George Lakoff’s book was worth the read. Yet throughout the book there were moments of disconnect for me. Most of these, thankfully, were overridden by areas of saliency and substance. And some of the framing may be useful for my own book so Don’t Think of an Elephant! Will most likely make it in to the bibliography of You Look Great!
First, what were those moments of disconnect I mentioned? Those discoveries are always more interesting so I will begin with them. They began right at the outset. "Don’t think of an Elephant!" I read in the opening pages. Got it! I conjure a robust image of an ostrich in my brain. The ostrich really wants to be there. This is disconcerting when I continue to read in Lakoff’s book that anyone reading or hearing the phrase "Don’t think of an elephant" will instantly envision an elephant because that is how a normal person’s brain is wired. Lakoff goes on to reinforce this bit of cognitive scientific reality by maintaining that in his decades of teaching, not one of his students did not think of an elephant when told not to. The ostrich, now fully ensconced in my psyche, starts pecking away at something. Yet I read on.
I am told, in Don’t Think of an Elephant!, that human perceptions and social interactions can basically be boiled down to human beings falling in to three distinctive camps: the "nurturant parent," "strict father figure," and "co-conceptuals." These are translated into the respective politics of "liberal/progressive," "conservative" and perhaps "moderate." These are oversimplifications for me which unfortunately makes the further expository remarks on these groups seem frail. And the labels conjured up an unpleasant memory of being subjected to educationalist theories back in the days when I was a teacher. - I recall a particularly time wasting lecture by an educator who categorized people as "circles, triangles and squares."
As you can see, I am not a great fan of labeling people. Yet authors, cognitive scientists included, use labels as tools for framing debate, some more effectively than others. It may be just a matter of semantics, but a better user friendly model for me is to frame ideologies as thought and social processes rather than as labels for groups of people. This makes debate more edifying and fluid. If you describe a person’s idea, for instance, as being influenced by sexism, racism, or fanaticism, it allows that person the opportunity to review and evaluate those ideas as well as their sources. It offers the hope of throwing off that yoke. But "You are a fanatic," even if unvoiced but understood, describes the totality of a person’s being and is rather hopeless - end of debate.
Yet later in Lakoff’s book, he does an exemplary job of offering a road map of sorts for greater civility in political discourse while holding fast to ethical principals and evidence based science - especially in his final chapters. Other places where the book shines is in Geoge Lakoff’s sensitive and astute examination of the effects of September 11 on the American psyche. The historical background of the legal precedents - all the back to 1623 - for Citizens United was a nice little feast of facts. And much to his credit, George Lakoff offers a finely faceted view of the abortion debate.
I often found that I was more fond of George Lakoff’s smaller observations than his larger vision. A particular gem for me was his illustration of corporate externalization of costs as having to wait on the telephone through time consuming menus in order to finally get to ask a question of a customer service representative. Your time traded for their money.
So take the time to read this book if political and social framing interests you. It is worth the value.....just don’t think of an ostrich!
No comments:
Post a Comment