pegkerr | Applying Lakoff

This was a comment I made in

snippy's journal. I urge you all to read George Lakoff's Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, in order to understand what is going on as people rage over exactly what happened with the aftermath of Katrina.

Have you read Lakoff, by the way? If not, you should. It seems to me that this is a classic example of what he is talking about. He explains that Liberals and Conservatives operate by thinking of the country using two different models of familes. The Liberals operate with the "Nurturant Parent" model (emphazing cooperation, nurturance, "helping," and the Conservatives with the "Authoritarian Father" model (emphasizing hierarchy, chain of command, the strict father overseeing children, correcting them for their own good, because they would run wild without his firm discipline.) Lakoff emphasizes that both worldviews have their own internal, consistent morality.

It seems to me that what is happening is that under the Nurturant Family model, Liberals are furious because the government is not acting as a nurturant parent. It has left its children to starve and die. Under this system, that is the greatest possible sin.

And Conservatives are furious, because the looting in New Orleans is proof that the children have run amuck (as children will do when the parent--the government--are not there to provide firm guidance and order) but the fault lies not with the father at all, who is, but with the badly behaving children. They must be punished for stepping out of line.

Edited to add: I think I also must refer you to this thread between me,

snippy and

joelrosenberg. I cited a blog entry by Juliette Ochieng here and she replied here. Her reply helps me better understand the conservative thinking here, and what makes conservatives angry: Lakoff explains that the father is there to protect the children: She is exemplifying a strong value of the conservative father model, btw: the father protects the children, rather than hurts them and that is what is so morally offensive about the rampaging in New Orleans. So I mischaracterized the source of conservative ire above. It is not that the children are running amuck that is so offensive. It is that individual fathers are failing to protect their children. Again, one of the greatest moral lapses in this moral system.

Edited to add again: I don't think I quite have my analysis right; am prob. mischaracterizing conservative thought. Don't have time to fix; must clean the house. You must all limp along without me.

Edited to add again: Emotions are running high, but I've managed to get people with disparate viewpoints actually talking here. I would prefer that people not go off in a huff, because I want to get different points of view, and we can't solve these problems if we don't try to find common ground. Surely finding common ground involves helping the people who have been hurt. Nobody on my friends list (I think) wants to kill people in the Gulf States, or is agitating for their ruin or distruction. So please try to keep it civil, people

Current Mood: thoughtful
Current Music: Nature Boy

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

butterfly.livejournal.com

And those really are two profoundly different ways of looking at the world, and at humanity.

From:

joelrosenberg.livejournal.com

There, I think I couldn't disagree more strongly -- respectfully, but strongly. Just to pick up on one thing... as a father, I think I have an obligation to protect my kids -- that's part of what I signed up for, and it seems to me to be a deal that's good for society, for them, and I would hope, for me. (And I think that protecting them involves a whole lot of things, including trying hard to teach them to be able to take care of themselves.)

But I don't think that that absolves their mother of a similar responsibility and, while I don't normally speak for her on political matters, I doubt she disagrees.

Now, I'll be happy to look around for the liberals who say that fathers shouldn't take care of their kids, but I won't find any, I think; I think it's a matter of both emphasis and prediction.

From:

minnehaha.livejournal.com

You're missing the point of the analogy. Think of it more as "Authoritarian Parent" than "Authoritarian Father" for this purpose.

The book explains it better than the post, of course. But there's a much shorter essay on the web somewhere that does most of what the book does -- the book is a mostly unnecessary spinning out of the essay.

B

From:

joelrosenberg.livejournal.com

No, actually, I'm simply disagreeing with the thrust of the analogy. I don't think that nurturing and providing structure and authority are conflicting; I think they're orthogonal, and that's, as I've suggested, why I find Lakoff -- and if you're talking about the same essay I've read, I've, well, read it -- so unconvincing, although I can see how his take would provide comfort both to people who think that maintaining structure and authority are necessarily authoritarian-bad, as well as to those who think that nurturing is just a code word for creating permanent unnecessary dependence.

