Media Activism #3
Reading George Lakoff's, Don't Think of an Elephant, was very exciting and inspiring. It answered questions that I have had in my head for a long time. I remember after seeing the documentary The Education of Shelby Knox and thinking, how did this high school girl from one of the most conservative towns in America with two republican parents turn out to be such a liberal? I viewed it as a testament to the liberal spirit that is present in some people despite their environment; a clear case of nature over nurture. Lakoff's description of the strict-father model made me look back at Shelby Knox and evaluate what her parents were really like. That's when I realized that even though Shelby's parents were Republicans, they were very much a dual parenting, nurturing mom and dad who truly respected their daughter's individuality and strong convictions. They nurtured her progressive and liberal values, even if they didn’t know it!
I also used a good friend of mine as a case study while reading the book. One of the only real Republican close friends I have in the city is one of the least likely. He is a struggling actor with no money who lives a very creative life surrounded by books, comics, music, and a big marijuana smoke cloud. I've always wondered why he is so conservative! I also knew that his father was a military man and worked for the government. I've never actually met his parents, but now I realize that he MUST have grown up in a strict-father modeled household. The idea of the world being dangerous, people being generally bad, the successful being deserving and the poor being lazy are definitely values I have heard him express. It all made so much sense!!
The one thing that Lakoff’s book doesn’t discuss is how someone who grew up with a strict-father family structure can get past that and see eye-to-eye with a progressive thinker. Basing everything on how we grew up during childhood does not leave me with a lot of hope.
We do have to work on framing the debate and not falling into the traps of using conservative language, which reinforces their ideas. I have always seen the value in choosing language carefully and this book, along with many other books I have read in the Media Studies program, have supported this idea.
After a conversation I had with my conservative friend about “supporting the troops” it became very clear to me that he didn’t support them at all. His viewpoint was that they signed the papers and if they didn’t think they’d ever get called to war, they were wrong. Tough luck, that’s what you get for signing your soul for college tuition. I couldn’t believe it. I told him that wasn’t very respectful of the troops and he shrugged his shoulders. So, I think that Liberals should claim the phrase “RESPECT THE TROOPS” and that means: be careful with their lives, protect them from unnecessary harm, supply them with the proper equipment, extend their benefits, and care for their families. Most of all, appreciate them for putting their lives in danger and volunteering to do a job so that others are not forced to. I show my support of the troops by respecting them.
posted by Marisa at 11:41 AM
12 Comments:
You will learn much more if you read Lakoff's "Moral Politics" instead of "Elephant". Also, I've been building upon Lakoff's model for almost two years - you can check that out here:
http://sciencepolitics.blogspot.com/2006/03/looking-for-politics-on-science-and.html
I really like the message "Respect the troops"; that's a terrific idea. I will borrow this and attribute it to you on one of my upcoming posts on my own blog.
I've also thought that republicans tended to be more "pro-birth" than pro-life. They believe in all means to getting the fetus to term, giving birth, then they don't give a damn once the child is born--meaning it is born unwanted/uncaring people, or to those who have no means to care for them. For those of us who say we are pro-choice, I prefer to say we are pro-family because we choose our families, even if that means our loved ones are of same gender, partners (not married), no children, with pets, or we have kids and want them.
Coturnix turned me on this site. He's one of my favorite bloggers. I'll have to check out "Moral Politics."
Marisa,
There is a bit of a problem with your argument - how did Mr. and Mrs. Knox perform as nurturing parents if they were *gasp* - conservative?! I mean, the central conceit of Lakoff is that Conservatives must be Strict Fathers... So how did Shelby Knox's Conservative parents act so, well, nurturant?
Its a puzzle.
Check out my blog entries on this at
http://andune.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-people-think-why-they-think-and-if.html
and
http://andune.blogspot.com/2006/02/clarifications-i-seem-to-have-failed.html
Ooops, sorry to infect you with Mr.Deep Thought...
Coturnix,
Since you have spent so much time with Lakoff, perhaps you can answer my question from the earlier post - how did COnservative parents raise a daughter in such a nurturing manner?
"Moral Politics" has two whole chapters devoted to the variations on the theme. Check out "Moral Politics" entry on Wikipedia - it covers it pretty well.
Do not mix up personal anecdotes with population statistics.
"population statistics'? This is a discussion of cognitive theory. Your website flogs the concepts that Conservatives are inherently crazy *because* they are conservative. Your discussion of Lakoff mirror those of Marisa - the Stern Father model guides how they think.
Again: Lakoff's general theories are not too egregious, if not very inpired or original. But his real resonance with some (like youand Marisa) is his totally unsupported conceptualization of COnservatives' cognitive framework.
