framing – Engaging Peace

Your father taught you WHAT? Part 2.

Posted on October 2, 2016 by kathiemm

A recent post introduced an analysis by cognitive psychologist George Lakoff regarding supporters of Donald Trump. Lakoff stresses the arch conservative’s investment in a “strict father” authoritarian, white male supremacy moral code. Today’s post shares Lakoff’s psychological analysis of “How Trump Uses Your Brain to His Advantage.”

Lakoff’s basic argument is that conscious thinking is a tiny portion of what goes on in the brain, and that indeed an estimated 98 percent of all mental activity is unconscious. (Think of times when you started driving to see a friend on Saturday and all of a sudden realized you had passed your exit and were on your way to work—conscious enough to drive safely but led unconsciously onto the route to work.)

Unconscious thought, Lakoff maintains, is influenced by certain basic mechanisms that Donald Trump and his team manipulate with finesse. These mechanisms include:

Repetition. Words have links in the brain to circuits that give them meaning. Think about what you do when you are learning a new word or name—you repeat it and repeat it and perhaps also repeat its definition or its connection with something familiar. Those repetitions strengthen the neural connections associated with the word and make it easier to activate them. So, when Trump says over and over again that “I am the only one who…”, our brains tend to fill in the rest of the message whether we consciously believe it or not (“…can make America great again.”
Framing. One of the mantras of the Trump campaign is “crooked Hillary,” framing Hillary Clinton as a crook who deliberately perpetrates crimes for her own benefit. Framing her this way evokes a common myth in the minds of conservatives—that is, what is illegal is also immoral according to Strict Father Morality (making, for example, a lot of anti-war and pro-environment activism “immoral”). Thus, at Trump rallies, we increasingly hear “Lock her up, lock her up!”
Well-known examples. Trump repeatedly refers to examples of “Muslim terrorists” widely amplified in the popular media to maintain and exacerbate fears, which unconsciously activates desire for a strong no-nonsense father to fix everything. And they are told exactly who can play this role for them.

Lakoff goes on to describe other forms of mind control used by the Trump campaign. Read them for yourself and decide whether you think he makes his case. And, given what you have learned about Lakoff’s analysis, what kinds of connections do you think human minds, particularly conservative minds, will make when they get swamped with photos and stories concerning the infidelities of former President William Clinton? Do you think the promulgators of those photos and stories are conscious of their effects? How about the recipient of those messages?

Who knows why we fight? George knows.

Posted on October 16, 2014November 15, 2014 by kathiemm

In the early days of this blog, we published a series of posts about George Lakoff’s views on wars between values and nations; we revisit some of those posts today.

Lakoff is an activist cognitive psychologist/linguist who devotes great attention to the conflict in values between liberals and conservatives, and the ways in which the family values that are communicated to children can play out in the readiness of adults to make love or war.

For example, in his book Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Lakoff argues that while conservatives value a “strict father” morality (using punishment to establish respect for authority), liberals value a “nurturant family” morality emphasizing empathy and democratic forms of conflict resolution.

Lakoff also emphasizes the role of metaphor in the decisions people reach regarding political issues. Many judgments are propelled by a “nation-as-person” or “nation-as-family” metaphor in which industrial nations are viewed as “mature” and knowledgeable while other nations are seen as “primitive,” “backward,” and needing to be taught a lesson.

In his book, The Political Mind, Lakoff explains that ideas with a strong emotional component (e.g., regarding the extent to which wars are considered necessary and winnable) are influenced not just by information but also by how they are framed, the language in which they are embedded, and the effects of that language on the brain.

To learn more about Lakoff’s views about how family values connect with major political philosophies and behavior read this article and tell us what you think.

Values and rhetoric: Lakovian framing, metaphors and stories

Posted on March 3, 2011July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

George Lakoff, like Albert Bandura, analyzes the ways that people frame deadly behaviors to give them the trappings of morality. On August 26, 2010, our blog introduced Lakoff’s work; today we continue that exploration.

According to Lakoff, both liberals and conservatives use linguistic techniques, such as metaphors, storytelling, and framing, to justify political views. For example, people often conceptualize nations as persons or even families, referring to their “founding fathers” or their “homeland,” or equating Iraq with Saddam Hussein. This nation-as-person metaphor presumes that there are :

“Adult nations” (those that are “mature” and industrialized)
“Nation-children,” which are industrializing and have moral standards but may need guidance, and
Backward nations, which are underdeveloped, in need of morals, and must be taught a lesson.

Many people justify invasions of other countries through what Lakoff labels the self-defense and rescue stories, each of which involves a blameless victim country, an inherently evil villain country, and a hero country:

In the self-defense story, the villain nation commits a crime against the victim nation, and the victim fights the villain off, thus becoming a hero.
In the rescue story, the villain threatens or attacks the victim, and the hero comes in and defeats the villain, thereby saving the victim.

Other people justify invading another country by using fear-instilling stock phrases such as “terrorist” or euphemisms designed to make inhumane actions seem sterile or even desirable—e.g., calling invasion a “military operation” as though it were something clean and sterile.

What other stories can you think of that people tell each other to justify aggression, including torture, by their governments?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology (with thanks to Tristyn Campbell for contributing to this post)