From:

minnehaha.livejournal.com

Agreed. They're not conflicting; they're orthogonal. I don't believe Lakoff says anything different. Most people move back and forth between different mental models all the time.

B

From:

joelrosenberg.livejournal.com

... and why, among other things, he's formed the Rockridge Institute specifically to promote what he sees as a the creation and implementation of a necessary a "progressive"/nuturing metaphorical framing structure to supplant/compete with/counter what he sees as a "conservative"/authoritarian one that, in Lakoff's view, is the result of billions (with a b) of dollars that conservatives have spent on framing. (My own take, fwiw, is that he's got an advanced case of Chomsky's Disease -- a success or failure of a political view in the real world is merely evidence that his theories were correct in the first place. Hyperdeterministic, eh?)

See http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml .

I think that he's both misreading history and misunderstanding liberals, including both liberal donors, who -- in my reading of his quotes here, and elsewhere -- come across as well-meaning but softheaded (apparently, in his view, liberal donors don't understand what "seed money" might be -- something that I think would be a surprise to, among others, George Soros and EMILY'S list), as well as conservatives (who, in his view, focus on maintaining the status quo, something that the conservative folks I know involved in various things they consider to be [or, in Lakoffese, have "framed"] as "revolutions" would disagree with -- and very specifically those who view most of academia and the mainstream media as a successful liberal framing enterprise).

Reminds me of Freud, as much as Chomsky, really. From my POV, all hyperdeterminists sound much the same.

From:

butterfly.livejournal.com

I don't think that

pegkerr was literally talking about fathers and mothers (at least, that's not what I was agreeing with). It's about the idea of the Authoritarian parental model against the idea of the Nuturing parental model.

This isn't about saying whether or not fathers should protect their children (perhaps it would be clarifying to refrain from using the traditional word 'father' after 'authoritarian', though the authoritarian model is rather hopelessly bound together with patriarchy in many people's minds), but about two different types of techniques that are not limited to gender. Not every father is authoritarian and not every mother is nuturing, certainly.

From:

joelrosenberg.livejournal.com

I think she's talking about both fathers and mothers, and about societal models, as Lakoff does. I think that his model (not for how society works, but how society is thought ought to work, by people of different political persuasions) is, to be ungenerous, very badly flawed.

That said, it does lead to some interesting descriptions and suggestions for what he calls "framing" of political issues. (I'd call it "spinning madly," myself, but I've observed in my own political work that the opposition is often very good at framing/spinning, and find my own side remarkably weak at it, all too often.)

From:

minnehaha.livejournal.com

No, no. You have the analysis right. Remember that there isn't one "correct" father-child pairing. It's more that the father-child metaphor permeates the analysis. So, you have the fathers and children on the ground in NO. You have the government as the father and the citizens as the children. Both are correct.

B

From:

joelrosenberg.livejournal.com

I agree with B, kinda sorta. I think that you have his (rather than "the", which, as Lakoff would probably agree, frames the issue quite neatly) analysis right -- my difference/disagreement/objection isn't with/to your interpretation of it, but his analysis in the first place.

From:

darkthirty.livejournal.com

I think the analogy is outdated. Rockefeller Republicans may have been more closely identified in your analogy, to the father, as it were, but the post-Nixon GOP is closer to being a "family values" cult than a political entity with ideology - that is, the structure and leadership of the GOP has nothing to do with any sytem of belief and more to to do with, well, television culture.

As well, the funtions you've identified don't actually preclude the other - or rather, sending in help isn't nurturing, it's just what needs to be done. The furious defense of Bush, by those few who bother to do so (most of them pretty much the powerful) is because he and his advisors did not do what the GOP is "supposed" to stand for - for "doing what must be done."

Of course, I think it's a silly claim for the GOP to make, but, nonetheless, the current supporters of Bush are in a position of defending what really can't be defended, and that's why they're saying such junk as the FEMA director or Bush has been saying, for example.

