LAKOFF FRAMING…. it’s finally time for me to get a copy of George Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant, which appears to be something of a Bible among despairing liberals who can’t believe that half the country likes George Bush and apparently doesn’t like us. Basically, Lakoff says we need to get our act together and “frame” our arguments in more positive ways …
Although I know (and like) his work on Metaphor, I’ve only seen Lakoff’s stuff on this at one remove or more — snippets on TV shows here and there, and talk in newspapers and blogs. So I don’t know whether he’s pitching the idea of framing as new, or his own bright idea. But it’s worth noting that this concept is pretty old. I don’t mean some equivalent concept, either, I mean the same idea with the same name. Here’s a very short reading list to start you off. It has its prehistory in work in micro-interaction work in linguistics and cognitive psychology (going back to Gregory Bateson). It gets named in the sociological literature by Erving Goffman’s (1974) Frame Analysis, but like a lot of Goffman nobody could do anything with it unless they were him. It was developed into a useful tool explicitly oriented to the study of political processes (especially social movements) in Dave Snow et al’s Frame Alignment Processes (American Sociological Review, 1986). That paper spawned a very big literature. Benford and Snow’s Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment, (Annual Review of Sociology, 2000) reviews fifteen-or-so years of theory and research in the field, including plenty of stuff on the limits of the concept and its potential for overuse. If Lakoff has managed to get the media to put his name in front of this idea then I guess he’s worth listening to, because he’s clearly very good at framing indeed.
Update: Seems like Lakoff gives the history of the idea its due, develops a version of his own in terms of his views about conceptual metaphors, and then applies it to the liberal cause in an accessible way. All to the good. My memory of the conceptual metaphor stuff in Metaphors We Live By, though, is that the metaphors that book looked at (“Love is a Battlefield”, etc) can’t really explain how and why political framing is really successful, as it’s not just a cognitive process. Moreoever, the idea that metaphors underpin our concepts is very similar to the idea that the social structure decisively shapes our thinking: immensely suggestive, almost certainly right in some sense, but very difficult to specify in a satisfactory way. I guess I should read the books, though, before saying anything else.
The study of rhetoric goes back a little bit further than that, even. Wait, an image is coming to me … men in togas. What could it mean?
Really though, is there anything here the sophists weren’t familiar with?
Lakoff doesn’t claim to have created the concept. If I remember correctly, he defines framing within a historical context in one of his books.
Lakoff simply applies the concept to liberal politics in a way that hasn’t been achieved—or even seriously attempted—before.
Fair enough — like I said, I’d only seen the compressed TV versions.
As Josh notes, Lakoff doesn’t pretend to have created the concept of framing, and cites Goffman and several others in the reference section on framing in Moral Politics, but he does much more than apply the concept to liberal politics. He reframes framing in terms of his conceptual metaphor theory, and all of his political works (starting with the essays on the Gulf War) use a fairly unique version of framing analysis to explore American politics and suggest ways for liberals to use framing better.
There seem to be a lot of people who like his conceptual metaphor theory. That’s OK until people start to try to use it, in politics for example. Lakoff’s growing influence genuinely scares me because of how bad his theory really is. You don’t have to take my word for it, though. Just look at the empirical evidence. You could start here, here, here, here (all are pdf files), and then read:
Keysar, K, & Bly, B. (1995). Intuitions of the transparency of idioms: Can one keep a secret by spilling the beans? Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 89-109.
and
McGlone, M. S. (1996). Conceptual metaphors and figurative language interpretation: Food for thought? Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 544–565.
There are many more where those came from.
Kevin Drum doesn’t even bother to actually read this quite short and lucid book before leaping to criticize it based on “excerpts.” God forbid he should have to read a thick book like “Moral Politics” when another sci-fi thriller awaits him on the bedside table. How do people like this get to be political commentators? The more political blogs I read the more I wonder why any of these semi-literates with spellcheckers get taken seriously. Then I read their comments sections and see why.
“Reframing” has been around in a popular form for some time. Self-help guru and zombie titan Anthony Robbins included a chapter on it in his first book, “Absolute Power”. Success-driven businessmen - the kind Teresa Nielsen Hayden calls “pointy haired bosses” - love it. It lets them reinterpret failure as something else.
To turn to the political side of this debate for a moment:
For those on the left, I think Lakoff’s book might be a double edged sword. Many people are turned off the left for two reasons - they dislike what they perceive to be a relativist approach to morals and reality; and they dislike the idea of being manipulated, either by self-appointed philosopher kings or focus-group oriented politicos.
Of course, these are not necessarily true accusations. But they are common perceptions. I know that at one time I shared them. And Lakoff is talking about perception.
Ironically, therefore, I would say that if democrats are too widely perceived to be reading books about manipulating people’s perception, they will do themselves no favours image-wise.
It might be better to spend more time sorting out what people on the left actually believe in and then communicating that, as simply and clearly as possible, to as many people as possible - and defending it trenchantly and fiercely.
At the very least, they could be a bit more bloody subtle!
My big problem with Lakoff — which isn’t so much a problem as a regret that he doesn’t address it — is that he doesn’t talk about the origins of ‘framing’ per se, and how the frame-model has gone through revisions over the past few centuries.
