Political Critique of Lakoff

The most fundamental insight one gets from reading Lakoff is not the concept of 'frames' that he is best known for in political circles. 'Framing' in common usage is what supports and directs an argument. It may well entail rhetorical devices that are less than explicit or even 'subtextual'. But that commonly understood 'framing' is entirely about what goes into rational argumentation.

Frames that Lakoff talks about are cognitive constructs- 'cognitive' in that the processes that put them together are not primarily concious thought processes. Rational thought process is part of 'what goes in'.... but only part. And the overall construct is not some kind of distilled product of rational/concious argumentation. Nor is it it 'irrational,' anything like 'insinctual'. And it is highly interactive between our brains and our social environment. Just not interactive/concious, or some kind of parallel or anolog of rational argumentation, or for that matter like any kind of 'discussion.'

It is this concept of political thought as first and primarily cognitive, rather than being wrapped entirely around rational argumentation, which is the most important understanding Lakoff's discourse brings to the table.

This take on political understanding is not in the least new or unique to Lakoff and his colleagues. I came to a similar conclusion just as an observing and still quite young political animal with no intellectual or theoretical background of any kind to support me. The first theory I came across that there was some crossover was some years later, and it was in the phenomenology of space. Later I came across Perre Bordieu and the concept of habitus, which was wholy sociological, rather than rooted in study ot the processes of the brain in which Lakoff and others are rooted.

Bordieu and similar thinkers must be at least 30 years ago by now. I still find the concept of habitus to be as useful for me as Lakoff. Though I am learning and adding from thinking about it from the angle of understanding the thought processes themselves. And it matters a lot that Lakoff is a key part of a current discussion and a political practice.

But not only are Lakof'fs insights not as new as the might seem for social and behavioural sciences. Even more basic as a predecessor and precedent: straight up marketing. Marketers have known for decades that persuasion, allegiances and all that stuff are first of all congnitive processes rather than rational ones... and are worked on at that level. Sidepoint and small point: one of the things that bugs me about Lakoff's man with a mission spiel is that he often chides the left with the success of the Right. So far so good. But he attributes that success to intellectuals and leaders of the Right using 'brain science'. That is just bunk. The Right has been succeeding since long before any of them would have known a thing about cognitive sciences.

Understanding the brain and cognitive science just deepens understanding the political behaviour of people. And I think it is probably the best way to introduce people who struggle with the concepts and are still stuck in a crippling rational Enlightenment view of how people behave in the civic and political space. And its a good place to start in no small part because of Lakoff. Lakoff's general discussion, and in particular Lakoff's attention to what is wrong the rational Enlightenment understanding of political behaviour.

So after Lakoff devoting attention to how the Right throws resources at the back room 'persuasion shops,' and doing it in a highly organized fashion, he calls on progressives to 'be more aware of framing'......  to not be rolled over because we are stuck in rationalist Enlightenment communications, talking to people that do not hear.

That is it?

It is definitely good and necessary advice. And more than that, the more it is understood and discussed, the more often it is going to be applied by progressives who have a role in their organizations' communications.

But it is the activism of voluntarism: spread the good word. Do better. Lakoff does frequently enough deconstruct and prescribe on what the communications and narratives of Democrats and other organizations. But his own narrative to his audience, frames communications and what you can do about it, as if it is all about talking to your neighbours. How to speak in a way that is more effective. How to write better letters to the editor.

That is all well and good, and better than nothing. But as an activist who is engaged around the outreach of messages by organizations, Lakoff bloody well knows that the battles and the work that needs to be done is in mass communications. Mass communications is the endeavour of organizations.

The closest Lakoff gets to this is that he obliquely acknowledges that progressives will never have the resources to throw into the battle that the Right had and has- and we have to play catch up first. The unvoiced answer is that we'll match them with the power of the grassroots.

I agree. And not just that it is necessary, but quite doable. The Right did it with lots of resources and elite organizations. We have a very few think tanks, and more diffused organizational capabilities. But how we do it differently needs to be idenitified.

Voluntarism and diffuse take-up of ideas about how to do political work just do not cut it.

bump