The great danger in this all is that the fact of incompetance, FEMA sabotage of rescue efforts and the like will be made to look like partisan issues, when they are so obviously not. They are only issues of competance. Anything else is a distraction from culpability.

From:

joelrosenberg.livejournal.com

And that's another example of framing, and quite a good one. Rather than discussing what the issues are or might properly be, if it's successfully framed in terms of "only issues of competence," the only real question becomes what to do about the incompetence of, depending on one's political persuasion, the Federal, State, and/or local authorities, and the rush to frame the issue in terms of the incompetence of the Federal vs. State/local authorities is already under weigh, and the pitch is only increasing. It's not hard to expect that opponents of the Bush administration will take the position that, regrettable lapses by State/local authorities aside, the only issue worth discussing is the incompetence of the Bush administration, while the supporters will take the position that it was, all in all, a State/local responsibility, and that that is obviously and only where the focus should be.

From:

darkthirty.livejournal.com

What are the issues, do you think? Aside from the ones that are in the headlines of all the papers?

From:

joelrosenberg.livejournal.com

See http://www.livejournal.com/users/pegkerr/512764.html?thread=4309244#t4309244.

From:

jemyl.livejournal.com

The analogies are fine. The problem is that there is no room for the moderate in them. There is also, for me, a problem in attempting to put the N.O. situation into eiher analogy.

Many of the people who were seen complaining about the lack of supplies in the Superdome and the Convention Center and yelling "Help Me" were partially, if not wholely, responsible for their situation. Many of them were offered bus rides OUT of town as the hurricane approached and they refused to leave. Some of them had their hurricane supplies washed or blown away, but not all. Many of them had not done any preparation. They EXPECTED the government to take care of them.

Having been affected by Frqnces and Jeanne last year, I can attest that the expectation of help immediately from the government AFTER a hurricane goes through is totally unreasonable. Those entering shelters are expected, and told, to have a week's worth of medicines and at least three days worth of food and water with them. From that I conclude that the powers that be don't expect the Feds to have any supplies coming into the shelters for three days minimum. That it took longer in N.O. is partially the fault of the refugees themselves, those that were looting, shooting and raping and making it generally unsafe for food and water convoys.

That being said, I still think that there is plenty of blame to go around. First off, the Superdome was a "shelter of last resort" so had no emergency supplies laid in. The Red Cross refused to designate a shelter in N.O. because of the flood danger. That means, to me, that someone else still needed to plan ahead enough t lay in some supplies in that shelter of last resort and in the Convention Center. While FEMA has the overall final say in disaster relief, it is still up to local and state Emergency Services departments and state and local charity groups to plan for emergencies and stock appropriate shelters. Surely the people of N.O. and LA know what parts of N.O. are on high ground, above what a break in the levees would likely flood, and how to equip some shelters in those areas. Put the supplies on the top floors or use Rooftop storage if necessary, but get the job done BEFORE the storm. The old adage "Poor planning on your part does not necessarily trigger an emergency on my part when things happen as predicted," seems to apply here.

Yes, the National Guard and Martial Law should have been invoked by the governor and the Mayor of L.O. sooner than was done. Yes, there should have been protected, escorted truckloads of water and food to the convention center sooner. Yes, the federal government was too slow with their response. Yes, FEMA needs to learn how to use the other charities instead of stopping their help. Those truths, however, cannot overshadow the simple fact that yes, people need to listen and heed the warnings to prepare, to pack and to leave when told so to do. There is no excuse for so many old people not having their regular medications, for children not having any of their formula two days into the emergency. Most of all there is absolutely no excuse for looting TV's, jewelry and electronics in an area where there is no electricity.

The problem in N.O. is not a child/father problem. It is not a race problem. It is not even a poverty problem. The problem in New Orleans is a greed problem and a welfare mentality problem. I think the scene could have been and would have been much different if those people who sat and waited and wailed "help me" had pooled their resources and talents and figured out how to get some water, or even some buckets and bleach and a way to boil or otherwise sanitize some water to keep people from dying. As awful as it sounds, they could even have recycled their own urine to stay alive instead of using it to make a big mess. I see many of those people who would rather bitch, blame Bush and die than use their brains to find a way to work together, do something themselves and live.

