Tag: George Lakoff

A new way of thinking

Posted on by kathiemm

The political mind: Why you can’t understand 21st-century American politics with an 18th century brain, by George Lakoff

Book review by Kathie Malley-Morrison and Sarah Bleicher, student of linguistics and international studies at Boston College. (Sarah took Psychology of War and Peace with Kathie Malley-Morrison at Boston University this summer.)

Upon reading the introduction of George Lakoff’s The Political Mind, one may feel that brainwashing will ensue. Lakoff calls for a “New Enlightenment,” a new way of thinking, and for “changing minds.”

He explains how the brain shapes the political mind, how politics challenge the 21st century mind, and how old ways of thinking left over from the Enlightenment era are used—ineffectively—by neoliberals who think you can change people’s thinking by presenting them with facts.

In this book, Lakoff cites a number of  studies in support of his argument that human beings are emotional in ways that affect how they think about issues of values and morality. He argues that the combination of particular emotions with particular ideas can create synaptic bonds in the brain that in turn shape responses to those ideas and similar ideas.

According to Lakoff, human beings are not completely rational, and ideas with a strong emotional component (e.g., the extent to which wars are necessary and can be won) are influenced not just by information but by how they are framed, the language in which they are embedded, and the effects of that language on the brain.

This book provides a rich perspective on how cognitive science, politics, language, and experiences in the family and the broader society all work together in ways that can have a fundamental influence on political thought. Lakoff’s theories are mostly directed at helping progressives argue and debate more effectively in trying to counter the messages of conservatives; however, I think many of Lakoff’s ideas can be used to promote peace and a better world.

Specifically, I think we should consider the applications of his theories to peace building and peace education. Lakoff is quite convincing in his arguments concerning the tactics used by conservatives to influence political thinking; why shouldn’t peace educators use similar principles in framing the values of peace in a way that will energize people to work for peace?

Kathie Malley-Morrison and Sarah Bleicher

Values and rhetoric: Lakovian framing, metaphors and stories

Posted on 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)

Conservative and liberal world views

Posted on by kathiemm

George Lakoff's book Moral PoliticsOne of the theorists to be considered in greater detail in later posts is George Lakoff.

We introduce several of his main ideas here because they are relevant to how readers are likely to respond to this blog; specifically, Lakoff has provided a brilliant analysis of moral reasoning in liberals and conservatives.

In his book, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Lakoff argues that liberals and conservatives hold different values.

Specifically, liberals value:

  • Empathetic behavior and promoting fairness
  • Helping those who cannot help themselves
  • Protecting those who cannot protect themselves
  • Promoting fulfillment in life
  • Nurturing and strengthening oneself in order to help others.

By contrast, conservatives value:

  • A “strict father” morality (using punishment to establish respect for authority)
  • Self-discipline, responsibility, and self-reliance
  • The morality of reward and punishment
  • Protecting moral people from external evils
  • Upholding the established moral order.

Traditionally, liberals have been viewed as doves and conservatives as hawks; however, within both sectors there are pro-war and anti-war activists who differ primarily in their moral reasoning:

  • Pro-war conservatives often refer to the evilness and moral inferiority of the identified “enemy” and view protestors against war as unpatriotic.
  • Pro-war liberals are more likely to use the rhetoric of helping others.

In regard to this blog, it is the liberals who are more likely to be sympathetic to advocacy of peace activism. Would you agree? Why is this likely to be so?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology