It occurs to me that the two points in the post below -- that framing is deeper and more important than just tweaking terminology, and that the green pursuit of Lakoff is a waste of time -- might be seen to be in conflict, so a quick clarification.
Of course greens need to be cognizant of framing. Everyone does; even in a one-on-one conversation, it is helpful to be aware of the basic frames your interlocutor is bringing to bear, so that you can actually communicate instead of passing like ships in the night. That's the thing: Lakoff has not uncovered some super-top-secret political juju heretofore only possessed by the right wing. What he's done is helped clarify common sense. All you need to be "great at framing" is some empathy and a willingness to listen. (Try it at home!) It's great that he's brought some conceptual clarity to the area, but let's not lose our knickers over the whole thing.
Yes, greens need to frame their issues better. But -- much like, say, keeping your knees bent when you play tennis -- this is not an end in itself. You wouldn't go to a knee-bending camp, and you wouldn't pay someone $350,000 to show you how to keep your knees bent. Greens should be framing their issues well as a matter of course, as they go about doing other things -- like pursuing actual goals. What's been preventing them from doing so is a fairly complicated knot of issues: media access, well-funded disinformation campaigns by the other side, structural and cultural impediments in the way the movement operates, and -- let's not pretend -- some old, outdated, fusty, or otherwise unappealing positions on issues (you can't shine shit). What hasn't prevented them from framing well is some sort of arcane mystery about how framing works, or what frames are effective. An astute, empathetic observer of culture, backed by extensive poll data and personal experience interacting with those outside her immediate social/ideological circle, already knows how to frame the issues. The thing now is just doing it.
Comments
View as Flat
hardisun Posted 10:39 am
30 Mar 2005
Strength of numbers and commitment = results.
Permalink
Stentor Posted 1:25 am
31 Mar 2005
Heck, the Lakoffian idea of framing -- at least the pop version you hear bandied about on the blogs -- isn't even very original. When I heard the first choruses of Lakoff-worship, his ideas sounded like old news.
Permalink
Norris Posted 7:02 am
31 Mar 2005
As an environmental entrepreneur, I admire Lakoff's acumen, but shouldn't you already know who you are, what you stand for, where you're going and exactly why you're going there -- particularly when you have hundreds of millions of dollars? Bill Clinton and George Bush won twice because they knew who they were and where they were going (Clinton most of the time).
A narcissist can't find out who he is by asking the mirror. Put the mirror down and look around. What needs to be done is clearly apparent. The hurdle is that they probably do not want to do it. They just want to keep on doing the same things the same way they have been doing them for the past 30 years. And why shouldn't they from their perspective? They are K-Street fat and foundation-grant-happy.
But The Reapers are circling overhead. They know that if the Green Group keeps looking in that mirror for answers, there could be be a feast real soon.
Norris McDonald
Permalink
sandy m Posted 12:56 am
01 Apr 2005
What bothers me is that in all the bruhaha people seem to be missing the point: the Right has won by invoking basic frames - weakness v. strengh, sickness v. health -- because it has a coherent world vision that can be articulated in basic principles, in terms of basic human desires (security, independence, etc.). I think it's a flawed vision, but it's coherent. Lessons in wordplay won't fix the schizophrenic Left. Once we manage to articulate a clear vision that answers the questions 'How can America be strong?', 'How can America be prosperous?' and 'How can America be safe?' -- in global terms, not with policy proposals! -- we'll be able to invoke that vision in smaller policy debates. The left needs to frame itself before it can frame anything else.
What lesson, then, for panicked environmentalists? I have to admit that I didn't submit an entry to the elevator pitch contest because I don't want to make a case for environmentalism. People see the environmental movement as aloof and self-indulgent, and there's truth in that. The lesson from Lakoff is that people care more about their fundamental needs than about trees; if we're working for people we won't have so much trouble framing. I'm no Freidman disciple but his 'geo-green' approach taps needs that feel basic and urgent - literal and economic security - and if I had to do a pitch for it I'd say that 'geo-green' stands for smart management of natural resources to protect health, peace and prosperity in America and around the world.
Has anyone read any other attempts to describe/name a new - I don't know what to call it - mentality? movement? approach? that prioritizes technological innovation, smart economics, the casting of natural resources in terms of economic value?
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 4:19 am
01 Apr 2005
Second, the reason that Americans have voted Republicans into a majority in Congress and into the White House is that Americans are very right wing (compared to the rest of the world).
Leftists should stop patronizing those who don't agree with them by saying that the only, or even main, reason that Republicans win elections is that those who vote for them are mostly stupid, uninformed, and/or misinformed, and all we have to do is frame our messages better in order to prevent Republican victories. (Many Democrats aren't good on the environment either. Bill Clinton was a perfect example.) The reason that Americans vote for Republicans is that they agree with them. What's needed to change this is a major effort to convince Americans that all life is more important than money and material goods, that other forms of life have just as much right to live as people, and that everything (air, land, and water) is alive.
Third, your "solutions" are half-baked (I'm using polite language) at best and will not solve anything. An approach "that prioritizes technological innovation, smart economics, the casting of natural resources in terms of economic value," as you suggest, would only cause more ecological destruction. While some technology is clearly less harmful, it is all very environmentally destructive. The same is true for placing emphasis on economics.
Instead, we must simplify our lifestyles and greatly lower human population, which are the roots of all ecological and environmental problems. It's time to EVOLOVE, people, not time to figure out how we can continue our materialistic, overpopulating lifestyles that are the causes of the sixth great extinction.
Finally, your comment that "[p]eople see the environmental movement as aloof and self-indulgent, and there's truth in that" is also wrong. Most people don't see environmentalists that way, just the ones who oppose what we're doing or who are ignorant, misinformed, and/or uninformed about the need to protect the environment. People who choose to emphasize materialism and/or having ecologically destructively large families over protecting our planet are not our allies and never will be. The only possible reasons for there to be a conflict between the basic needs of humans and trees are human overpopulation and illegitimate consumption of trees (humans don't eat trees and thus have no business killing them).
Permalink