From:

joelrosenberg.livejournal.com

... but I think that what you're doing is, in fact, the sort of framing that you're criticizing.

Let me try, just for a second, to reframe the problem, and see if you agree. The problem, as I'd like to see it framed, is not that a lot of people -- probably upwards of 20,000, I'm guessing -- are dead, and others badly hurt, physically, emotionally, and financially. That's a disaster, not a problem; that happened. Right now, people are doing stuff -- technical term -- to minimize the eventual damage, and that's great, and what should be done right now to do that is a problem, but, I'd suggest, not the problem.

The problem, it seems to me, is to reduce the likelihood of something like this happening in the future, at an acceptable cost (not just in dollars, but in effort, liberty, freedom, etc.). Part of analyzing and, presumably, addressing that problem necessarily is to look at what went wrong, including -- but not limited to -- people who didn't do what they were supposed to, people who did what they were supposed not to do, systems that worked and didn't work. A likely side-effect of that look is going to be the waving about of the political pelts of some people involved; that's fine.

But I'm skeptical about what extent that ought to be the focus of the discussion generally, and what I find utterly distressing and infuriating enough that I'm not going to start using swear words because I don't think I could stop is the extent to which people on both sides of the yawning political divide -- including mine, to the extent that I have a side, and to some extent I do -- are choosing to use the present disaster to settle scores both old and new, and losing what I think should be the focus.

From:

darkthirty.livejournal.com

I wonder where "will" is in this equation? And the role of the psychopath Karl Rove? and the role of Bush's ineptness in office? By your comments, all this should just be swept aside in favour of coming up with systems that are just as likely to be forgotten, not brought into action, etc., as the ones that were so inadequately engaged this time round.

From:

joelrosenberg.livejournal.com

I don't remember suggesting that anything should be swept aside, and certainly nothing in favor of coming up with equally bad systems. Probably because I'm not in favor of that.

That said, it's not enough to say that systems were "inadequately engaged" this time around. What systems, and how, and how can better systems be adequately engaged next time around?

If those on the left want to go after "psychopath Karl Rove" (and, okay, I'll bite: what's Karl Rove's supposed role in all of this?) and George Bush and those on the right want to go after Governor Blanco and compare her performance unfavorably to the Governor Barbour, that's all fine, it's great, it's purely wonderful...

... as long as it doesn't distract from getting it better next time around. Which, let me suggest, focusing on it just might.

I've got this terrific idea, I think: after we know better just how things failed, and where those failures were individual and systemic, let's address all of those, and make improvements -- and assign blame -- where appropriate. And that means that if some folks on the left miss a few at bats in their ongoing campaign against the Shrub, and some folks on the right miss their own at bats in their ongoing campaign against Democrats, you know? They just might have a few more later on.

From:

jemyl.livejournal.com

Amen! It is important that all of us learn from this, not just the politicians, not just the well-off and not just the poor. All of us in the coastal states that get hurricanes need to look at what happened with Katrina, analyze the planning, the event, the rescue effort, the successes and failures and LEARN from it. There is, and always will be, plenty of blame to go around. The important thing here is for us, as a nation, to find a way to deal with hurricanes so that this doesn't happen again. Evacuation is only part of the answer. I say that because I know that the infrastructure in Florida, and, from what I have seen in my travels, all of the other states so involved, is not built to handle such a mass evacuation. Bumper to bumper at twenty miles per hour won't do it and that is what I saw with Andrew and each hurricane since then. We have to find a way to build and equip shelters that will withstand a catagory 5 storm and remain viable for at least a month thereafter. They need to be numerous, more neighborhood than regional and continuously stocked with water, basic medicines, including insulin, MRA meals, chemical or recycling toilets, beds, bug spray and water purification tablets, at the very least. They also each need to be equiped with a generator which uses both propane and fossil fuel and with a communication device which doesn't depend upon electricity or wire cabling to operate.

