Applying Lakoff

[pegkerr]

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

Comments

[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

[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.