Putting Lakoff's Work in a Larger Context
Thursday 08 April 2010
by: Mary L. Wentworth, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: jakub_hla, pareeerica)
In applying to political discourse the scientific discoveries of how concepts are embodied in our brains, George Lakoff and his associates have made an important contribution to how we Democrats ought to be talking about issues.
What is missing, however, in this application of science to politics, is recognition that a powerful worldwide system known as patriarchy needs to be the context for these discussions. For example, in a recent Truthout article, "Obama, Tea Parties and the Battle for Our Brains," Lakoff explains how liberals and conservatives differ in their views of the family.
Liberals, Lakoff pointed out, prefer the model of "a nurturant parent family" that is not only based on "empathy," but also on "responsibility - for both oneself and others, and on excellence: doing as well as one can to make oneself better, and one's family and community better. Parents are to practice these things and children are to learn them by example." Clearly, these are families in which women, as the primary nurturers, have an important place.
"Conservatives," wrote Lakoff, prefer "a strict father family" model. In this kind of family, "the world is seen as a dangerous place and the father functions as protector from 'others' and is the parent who teaches children absolute right from wrong by punishing them physically (painful spanking or worse) when they do wrong. The father is the ultimate authority; children are to obey, and immoral practices are seen as disgusting."
Republicans claim that this model is based on "traditional family values." Actually, they are patriarchal values rooted in the subjugation of women, for it is not just the children who must yield to the authority of the father, but the mother as well.
Patriarchy is a system with a long history, predating written records, but it remains a powerful contemporary force throughout the world.
Patriarchs instituted the practice of marriage many millennia ago in order to subordinate women whom they saw as a valuable commodity by giving every man the right by law to absolute dominion over a wife. In patriarchal marriages, the father is more than a mere "protector." He is a property owner. And in many countries, a wife today has no more rights than a slave. Women and girls are sold into marriage or prostitution, traded for other goods, or simply given away. A wife is viewed as valuable property because along with the domestic services that she provides she is able to produce children, especially sons, and the progeny belong to the property owner.
This issue of ownership is at the root of the strong opposition on the part of conservatives to Roe vs. Wade. The idea that a woman would have control over her life to the extent that she could legally abort the "male-owned" fetus is anathema to the patriarchal system and to those who espouse "traditional family values."
Conservatives seek to strengthen patriarchy here and abroad by not only denying women access to abortions, but also to contraceptive information and devices.
Conservatives mask their contempt for women under the term "pro-life." Few seem to notice that they have painted themselves into a corner on this issue, because if they claim that abortion is tantamount to murder, then how can they logically allow abortions, as some want to do, in the case of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother?
Here, in the United States, thanks to two militant women's movements over the last 150 years, progress has been achieved in removing many of the barriers to full personhood for women. But we are not out of the woods by a long shot. We women still have no equal rights under the US Constitution. Men in "nurturant parent families" can also be abusive and overbearing. And even here the violence - rapes, murders and domestic abuse - necessary to maintain the subservience of women goes on at a steady pace.
An issue Lakoff addresses in terms of framing is homosexuality. Liberals use "gays and lesbians," which gets a more positive response in polls, while conservatives always use "homosexual" as in "homosexual marriage" or homosexuals in the military" etc. The question that needs to be asked, however, is why conservatives feel compelled to demonize homosexuals in the first place. The answer is that homosexual relationships undermine the patriarchal system that is structured on heterosexuality. Men are not involved in lesbian relationships, keeping the women in line. Two cohabiting men are seen as abdicating their responsibility to help control women. One might add that gay and lesbian relationships offer a more equal, and, therefore, a threatening model, to the patriarchal one.
Conservatives here have been tagged as working with their counterparts in Uganda to achieve legislation that would outlaw homosexuality and impose death sentences on those in violation of it.
The quid pro quo for lower-class men in exchange for their privileges vis á vis women is absolute loyalty to the ruling patriarchs. The loyalty chit is called in whenever patriarchs gear up to fight another one of their wars. The presence of women and homosexual males in the military erodes the ages-old patriarchal ideal of what it means to be "a real man." Over the centuries, and the present one is no exception, men around the world have been willing to put their lives on the line to advance the interests of those at the top.
By substituting "patriarchal" for the phrase "conservative moral," in Lakoff's final sentence: "The highest value in the conservative moral system is the perpetuation and strengthening of the conservative moral system itself," we would have a statement that gives us an appropriate context.
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
I agree: the words
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 15:39 — Liced-Christ (not verified)I agree: the words homosexual and homosexuality are clinical, implying illness or psychological imbalance, if not perversion itself. We must be vigilant in framing all of our political discussions. For example, is Obama a right wing Democrat or a "centrist?" The right wing is framing almost every discussion these days. The word liberal, which means FREEDOM, has become synonymous on Fox News and CNN with: Evil Monsters from the depths of Hell. When conservatives speak the word liberal, there is unhidden disdain, disgust and horror. Left wing pundits ought to adopt this technique, not keep talking in neutral tones. And abortion, which is ENTIRELY a woman's body issue, has now been framed in terms of fetus' rights, an inherently non-sensical notion. To get the framing question right we need to get the media back. Rich left wing Democrats ought to get in on the act in buying up media agencies and start the slow campaign of resurrecting a left wing media that reframes all discussions. Everything has swung so far to the right that this seems, actually like a pleasant fantasy rather than a possibility.
There's also an unspoken
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 16:26 — S.O.Teric (not verified)There's also an unspoken agreement which goes something like this: You make money however you can, and I'll make money however I can, and "freedom" will mean there'll be a minimum amount of laws to limit ways to make money and no taxes except for armies and police forces to protect what we have and expand ways of making money here and elsewhere. Behind the commodification of women is commodification itself; it is the violent transformation of everything and everyone through the single measure, money. Looked at this way, these men are not only addicted, they are trapped and unable to be aware of any other measures. It is both sad and outrageous because they cause so much damage.
The word "liberal" might be so hated precisely because it contains the connotation of freeing the mind from these constraints, literally by asking why. The disgust of reactionaries arises in part from their believing they have a monopoly on what reality is, which includes the prediction that nothing can get done without force or the threat of force from people willing to use force and regard their fellow human beings who don't want to use force as sheep who need to be fleeced .
A sad consequence of this
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 16:58 — Anonymous (not verified)A sad consequence of this conceptual frame is the number of women that don't challenge their socialized worldviews and coopt in maintaining this patriarchal lop-sided social homeostasis.
Right on sister, thank you
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 17:05 — Jackie (not verified)Right on sister, thank you for pointing out the model again. May the light bulb come on for a few more people.
OY! What a bind! I wonder
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 17:34 — Anonymous (not verified)OY! What a bind! I wonder if the big C "conservatives" would prefer to outlaw inter-cultural/ethnic marriages or co-habitation. Especially if the couple agree on a "liberal" raising/upbringing of their progeny? I guess I'd have to spray myself with a chemical extinguisher every morning, plus keep one on me on a permanent basis.
You know what? That reminds me of Southern/Confederate cross burnings & lynchings. I wonder whether there could be a link between the NEW Conservatives and the Confederate/KuKluxKlan "activists" of lore (has it ever ended?).
Heaven (or what/who/ever) help us!
Frenchie Canuck, eh!
p.s. maybe raised a Catholic, but not practising AND (you know what?) not even a pedophile or a missionary!!!
A few years ago, I read
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 18:07 — Harry Thomas (not verified)A few years ago, I read somewhere that the reason that many (older) Americans are anti-gay rights oriented is not because they object to the lifestyle as much as they object to the fact that a same-sex couple cannot have children. No children means no grandchildren to bounce on their knees. And that can also be tied into the anti-abortion logic as well. Makes as much sense as any other theory.
I think this article gets to
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 19:20 — Anonymous (not verified)I think this article gets to the cause of much of our modern violence, disfunction and despair. The paradigm of dominance that forms the way we relate to one another in American society is something that Eve Ensler has studied and spoken so much about. I think she lays it out even more clearly. There's a good interview with her at:
http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/interviews/eveensler.html
At one point later in the interview she explains:
EE: "Well, patriarchy is a mentality that is based on the principles of dominance, control, and hierarchy. Once you create that hierarchy, you always have to have power over someone. I think when a government is practicing (on national and international levels) policies of dominance and using mechanisms of violence to control people, of course that will be mirrored and matched on the domestic levels. And of course it will encourage men to bully, to dominate, and to control their women, just as we are controlling other countries, as we are controlling nations, as we are controlling whoever it is we’re controlling. It gives license to hierarchy and violence on all levels."