Above all we, as a people and as a country, need to decide how much we value life, both human and animal. We need to decide to pay a little bit now, each of us, to keep people from dying this way next time. Believe me. There will be a next time.

From:

jonquil.livejournal.com

Those truths, however, cannot overshadow the simple fact that yes, people need to listen and heed the warnings to prepare, to pack and to leave when told so to do.

This is a little like saying that "people need to get regular dental care". Yes. Yes, they do. But many, many people in New Orleans are too poor to own cars. Many New Orleans residents depended on public transportation, and public transportation was inadequate for evacuation. You can't get out of the city without a car. The buses and trains weren't running.

> I think the scene could have been and would have been much different if those people who sat and waited and wailed "help me" had pooled their resources and talents and figured out how to get some water, or even some buckets and bleach and a way to boil or otherwise sanitize some water to keep people from dying.

People were prevented from leaving the Superdome once they entered. I don't see how you "figure out how to get some water" in an enclosed space with no access to city mains.

From:

snippy

Water does fall from the sky, I've heard. It can be collected in a plastic tarp, in fact.

From:

jonquil.livejournal.com

Not when you're being held inside a domed stadium and prevented from leaving.

From:

snippy

If I recall correctly, due to breaches in the roof it was raining inside the dome.

Neither you nor I were there; perhaps it was still impossible to collect water. But knowing that it was theoretically possible, it seems unlikely to me that no one even attempted to collect drinking water.

From:

jemyl.livejournal.com

The Superdome was not where the biggest problem occurred. It was at the Convention Center, which is not the same place. Actually, though, water did fall from the sky in the superdome. Instead of collecting it, people ran from it. If you live in a hurricane region, as I do, you need to learn to be a survivalist.

From:

jonquil.livejournal.com

Allow me to intrude a note of reality into your palace of self-sufficient fantasy.

When you are huddled into a football stadium with 20,000 other people, listening to a Category 4 hurricane roar overhead, and the wind rips a hole in the dome, you do not think to yourself "Ah! What an opportunity! I must find another refugee who has a tarpaulin and collect rainwater."

Even if you are an unholy combination of Paul Bunyan, Daniel Boone, and Robinson Crusoe, you are far too busy thinking "Dear God, I am going to die," to make plans for the next day. And criticizing people who *were* in that situation for being insufficiently resourceful shows an astonishing lack of both imagination and empathy for a situation you are apparently incapable of comprehending.

I, also, have lived in tornado and hurricane zones. When the worst happened, we sent help to the survivors; we didn't spend our time bitching about how much better we would have coped in the same situation.

From:

jemyl.livejournal.com

OOps! My survivalist reference was to being prepared BEFORE the hurricane hit. My point is that there is blame on many levels, not just Bush and the politicos.

I DO know what it is like to huddle in the hurricane winds wondering not only if I would survive, but when the winds would stop. We were not able to get out with Frances because of both wrong information and too many people in wheelchairs to fit into a two seater S-10 pickup. In that situation when you are in a doublewide mobile home surrounded by big trees, many of them jack oaks and pines, you do also wonder about what will be left for the next day if you survive, should you try to tie a bucket out or wait a while and is there any way to capture some of this water to use to clean up without blowing away. I have been there and done that.

I have also lived in tornado country and there is a big difference between hurricanes and tornados. Hurricanes tend to move much more slowly, have higher sustained winds for a longer period of time and dump much more water on the area. It was two days with Frances before the utility company trucks could even start out because of the continuing bands of wind and rain. That is why I think that some of the expectations of the sheltered survivors were also somewhat unreasonable.

I am not criticizing the people's actions during the height of the storm, but after when many just sat and waited for someone else to help them, and I am not talking about those in the Superdome, but in the streets and in the Convention Center which is NOT the Superdome.

My point was that pre-planning was woeful. The Superdome was not even supposed to be a shelter, except a shelter of last resort and there just weren't supplies there. The Red Cross just didn't think that there were any safe shelters in N.O. so set up none. That bothers me somehow.