I was going to do a policy post next, but an insightful comment from reader Sandy M got me thinking again about framing.
The second piece of unsolicited-with-good-reason advice I'd give the environmental movement, with apologies to Apple computer, is: Talk different.
It's time for enviros to think in a more careful and calculated way about the way they frame their issues. Progressives are forever wedded to the idea that the unvarnished truth is all we need: Give the people the facts and they'll draw the right conclusions. "That," says UC Berkeley professor and newly minted pundit George Lakoff, "has been a disaster."Lakoff has done in-depth work on conceptual framing and its neural substrates -- if you want the gory cognitive science details, try this book -- but his central thesis can be (crudely) summarized thusly: We think in metaphor. The conceptual frameworks that structure our reality are robust; if we are confronted with data that does not fit in them, it is the data that is discarded, not the framework.
Conservatives, says Lakoff , understood this early and poured money into proactively framing their issues. Think, for instance, of the myriad connotations of the terms "tax relief" and "death tax." Or better yet, consider the effect of replacing "Alaska National Wildlife Refuge" with the bloodless acronym "ANWR."
Lakoff says environmentalists have allowed a certain set of frames to develop, frames that virtually neuter the movement. For example, in his words:
The term "the environment" suggests that this is an area of life separate from other areas of life like the economy and jobs, or health, or foreign policy. By not linking it to everyday issues, it sounds like a separate category, and a luxury in difficult times. Wilderness: a place for those in Birkenstocks to go hiking.
Lakoff's evil twin, Republican pollster Frank Luntz, is famous for his memo to Republican leaders warning that the environment is a weak area for them, and coaching them on the proper way to frame it. Never say "deregulation," always say "common sense policy." Use strong, active words like "protect" and "preserve." And so on. Say what you will about Luntz, but the guy's a genius.
Enviros sneer at this sort of thing, call it "Orwellian," and get their asses kicked repeatedly. It's time they took it seriously. Framing does not have to be dishonest or misleading; the fact is that the truth will not, can not, be absorbed by a public with no frame to fit it. Enviros need to work on establishing one.
Sandy M offers a few thoughts:
"Environmentalism" is a dry, empty, and abstract word. My office is my environment; so is this drab city; so is the air I breathe and the water and land around me. The word has no innate appeal or positive meaning. Why don't we frame our fight in terms of the goal and in terms of human life, as every other successful movement for social change has done? Instead of the "environment," why don't we say we that ours is the movement for resource rights - air rights, water rights, land rights? Children have the right to breathe clean air; coastal fishing communities have the right to protect their waters from rapacious, destructive industries; all of us have the right to make decisions about resources we have no choice but to share.
Exactly. One important point in there is that the movement be framed around human life and health. Too often, enviros exhibit a barely-concealed hostility toward humanity. You want a textbook example of a frame destined to lose in the public sphere? Try humanity as a "cancer on the planet." This manifests in constant hectoring for human to do less, consume less, procreate less, produce less, slow down, and most of all, feel guilty for raping and ravaging the earth. Whatever the merits of this outlook, it's a loser, and isn't winning the point?
What we need is a positive, forward-looking set of frames built around reducing the poisons in our communities, stimulating the next wave of technological progress, and getting creating a better, more modern, and yes, more stylish lifestyle with fewer resources. These are historical challenges and they call upon people's ingenuity and optimism rather than their guilt.
This will be a long-term, ongoing conversation in the enviro community -- I hope. I recommend everyone read Lakoff's interview on the environment, think it over, and please, leave your own thoughts in comments.
UPDATE: Lakoff boosters would like me to remind you that he has a new book out called Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. You can learn more about it, check out a New York Times review, or read an excerpt (PDF). Howard Dean wrote the foreword and is positively gushing.
UPDATE: Chris Mooney reminds us in an ever-so-slightly snarky post that he was framing before framing was cool (i.e., two years ago). His article on the matter is indeed quite good. Go read it.
Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer
Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair
Comments
View as Flat
Mary Jo Iverson Posted 7:44 am
15 Nov 2004
Instead, show them some teeth: Big mainstream enviro groups should setup peaceful, nonviolent encampments around issues that they want "Framed". And keep them well managed until the authorities sweep them out. Then set them up again and again and again. This is environmentalism.