(After all, a ‘frame’ is itself a conceptual metaphor, ‘POLITICAL THOUGHT IS A PICTURE’: hypotheses non fingo etc.)
nick, I’m not sure Lakoff’s goals in the two political books allows that sort of thing to be within his project in those books. Even if it were, I imagine it would bore the stew out of the majority of his readers. The books are written for people who are more interested in the practical, rather than theoretical aspects of Lakoff’s framing analysis. In other words, they’re books for laypeople, not for experts (or even amateurs who like to read the sort of stuff you mention). Neither book is meant to be an academic presentation of framing analysis. If you want something like that, read his Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things (which is much more thorough than Metaphors We Live By, by the way). He doesn’t really detail the history of framing in great detail, there, but he discusses framing at length, without explicit political motivations. That’s where you’d have to go to do a serious scholarly critique of Lakoff’s theory of framing anyway.
Just when i was ruminating about the “stop whining” treatment complaint usually gets in the u.s. discourse (izzatathing?)
As i’m not big in linguistics-an-stuff, you can pretty much take it as a document, one that casts a pessimistic light on the “framing” issue. To an untrained eye, the problem seems indeed to be that progressive won’t see it nor react to it, and even sometimes appropriate it.
I read Metaphors a few years ago, and very much enjoyed it.
So, I picked up Moral Politics and read that, and just bought 25 copies of Elephant to pass out to people.
If you want to dig into what Lakoff really says, read Moral Politics. Elephant is just a shortened version of it - still quite good, but not covering everything.
Moreoever, the idea that metaphors underpin our concepts is very similar to the idea that the social structure decisively shapes our thinking: immensely suggestive, almost certainly right in some sense, but very difficult to specify in a satisfactory way.
But it’s not a purely constructivist position: as you say, metaphors do underpin conceptual thought in Lakoff’s view, but the metaphors themselves are largely driven by bodily (pre-social? pre-cultural?) experience. A primary schema like “MORE IS UP,” which in turn generates scads of more elaborate metaphorical constructions, is grounded in experience of the physical world: as you add more to the pile, the height of the pile goes up. This presumption of a baseline universality to metaphor has raised (and continues to raise) hackles among anthropologists for not taking cultural differences sufficiently into account.
Sorry if that attempt at a contribution was clumsy…I chewed on all of this thoroughly some time back, but it’s not exactly fresh in my mind.
Jimmy Carter was labelled as a ‘flip-flopper’ in 1976.
John Kerry was labelled right out of the gate as a ‘flip-flopper’(before the ‘I was against before I was for’ comment).
Kerry spent his whole campaign fighting that ‘frame’.
Other years the ‘tax and spend’ frame is used to great affect.
What’s the last Democratic frame, you can recall, that the Republicans had to address for the duration of a campaign?
It’s not framing that’s new it’s that the democrats have never utilized it to any effect.
Perhaps due to an arrogance that if people knew the opponent they would agree with the democrats. That isn’t an effective approach obviously.
I have been following Lakoff’s work since Metaphors We Live By. It has been interesting to watch him move slowly move away from being an interesting academic to someone who has become increasingly involved in the electoral political process.
Whatever else you may say about Lakoff’s analysis of language in the political arena, he is at the very least trying to engage progressives in a debate about message. It’s true that framing is not a new idea, and Lakoff does not claim to have invented it. But what he has come to do, more than anyone else I can think of, is push us hard to understand why the images and the metaphors which Democrats have relied on for long are not as resonate as we expect them to be. Much of what he writes sounds like common sense once you have heard it, and yet one can only imagine Lakoff’s frustration at watching one election after another go by (Moral Politics came out in 1997) without the Democratic Party ever engaging in a wholesale critical review of how it presents itself to the world.
I have been following Lakoff’s work since Metaphors We Live By. It has been interesting to watch him move slowly move away from being an interesting academic to someone who has become increasingly involved in the electoral political process.
Whatever else you may say about Lakoff’s analysis of language in the political arena, he is at the very least trying to engage progressives in a debate about message. It’s true that framing is not a new idea, and Lakoff does not claim to have invented it. But what he has come to do, more than anyone else I can think of, is push us hard to understand why the images and the metaphors which Democrats have relied on for long are not as resonate as we expect them to be. Much of what he writes sounds like common sense once you have heard it, and yet one can only imagine Lakoff’s frustration at watching one election after another go by (Moral Politics came out in 1997) without the Democratic Party ever engaging in a wholesale critical review of how it presents itself to the world.
I have to note that the entire issue has been the source of multiple posts by a linguist at:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ozarque/
(You may remember Dr. Elgin from The Gentle Art of Verbal Self Defense or some of her other books).
Interesting stuff. The key is to find a metaphor that resonates rather than rings false.
As “passing fancy” said above, Tony Robbins and others have done much to popularize framing and other such concepts which, they claim, form a part of NeuroLinquistic Programming (NLP). These people see NLP as a well developed, complete (and proven!) system for “personal change”. Their working vocabulary includes frames, metaphors, mental models, and many other such things. See also the entry on NLP in the skeptic’s dictionary (skepdic.com/neurolin.com) for, well, a skeptical view of NLP and NLP-based “technologies”.
Lakoff goes into more than just framing arguments to sway listeners. He talks about using frames to help us build a liberal vocabulary that unifies diverse liberal groups. Lakoff is trying to find a way for liberals to have as much solidarity as conservatives. After all, there’s no good reason why a libertarian and an intolerant Christian should be on the same side. Finding common values they both agree with is important and clearly much more effective than the traditional liberal strategy of proposing a bunch of policy positions.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review