReplyDelete
  3. "morality" is actually tied to function of the brain and its ability to pass signals to and from the amygdala, or the fear center.

    Consider that when (kof) framing your argument that decisions are morality based. Consider lack of fear (the government is taking care of me) versus fear (I have nowhere to turn, and I don't know what to do) for the under-educated poor person.

    A cost/benefit consideration does factor morality into the costs and the benefits, btw.

    Has to. Most of us are steeped in the morals of our parents, peers and public schools.
    ReplyDelete

Thank you for taking the time to comment...

Real Time Web Analytics