SAME GENDER marriage is the
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 19:21 — Soularddave (not verified)SAME GENDER marriage is the essential subject of one of today's issues. The media are all using a different, and very loaded term to describe a legal situation. A change here might be beneficial if we'd use different terminology.
Likewise, TERMINATING PREGNANCY is a better descriptor for a medical procedure that could be used to benefit women who desire that physical adjustment in their lives.
Just using your own, better choices of words may help you make your points more realistic and your ideas better understood. Don't play the games of those you disagree with.
There once was a time, When
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 21:36 — Uppity Woman (not verified)There once was a time,
When all women were free,
We remember it in our bones,
It sings in us deeply.
We all remember now,
This time when we were free,
It burns within our souls
Our fondest memory.
We have reclaimed this past,
We all will soon be free,
We will tirelessly resist,
Until women have liberty.
And are free, truly free,
joyously FREE!!!!!!
Everybody wants to twist the
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 00:41 — Anonymous (not verified)Everybody wants to twist the topic to
his or her own ends. The current world crisis
is not about "framing" or patriarchy or any of those camera close up shots. It's about the big
wide-angle deal that the place is f***ed up,
going to hell in a hand basket, and the robots
are just around the corner.
I buy some of what is said
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 00:55 — Anonymous (not verified)I buy some of what is said here, except that if I follow this reasoning through, I don't see why conservatives would be against polygamy. If they are against "homosexual" marriage because it "undermines the patriarchal system", they would be for polygamy because it permits one man to "own" more than one woman. I'm not sure conservatives demonize homosexuality for the reasons given, but I do agree that conservatives resemble a "strict father family" model and liberals a "nurturant parent family".
In many countries, the
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 08:37 — Mary Wentworth (not verified)In many countries, the patriarchy supports and allows polygamy.
Some patriarchal systems
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 09:00 — Anonymous (not verified)Some patriarchal systems officially accept polygamy while others do not. This does not mean that women are not equally subjugated, relative to their circumstances, in each of these separate situations.
I think that this article is very helpful, because it suggests why 'the place is f***ed up.' Too many times we settle for excuses about our world and the incomprehensibility of it all - well, the fact that we humans are so apt to continue persecuting one another may really be due to the way we continue to define our world - or not define it. I don't think that re-framing an issue is always a cynical trick to 'repackage' or hide the truth. It may very well be an honest attempt to redefine the issue so that real responsibility, real causes and real solutions can be found. I think this article and the work it references are such honest attempts.
Your article misrepresents
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 09:33 — Anonymous (not verified)Your article misrepresents Conservatism. Most Conservatives that I know don't give a rat's ass who marries who, or whether or not the man wears the pants in the family. Conservatism is more about the Constitution than it is about social issues; *religious* Conservatives are the ones who have conflated the two, sadly. This idea that the Conservative vs Liberal argument can be reduced to a simple disparity of patriarchal values vs. 'Nurturing' values is a vast oversimplification, and does not hold up well under scrutiny. My wife and children are not my 'property' -- that is absurd. My wife and my children are the best things in my life, and I am thankful for every day they choose to remain with me. They easily could choose not to; society has provided them with a lot of opportunities to leave if they so chose.
Your wife and children could
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 10:43 — Anonymous (not verified)Your wife and children could "easily choose not to" remain with you... really? Most conservatives "don't give a rats ass about who dominates... in the household... in companies... in government... the military... really?
Good job pointing out the
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 11:16 — Roberta Paro (not verified)Good job pointing out the patriarchal system.
I think that on the way to creating a culture and systems based on love and cooperation those of us who organize and communicate need to think about activating the frames that emphasize caring, responsibility and empathy.
Could it be the white-wing
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 09:23 — George Baggett (not verified)Could it be the white-wing think-tanks, about which Lakhoff has written about, use the "patriarchal" frame to cover their true authoritarian position? Recent polling of tea-party members describes a large group of unsophisticated people experiencing an eye-opening promoted by authoritarians like Rove, et, al, who are expert at framing into a subtle, but well understood moral window of bigotry.
In my view it is meant to look like a patriarchal position, with authoritarians behind the curtain egging the process onward. We've seen this before - when the corporate sponsors of the Nazis used the brownshirts to eliminate unions and Communists.
My guess is when we look back at this period we will see it as one when propaganda was used to the maximum extent possible. So I ask, what will happen when the RNC no longer has any use for the Tea Party? Or, will it be the other way around?