At the same time, move forward the solutions.
Permalink
Naturegal Posted 9:35 am
15 Nov 2004
Beating them over the head isn't going to make them listen any better.
Lakoff is right - most voters think of the "environment" as a place we take care of when we have the time and money, and a place we can ignore when it's too much trouble.
When "healthy environment" becomes synonymous with "family" and "security" then we're winning the framing game.
Permalink
birdboy Posted 11:07 am
15 Nov 2004
Yes, we should perhaps concentrate on the message that pollution makes babies and children sick, but the message needs to be shocking and immediate, not just another statistic, because statistics only apply to 'other people'. The sad fact is that the issues the GOP has chosen are easily 'framed' for the common man- it's not hard to see how lower taxes will be good for me, and dead babies make a more shocking picture than sick ones.
But it may be a little harder to convince you that allowing developers to level the woods outside of town will have a negative impact on your quality of life; chances are, it will have no effect on you. Tell me again how drilling in the Arctic will affect my life?
I fear that by carefully framing issues and working on small local problems, we will be happily ignored. That approach might have worked before we became the enemy of the 'American lifestyle', but in today's climate, the big problems would get away. Maybe we should be screaming our message, growling at polluters, fighting the evil corporate demons, defending the forests, like some cartoon super-hero 'Earth-Defender', giving a swift Ninja-kick to the guy with the chain-saw. Our message needs to be one of URGENCY- half the world's forests are GONE- the climate is UNSTABLE- POISONS are coming back to us in our food- fish are DISAPPEARING from the oceans!! Oh, sure some will scoff, but the facts are on our side, and scoffing leads to scrutiny, and then we win. If we get people's attention, they may care enough to check the facts and see we are not playing Chicken Little.
We have been beaten back by the common cause of greed. This does not mean we should carefully frame our message to appeal to the greedy- it means we should scream louder, more often, and show some teeth. We have to stop preaching to the choir and take our message to those who aren't getting it. Let's 'frame' it this way- it is WE the PEOPLE fighting the greedy corporate rulers who are getting rich while we get sick! We are fighting for everyone's future, for all of God's creation, and there are millions of people who would join us if they only knew how serious the threat really is.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
Naturegal Posted 9:16 pm
15 Nov 2004
The funny thing about the Arctic Refuge is that it affects almost no one in the lower 48, yet polls consistently show that the majority of Americans are against drilling. And that support has kept the oil companies out for a decade. Of course, drilling will probably occur now, but what was motivating Americans to support protection for this long when it meant nothing to them personally?
Wilderness values speak to their hearts. They can appreciate the concept of protecting a pristine place, even when it has nothing to do with their bank account or their next meal.
The voters in Montana and Colorado elected pro-environment politicians this election, and people are starting to ask why. It's because these politicians did something the enviros seemingly won't do - they bridged the gap between the tree-huggers and the fishing/hunting crowd. We need to start reframing our debate and reaching out to those that we have turned away from.
The first step is finding a new way to communicate with the world, and then reach out to those we often treat as enemies but who have a lot more in common with us than we often give them credit for.
Permalink
mlkal Posted 11:29 pm
15 Nov 2004
We CAN appeal to the gun-toting South by relating saving the environment to hunting and fishing (the gun-toting North too).
Not every environmentalist is an anti-hunting, anti- medical research vegan. Take it from one who knows.
Right now we need to re-frame this movement, garner support wherever available, and take victories wherever we can -even if we have to give some ground to save some (forgive the pun). The former president of the American Plastics Council (he's my cousin) told me that when meeting with recycling activists he noted that revolutionaries and activists always want 100%. They won't give an inch even if it gets them a mile. Given the "rollbacks" of the past administration, and especially given that the SAME administration will have control for 4 more years(yea gods), we need to try to hold the line. Forget advancement. Just put environmental concerns into words (frames) that the average American can grasp and try to hold onto what we've got. I'm not saying people are uneducated boobs, but they've got alot on their minds and if we want the environment to stick as a concern we've got to impress people as to WHY.
Stop throwing up your arms and gasping "isn't it obvious"! NO, and again NO, it is not obvious to the average American or we'd have less red and more blue on the darn map.
