One of the many hazards of writing a blog dedicated to framing issues from a progressive point of view is the inevitable let down that there is no single magic answer to growing the progressive base in Canada.
Framing -- certainly the moral/values based approach George Lakoff promotes in the U.S. -- has caught the attention of many thoughtful and smart progressives in Canada.
The odds are very high that if you attend a meeting of progressives focused on communications, someone will inevitably talk about 'framing' and reference Lakoff. Frequently, the word 'framing' is really used as a buzz word replacement for 'spin', which used to be the language du jour before Lakoff came along.
We progressives are keen to learn new words to describe our communications work. Appreciating and understanding the deep concepts beneath the word 'framing' is another matter.
When we treat framing as spin, we tap into what Lakoff calls surface frames -- and our tougher challenge is to connect with our audience in a way that makes them feel emotional, that sparks our shared values and morals, rather than skims the surface. Deep frames are what we seek. This isn't easy to do. I view it as a long-term process.
Also, shortcomings: many progressives who read Lakoff reach a point of frustration. Their frustration is rooted in multiple deep critiques -- American political scientist and media critic Brendan Nyahn does a good job summarizing those critiques in this blog. Also, this lively rabble.ca exchange.
Progressives, long committed to the goals of enlightenment, are excellent at offering critique. This practice lends itself to one of my personal life theories: our greatest strength is often our greatest weakness. While we're busy tearing apart the weaknesses in Lakoff's approach to issue framing, we divert our attention from the constructive work of improving how we communicate those core values that are not only progressive in nature, but also Canadian.
Advertising
Here's how I see it: George Lakoff has provided a service in linking politics, communications, linguistics and cognitive psychology under the rubric of framing. He has advanced a theory that is part critique and part infrastructure for moving forward. His contribution is part of centuries of intellectual thought and lived reality that inform what it is to be progressive in this day and age.
The rest is up to us. There is no path. We make the path by walking on it.
Framing is not new. It's about myth-making. It's about manipulation. Lakoff didn't invent it. It's as old as the hills.
The idea that we have to out-manipulate and out-mythologize conservative ideology is actually quite destructive of left-wing political discourse. It encourages us to avoid frank assessments and unvarnished truths, in favour of crafty public relations talk. Worst of all, it creates shibboleths that leftists embrace and use in communicating with each other, creating a false sense of agreement on fundamentals and discouraging their analytical desconstruction to get to the heart of reality; in short, they become a substitute for genuine thought and genuine dialogue.
Take for example the framing used by Ms. Hennessy when she talks about our "core values that are not only progressive in nature, but also Canadian". This is myth-mongering at its finest. It promotes the myth of "progressivism", an undefinable term that is often used as a catch-all for everyone to the left of Ghengis Khan. It promotes the myth of "Canadian values", a term most commonly used as a synonym for "my values" or "the values of me and my circle of acquaintances". It's the flip-side analogue of the framing of political opponents as "unAmerican", used to such great mythmaking effect in the United States sixty years ago.
Framing exists entirely in the realm of ideas about ideas, a realm of meta-reality, unliked to the material world where real stuff goes on. It elevates the strategic deployment of language above the ability to understand and communicate the reality of the world we live in and its history. It ignores the fact that no major social change has ever come about through persuasive speech, much less framing. It's the conditions of material reality that govern what people think and understand about the world. Upton Sinclair understood this when he allegedly remarked, "It's hard to make a man understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it". The corollary is that people will understand things when their livelihood depends on their understanding it. No amount of manipulative language and myth-mongering can withstand that reality.
M. Spector,
While I share your anxiety about 'frames' being abused as an excuse to avoid truth-seeking political discourse, I think you've failed to understand what they actually are.
The idea of frames was developed - without any thought of politics - to address problems with 'feature set' based theories of semantics. If you're interested in the topic, I recommend the book 'Cognitive Linguistics' by William Cruse.
No matter how much you disagree with George Lakoff's particular application of them to politics, frames are themselves only a tool to better understand what one is communicating, perfectly indifferent to any particular agenda.
The problems of the left are not linguistic or semantic - they are political. The current "framing" fad among the academic liberals and social democrats of North America is a way to deal with the wrapping without seriously examining the contents of the package.
I have to agree with Ms. Henessy in that all George Lakoff is talking about is a way to be effective in the politics of persuasion by using the best from lingusitics, cognitive science and basic common sense to make the liberal or progressive arguments that we all know must be made for a better society for more people. It is clearly not a fad or spinning it is using science to make the arguments the best they can be. Down here it the states it is clearly the republican, disciplinarian, paternal approach that runs through the discourse and the progressive, maternal, unselfish, socially responsible argument is often not presented well. Quite frankly it is more difficult to re frame the debate and use the progressive language when it is not what is in the everyday discourse of the commons. Lakoff is right that the Republican sound machine has taken the language and like Orwell turned in on its head, but still occupied the commons because many progressives and media use the frame for the discussion that was created by the Republicans. I harken back to high school debate class where I learned that whoever is the person who frames the question to be debated is half way home to winning the debate. Kudos for Ms. Henessy.
Yes, wemwolf, you Yanks think Lakoff is a genius because in your political system, the only difference between Democrats (or as you people down there like to call them "progressives") and Republicans is semantics and linguistics. So "framing" becomes everything, because the politics underlying the discourse is indistinguishable as between the two.