Comienza Contenido
  • Lo lees en 7 min
  • Escrito por Cesáreo hace 14 años y 9 meses (17 Jul 2005 20:45)

"When you are arguing against the other side: do not use their language"
Language, argue
I like this idea, it is simple and very significant. Problem here is that we all use same language, is our tool to comunicate ideas. So, it seems to be that the goal could be who's take "that word" firstly. That is not good, in my personal opinion, this means that politicians are taken our language, and that is no good to people.
"This is a frame, It is made up of ideas"
"Framing is about a language that fits your worldview"
"I have exactly the opposite position in every issue. What do my positions have to do with one another?"
Frame, Language
So political debate is like to see the reality through a movie or TV camera. I only see what director wants I must see. So, Frame and Bias, are two faces of the same coin. This is a fascination approach because it goes to details, because words, language are details, and as Lakoff says, important details. Typical discussion is about ideas, and not about details, so I like Lakoff approach.
"Two different models of the family: a strict father family and a nurturant model"Here the author uses some knowledge from psichology but I think it's too bias here. This models are taken from psichology, perhaps from conductist theory (fathe strict model) and from more humanistics theories (nurturant model). It is interesting their use here, but I'm not agree with that things are so clear, i.e., that convervatives=father strict values and progressives=nurturant values. Each person can have this two models inside itself, so perhaps political ideology could have it too. I don't clearly see this dichotomy.
"Strict Father model"
"Then link is the morality of Self-Interest "
"What it is even scaried is that conservatives believe it.They believe it is moral"
To be scared, to be afraid, needings of protection
I'm agree with Lakoff in the disadvantages of this model, but he doesn't tell anything about the advantages. For example, this model give us stability, give us models to follow, gives us security. It is like "our father take care of us", so, at the end, it is what we need. I think that's why works, and works well, even in different country. You can see, for example, how works in Latin America, and how works dictorial regime (I don't mind left of right ideologies) and democrational regimes. I am not, absolutely not, agree with dictatorial ones but, they work in a lot of things. I think that it is because of some kind of stability and security.
This model thinks about people as child, so for societies not very developed, it works. Be careful that, here, developed is not about developed countries, because there are tribal societies with nurturant models.

In this model, being bias, a parent never ask: what do you need? Only he/she says what you do need

"Nurturant means empathy and responsability"
"Nurturant values: freedom, opportunity, prosperity, fairness, two-way communication, community-building, service to the community, cooperation, honesty ..."
To be human, to take care, to grow up health and by myself
I agree with this model. Anybody not? This is taken from humanistic theories of psicology and their potencial is that each person is considered as a dignity itself, it is a human being bearing in mind his/her age (child, teenager, adult, ancient...). These values makes people grow up as human, so it is the ideal model.

But I don't think this is the model of progressives. I can undertand Lakoff thinking but it is very risky to make sure about this.

Also I think about "nurturant values" that a lot of people that defend father-strict models could take these values for their model, so we are in the same point Lakoff said at the beginning. It is about language, and about framing.

In this model, being bias, a parent always asks: what do you need? And there is an agreement of what to do. If there is no agreement, it is necessary to adopt father strict model to grow up healthy.

My Opinion

So, I think is a very interesting beginning for a book. I like this approach to today's political debate. Also is amazing how language is a powerful tool to change minds, opinions and even more far away, ideas. Relating language and social debate (more than political debate) gives us a tool to undertand and to decide by ourselves.

But I dislike when one part (whatever part) tries to get all truth. And positionint father model vs. nurturant model in a convervative vs progressive parties, in my personal opinion, is too much bias for me.

A good example is child education, to use that metaphora with a country. You try to be "nurturant" but sometimes, there is no agreement, but your child needs a rule. So, can a child grow up with only one parental model?

Sección del Artículo
Blog Mi estancia en Berkeley (Summer Sessions 2005)

¿Te gustó el artículo?