Permalink
jhainaut Posted 3:27 am
16 Nov 2004
Permalink
jrmassa22 Posted 4:47 am
16 Nov 2004
The second thing is to prove that a healthy environment is essential to a robust, good economy. This means developing other energy sources (now that would be a job creation boost), building in ways that minimize environmental degradation. If this can happen, then politicians should see these benefits and make policy accordingly.
Third, (and this ties in to point number 2): if the air, water, soil are fouled, people will suffer from chronic illnesses. This will in turn affect the economy negatively by reduced productivity as people miss more and more time due to illness, creates negative strain on the medical profession which has bad economical effects as well in terms of increasing health care costs.
We need a totally different mind set. Go to the local news stations, newspapers, get those stories out. Push for alternative energy sources, increased public transportation, increased fuel efficiency, increased conservation. But we need to show how all these actions would be good from an economic point of view. That is how you get the politicians to pay attention. Otherwise, it will be continued payback to the big corporations and we will all be the worst for it.
Jim Massa
Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Permalink
Mary Jo Iverson Posted 5:52 am
16 Nov 2004
Permalink
Mary Jo Iverson Posted 5:55 am
16 Nov 2004
Permalink
birdboy Posted 11:06 am
16 Nov 2004
We are fighting a culture of economic growth- our economy is considered unhealthy if it is not growing. Just look at economic forcasts- they ALL assume the economy will grow, so that more taxes are collected without raising the rate- this will fix the defecit, social security, and if we have money left, the environment (sure). No matter how we frame it, our message is that our economy must stop growing, we must pay the true cost for everything, instead of stealing from our children. Our vision is far off into the future, that is where the benefits of a healthy environment will pay off. Plan B pays off now for me and mine.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but just pointing out what we're up against- we cannot hide our true goals of a leaner greener economy with complicated senarios. So how do we address the American need for immediate gratification (or in plain terms, my foe and yours, good old greed). It seems to be a real winner in politics.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
verdulo Posted 12:18 pm
16 Nov 2004
The book, BTW, is "Uncle Tom's Cabin"
Permalink
Appealsman Posted 12:44 pm
16 Nov 2004
The term "environment" has been coopted to connote something apart from everyday human existence. Don't use the term "environmental quality." Talk about keeping pollution and poison out of our air, water and food. Air, water and food are part of our daily existence, and most of us understand that we are dependent on these things for life. Seek to use language that paints the issue as what it is- the basic wisdom that you shouldn't mess in your nest.
The irony is that pollution is waste, and reducing pollution means reducing waste. It is not an expense, corporate rhetoric notwithstanding, but rather a cost-savings. Factories that reclaim toxic chemicals rather than belching them out their smokestacks can often sell or reuse those reclaimed chemicals for other industrial processes, increasing profitability. The cost of waste that corporations generate is included in the price of the finished goods and is paid for by the consumer. We should recast the debate as what it is- an issue not only of clean air and water but of laziness and irresponsibility of corporations who could be doing better both for us and their shareholders if they would just get off their duffs and start improving their processes.
Permalink
RamblinPatrick Posted 10:16 pm
16 Nov 2004
And they do have a long-term, well-funded gameplan. They seem pots of gold at the end of their rainbows through lucrative real estate developments. On top of that the only local newspaper is on their team, leaving the stage open to their myth building series of productions.
We have had surprising success against the real estate speculators, but they have the long-term dedication to the fabrication of mind-sets in the local populace.
Day-in and day-out, the mythbuilders are spending time and money to set people up to accept the next big real estate exploitation, while we, the ones who realize the good, true, and beautiful in nature, seem to emerge from the woodwork as the next crisis of exploitation is all too near.
The exploiters have funding, staff, and long-term goals. Sure framing and other neuro-linguistic techniques have value, but they are little more than flash-in-the-pan artifices without vision and an on-going, funded program that is both inclusive and inspiring.
Today, highly educated and qualified "environmentalists" seem to end up as status quo poodles. I believe the real spirit of populism is within the people, not the meritocratic elite. Of course, Sedona is an expensive retirement area, so many who can afford to live and retire here seem timid probably because they come from "go-along-to-get-along" bureaucracries.
Nevertheless, a program of longterm, information and inspiring leadership, open to listening in a spirit of equality, can bring powerful citizens out of the woodwork, to counter the power of wealthy real estate speculators and schemers.