If you want to change direction and discuss population statistics, then your arguments about Conservatives being crazy, etc., are going to be undermined fairly rapidly!
Thank you all for your feedback. These are my first comments as a blogger! It's very exciting.
Coturnix - Thank you for your recommendation, I have not yet read "Moral Politics". And thank you for including me as one of your “obligatory readings of the day” That was very flattering!
Deep Thought - I don't believe in what you call, 'a generic conservative thought as a monolithic whole.' That is why I think it is possible for Shelby's parents to be both "conservative" and nurturing at the same time. My theory is that they are mostly conservatives by association (hence the quotation marks). Living in Lubbock, Texas, church going and conservatism is part of the culture. Just as non-denominational faith and liberalism is commonplace in NYC. It's sort of like the default, and doesn’t always mean they have incredibly strong political convictions. My guess is that Shelby’s parents are not particularly political and care more about nurturing their daughter and respecting her obvious intelligence and independence. If they were staunch republicans, I think it would be very hard for them to truly support her progressive beliefs – which is very clear from the movie, that they do.
I am very curious to know more about her parents and the households that they grew up in. I think that they would be a great case study for Lakoff's model. I just met Shelby at an event last week in NY and got her email address. Maybe I'll ask her about this!
Benny - Thank you for your comments. I agree with you 100%.
I hope you don't mind a few questions...?
So do you think a staunch conservative who reach his viewpoints after careful thought is incapable of being a nurturing parent?
Do yu think a "truly" conservative couple would ignore the obvious intelligence of their child? Or that child's independence?
Not that they wouldn't be capable of being nurturing, but they would choose to be more strict. No one is talking about ability. Everyone is capable of being nurturing and strict, it is a question of how you choose to treat your kids. Lakoff is saying that when you come from a mindset that says the world is a dangerous place, there are winners and losers, everyone is born bad (meaning they only want to do what feels good) and must be taught to be good, it translates into strict parenting. Tough love.
I'm not saying a strict parent would ignore their child's intelligence or independence but they may not nurture it or encourage it in a way that truly supports and respects the child's independence. Strict parents still tend to think they know what's best for their kids, even when the kid seems perfectly capable of making their own decisions.
Deep thought- I feel like you are getting very upset about this. I actually feel like this is a favorable model to consider the differences between liberals and conservatives. Do you have any other theories about what is at the core of our beliefs? I'd be happy to hear them.
Marisa,
Please, don't mistake me - I am not emotional at all. Short little text messages are difficult this way but, trust me - I will state in plain English if I am offended, and politely.
I fear that I am unclear as to what your answers mean; is it - Conservatives are capable of being nurturing, but won't be, and; Conservative parents would recognize a child's intelligence, but not properly allow it to develop, while failing to recognize independence?
As I have been trying to point out to Coturnix/Bora, as a Conservative and someone who studies philosophy, I find Lakoff's model deeply flawed. Lakoff (and, it seems, you - although I am extrapolating) seem to be conflating false stereotypes with actual Conservative thought.
For example, the core economic conceptualization of classical Liberal/modern Conservative thought rests upon the personal responsibility of individuals in a structure where the natural outcome is economic and societal good; i.e., the cornerstone of their thought is based upon personal independence of individuals in a world that will naturally produce good if not altered into unnatural patterns.
This is in direct contradiction to Lakoff's conceptualization of a mindset where others are seen as objects to be controlled in a world that is inherently bad.
The Catholic theological anthropology of Man is that Man is inherently good and noble. Interestingly enough, the Objectivist theological anthropology is virtually identical, and Objectivists are staunch atheists. Likewise, the basis of Libertarian thought is that the individual is so inherently trustworthy that large-scale government is only a hindrance to the naturally positive effects of granting each person as much independence and autonomy as possible.
The three strains of thought are the dominant ideologies underpinning the broad scope of Conservative thought. All are predicated on the idea that individuals are naturally good and live in a world that, if unconstrained from natural processes, will automatically result in good for all.
Works as varied at the catechism of the Catholic Church and the Book of Virtue promote the idea that reason, indepences of thought, and personal action are the essential elements of a good, moral life. These are all elements of Conservative education and formation.
As I have said before, Lakoff's "Strict Father" conceptualization directly contradicts thwsw facts, leading to terrible confusion by those who buy into it.
Not to be nosy, nor condescending, but... how many truly conservative families do you know personally, and how well? Any 'Latin Mass' Catholics, Objectivists with kids, Libertarians with children?
Sorry for the spelling - I am leaving the laptop for a real keyboard!!
Post a Comment
<< Home