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

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Here you go:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/09/03/nature_vs_civilization/

B

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

This is an authoritarian father in action:

http://media.vmsnews.com/MonitoringReports/090605/549440/H000361890/

"...there are consequences to not leaving."

B

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

And here's Lakoff himself on the topic:

http://alternet.org/story/25099/

B