Nationally, I remain an eternal optimist about moving forward toward a quality-of-life that depends on a healthy environment.
Just think of what could have been done with the hundreds of millions expended on the recent presidential campaign. We can do anything they can do -- better! And still march to the tune of a different drummer.
Patrick Hickey
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[24]='\"';l[25]=' 116';l[26]=' 101';l[27]=' 110';l[28]=' 46';l[29]=' 97';l[30]=' 110';l[31]=' 111';l[32]=' 100';l[33]=' 101';l[34]=' 115';l[35]=' 101';l[36]=' 64';l[37]=' 121';l[38]=' 101';l[39]=' 107';l[40]=' 99';l[41]=' 105';l[42]=' 104';l[43]=' 112';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='\"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='
Permalink
birdboy Posted 11:33 am
17 Nov 2004
Many of our groups are good at raising money- some of our biggest supporters are Hollywood folks- if we define a cause, work with them and get the facts right and then add the 'human-animal' touch, we can get any message across. If the kids get it, maybe they can explain it to their GOP moms. If it's done well, it could even raise money for the cause while raising awareness. Animated films would duck the association with the 'Hollywood liberal' and 'elitist' labels. Of course, this kind of film has already been made, but Americans never get tired of good stuff. Buying air time is expensive, but this could generate money!
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
mlkal Posted 7:21 am
22 Nov 2004
There have been any number of apocalypse movies that show what will happen if we don't change our ways, and in particular our dependence on fossil fuels. Have any of them made an impact?
I'm serious..., did enviro causes see an increase in donations following any films (MadMax comes to mind). Probably nobody was keeping score then.
Non-Enviros (sorry to those who hate the term) don't get it, and won't see it unless you bring the message home. I come from a blue state, but even here most people are not worried about the little woodland creatures. They aren't worried about the rainforest. They aren't worried about logging somewhere 5 states away. They ARE worried about the economy, keeping their jobs, raising their children, etc. The message has to be personal -like your grandchildren are likely to have high cancer rates because you didn't care enough to keep toxins out of the environment.
Like the life expectancy is going down instead of up for the first time ever. Even that may not be enough for those who are agewise too far away from thinking about such things.
Yeah, I know, then you get slammed for fear mongering. Well what was all the talk about bioweapons and WMD if not fear mongering.
I was talking with some friends (who are NOT enviros at all) and one told me that he thought it was all a bunch of bunk. The forest is coming back around Mt St Helens, so the earth can survive anything, and most of the group agreed with him. These are college educated folk, not the village idiots (usually)!
It took some explaining to make them realize that the Spotted Owl is like the canary in the coal mine. Yes we want biodiversity, wild places, etc. Yes, the EARTH will survive whatever we do (short of burnt to a nuclear cinder scenario). The question is will it be able to support human life? Or will we toxify it to the point where we all get cancer before age 30?
Or won't be able to support food production because the genetically modified foods have mutated and taken over the plants that actually had some nutrition in them (GM foods are not usually modified to improve nutrition, but to improve pesticide use, etc).
Maybe we should bring back the movie Soylent Green?
There is plenty out there that Hollywood has produced. Nobody's listening.
Permalink
birdboy Posted 12:42 pm
22 Nov 2004
But Hollywood is not usually trying to make a point about saving the Earth or our future- as in the Global warming film, they saw another opportunity for yet another disaster movie- the cause of the disaster is often glossed over and seldom has much to do with reality. They just couldn't help themselves, went way overboard, and had the world ending in a single day- 'poof'- global warming gotcha. Even so, it put the issue on the table for discussion, it brought it out of the realm of science prediction (often mistaken for fiction) and into people's lives. The challenge to Hollywood is to do better- to connect the damage done over there to the suffering incurred by people and animals right here- and to show that by changing how we treat our world, we can make things better, accelerate the healing, and maybe save our own skins. The problem with 'Mad Max' and 'Planet of the Apes' is that it contributes to the attitude that we can't stop it, it is pointless to try--
The GOP didn't convince people that liberals were agents of the devil in one message- the trick is repetition. Pound the message into them, hit them from all sides, movies for kids with animals crying, movies for adults with people dying, and maybe, just maybe, it will make it to the local news, where people learn the monster is real... yah, I'm dreaming, but even pessimists dream.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink