George Lakoff, the psycholinguist, is expert in explaining how people respond to verbal messages. His book “Don’t Think of an Elephant,” was a best-seller.
I met Lakoff a few years back and asked him about how to frame issues in the education debate. We spent two hours talking. He left a lasting lesson with me: liberals think that people are persuaded by facts; conservatives persuade with narratives, not facts.
In this important article, he explains the reason for Trump’s success: Trump is the Father, the strong authoritarian father who will protect us and keep us safe from all threats.
“In the 1900s, as part of my research in the cognitive and brain sciences, I undertook to answer a question in my field: How do the various policy positions of conservatives and progressives hang together? Take conservatism: What does being against abortion have to do with being for owning guns? What does owning guns have to do with denying the reality of global warming? How does being anti-government fit with wanting a stronger military? How can you be pro-life and for the death penalty? Progressives have the opposite views. How do their views hang together?
The answer came from a realization that we tend to understand the nation metaphorically in family terms: We have founding fathers. We send our sons and daughters to war. We have homeland security. The conservative and progressive worldviews dividing our country can most readily be understood in terms of moral worldviews that are encapsulated in two very different common forms of family life: The Nurturant Parent family (progressive) and the Strict Father family (conservative).
What do social issues and the politics have to do with the family? We are first governed in our families, and so we grow up understanding governing institutions in terms of the governing systems of families.
In the strict father family, father knows best. He knows right from wrong and has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse do what he says, which is taken to be what is right. Many conservative spouses accept this worldview, uphold the father’s authority, and are strict in those realms of family life that they are in charge of. When his children disobey, it is his moral duty to punish them painfully enough so that, to avoid punishment, they will obey him (do what is right) and not just do what feels good. Through physical discipline they are supposed to become disciplined, internally strong, and able to prosper in the external world. What if they don’t prosper? That means they are not disciplined, and therefore cannot be moral, and so deserve their poverty. This reasoning shows up in conservative politics in which the poor are seen as lazy and undeserving, and the rich as deserving their wealth. Responsibility is thus taken to be personal responsibility not social responsibility. What you become is only up to you; society has nothing to do with it. You are responsible for yourself, not for others — who are responsible for themselves.
Winning and Insulting
As the legendary Green Bay Packers coach, Vince Lombardi, said,
“Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.” In a world governed by personal responsibility and discipline, those who win deserve to win. Why does Donald Trump publicly insult other candidates and political leaders mercilessly? Quite simply, because he knows he can win an onstage TV insult game. In strict conservative eyes, that makes him a formidable winning candidate who deserves to be a winning candidate. Electoral competition is seen as a battle. Insults that stick are seen as victories — deserved victories.”

The Just World view is certainly a core belief of conservatives. I often found, though, the strong father figure was more of a figurehead. The women in conservative families often play a major role while appearing subservient. In my somewhat conservative upbringing, men repeated the old joke “Kids, I’m the boss! Your mother told me so.”
What is interesting is when conservatives are hit with reality. As the science of climate change is revealed, they hold steadfast to denial and a belief God would not allow extinction or they just adopt a fatalistic view of endtimes. When they realize income inequality results from a rigged system or bad luck, not “personal responsibility”, conservatives turn to demagogue saviors like Trump. If sickness and disability become personal, they turn to religion, blaming the victim for not being pious enough or displeasing God in some way. While the loyalty to family is a great characteristic, modern conservatism has not reacted well to the changing world.
LikeLike
The problem with generalizations (which is what Lakoff’s theory is) is that they are only true on average, at best.
I know several (real) conservatives (my parents among them) who do not fit the authoritarian father/submissive mother family pattern, who believe that climate change is real and who actually left the Republican party on account of what has happened to it.
Apart from the danger of lumping everyone into his binary theory, Lakoff has a clear bias.
That is unscientific. He does not behave as a scientist.
He’s free to theorize, but he should stop pretending that what he is doing is science.
LikeLike
Poet..Lakeoff in this recent article certainly is subjective rather than objective. However, in his early work as a linguist (30 years ago) he opened the minds of many with his explanations based on empirical evidence, that language does influence political direction and individual and mass thinking leading to action….such as voting patterns. Trump used this info to scare voters and to present himself as Big Daddy to save America from everything.
Vale Math…miss calling you Math Vale…your story leaves out the ultimate thinking of the Evangelicals that they are waiting for The Rapture. It is the ONLY reason they, like Trump and his wildly enthusiastic followers, support Israel…for that is the venue where this Brave New World of the Christian end game is to take place. The entire belief system proves Lakeoffs original linguistic research, that language is the core of how people function. He and those who study the great apes (Jane Goodall etc.) have shown the connection between human and animal use of language and how leadership emerges.
Thanks Diane for posting Lakeoff info…..as you know I keep quoting him in my writings.
LikeLike
“I know several (real) conservatives (my parents among them) who do not fit the authoritarian father/submissive mother family pattern, who believe that climate change is real and who actually left the Republican party on account of what has happened to it.”
What’s your definition of conservative, Poet?
LikeLike
“The problem with generalizations (which is what Lakoff’s theory is) is that they are only true on average, at best.”
I do not think what Lakoff does is generalization. Instead, he is talking about two basic categories and he claims that most people are a mix of both. These categories are similar to the racial categories, and by now, most people are a mix of each. Still, it’s very useful the basic description of each category.
In general, it’s useful to understand basic building blocks, atoms, from which all creatures are built. This is what Lakoff’s theory is about, describing two basic building blocks, and not about trying to put individuals into labeled rabbit holes as you seem to imply.
LikeLike
The linked article is superb.Share it please.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Saving school math and commented:
The linked article is superb.Share it please.
LikeLike
Speak in parables and bullying insults.
The modern conservatives, a new breed of badass.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Lloyd Lofthouse and commented:
Learn who Donald Trump’s followers are and why they follow him.
LikeLike
What I fear is, the increase in just this form of thinking. Accepting the story. If you were educated to question the reality of the story, then you can think for yourself. The right of a child to education that allows the child to reject his parent’s values may not be upheld in law (see William O. Douglas decent in Wisconsin v Yoder) but if you believe in liberty and natural rights, then you cannot deny the child’s right to a decent education that allows the child, at least, to meaningfully participate in politics. The founding fathers had this kind of education.
LikeLike
Agree rg….so this is why we must continue to fight against Common Core so that we can continue to teach critical thinking skills (as Thomas Jefferson saw public education), using an analysis of the Bill of Rights for instance, and not rote learning to memorize technical material such as how to operate a ‘widget’.
LikeLike
Fifty-two years ago Berkeley birthed the Free Speech Movement when Mario Savio stood atop a police car in the middle of Sproul plaza on the UC Berkeley campus and called for moral action. He shouted out:
“There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious — makes you so sick at heart — that you can’t take part. You can’t even passively take part. And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.”
The “sick at heart” may vote for Trump, but the day after the election “the machine” will continue to operate in the interest of the 1% no matter who becomes President.
Yet, election outcomes do matter in the lives of people. But, I believe popular movements are usually are evolutionary more often than revolutionary. Evolutionary shift from right to left wing policies will be in part determined by this presidential election and the appointments to the Supreme Court. The shape of important issues such as health care hang in the balance with the next president having a big role as to the ideological direction of the Court and of the Nation’s politics.
LikeLike
Jim…we must be of an age…I too was in People’s Park ant at Sproul Plaza listening to Mario when I was a university freshman…and it blew me away. His words that you quote resonate today. But the horror of our current election is that we have two oligarchs running against each other. It is with great stress that we are forced by the system to pick the least onerous….unless we waste our vote by making it only a protest. The key for the future seems to be…CHANGE THE SYSTEM.
LikeLike
I really appreciate this insight. As a fax and numbers person, I am often frustrated talking with local leaders about education. I have been recently trying the more anecdotal approach and people seem more receptive to what I would consider a story which is not any evidence at all. So I have been trying a mixture of both.
This article helps with insight into how to communicate even better so that the truth about education can be understood. I recognize that it is very different then my worldview, but I’ll try to use it to chip away at the edu reformy language that completely controls my area of the state Thanks!!!
LikeLike
Dear Diane,
THANK YOU!
In a group of professionals of which I am a part, we have been discussing 1. Lakoff’s REFRAMING and when one thinks in these terms regarding politics, 2. marketing, and 3. the law, as well as how it relates to 1. literacy, education, and 2. the current awful situation in education for the past almost 36 years. (My comment: Started with Reagan and got worse with each president for various reasons and one is Congress. Now education is a disaster. We went BACKWARDS really FAST.
What I do know about teaching is that it is like good parenting — knowing when to step in and guide the young, and when to step out and leave well enough alone in order that the young one(s) learn to work out “whatever engaged in” by him/herself or themselves.
Politicians/Lawyer types don’t really understand education, because they truly see themselves as the scolding parent (not limited to one’s sex) talking to a nation of child idiots, which is fueled by them thinking that they truly know what’s best. This perspective is what got them there in the first place.
Put this together with GREED and the NEED to have POWER OVER others and this a scene for disaster. Think: NAFTA, CC, RTT, ESSA, and the horrid TPP, and it’s all right there. The EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES ON. We have had STRICT FATHERS as Presidents to one varying degree to another. Nevertheless, they are strict fathers. My saying strict fathers does not preclude the face that many females are also strict father, so this does not preclude females who are indeed strict fathers. From my perspective, this is NOT sex-based.
Where are our citizens learning about PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES? They may not know about Layoff and his groundbreaking work, but surely they can understand Propaganda Techniques and see how “everywhere” they are indeed being immersed in PROPAGANDA. Most of the mainstream news is well … PAP. And the electronics and virtual world prey on others. (As an aside, I admit I like the use of electronics in certain situations, LIKE THIS ONE — an absolutely terrific blog. I am GRATEFUL.)
Our citizens have to WAKE UP.
And YES, the problem re: education is that so many of our young LIVE in POVERTY — They literally don’t have boots thus can’t pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Those who look at the world do indeed think the poor deserve to be poor and don’t care that the poor has no boots at all. This perspective reinforces their view that the poor need to be punished.
Think of WAR. It’s the punishment view. Hope this human species wakes up and becomes UNSTUCK or we will destroy ourselves rather than SAILING ON! And I do mean SAILING ON rather than DIGGING DEEPER into the hole and suffocating ourselves to our own eventual demise.
Again, THANK YOU!
LikeLike
And MIL GRACIAS, Yvonne for your astute commentary!
LikeLike
Super comments Ynonne…thanks for it all.
LikeLike
Dear Diane,
THANKS for this!
And I am just so glad you are delivering the opening keynote at NCTE. I will be there cheering for you.
Perfect timing for you addressing members of NCTE.
Always, all good things,
Yvonne Siu-Runyan hanalei@indra.com
>
LikeLike
Lakoff’s powerful insights about use of values resonant language have important implications about countering the popular appear of competition-based education policies: Language to reframe improvement in education with language and values that emphasize collaboration and social responsibility: http://wpo.st/dtPo1
LikeLike
Great article Arthur…should be posted in all Grad Schools of Ed rather than the 10 Commandments which Trumpies would prefer.
When are you going to run for office? I have my check book at the ready.
LikeLike
I have admired the work of Lakoff for a long time. Here is an example of something i wrote back in 2002, working with metaphor and events of that era.
Underlying Metaphors: Images of Power and Intimacy
There are blends of rhetoric on behalf of free-market schooling and metaphors are central in them. Metaphors have consequences (McCloskey, 1990; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999, 560-568) and help to explain two conservative impulses in setting the stage for free-market schooling. The first impulse is to call for extreme regulation and accountability in public schools. The second impulse is to ensure that schooling is a matter private choice.
Survival metaphors. Recent calls for extreme regulation of public schools owe much to Lester Thurgow, an MIT economist. Thurgow envisions competition in a global marketplace as the key to America’s economic survival. The implications for schooling are straightforward. American education must become more competitive. Under the survivalist metaphor, national success depends on: a) setting world-class standards for all students, b) ensuring that students master academically demanding subjects, c) seeking greater rigor in teaching, and d) comparing (on a regular basis) our national test scores with those of our international competitors. This “survival of the fittest,” metaphor is noteworthy in its emphasis on: a) a national system of command and control of education, with little room for local control and choice, and b) a fusion of biological and economic images of survival with winners and losers (McCloskey, 1990, 136-161; House, 1998, 40-42).
There is, however, another variant of survivalist thinking. It begins with a system of ecological niches where chains of interdependency and reciprocity exist and the best nurtured flourish. In the “survival of the best nurtured” metaphor, local policy contexts become important along with options in types of schools and attention to students as individuals. In economic terms, “survival of the best nurtured” is achieved when you downsize, become entrepreneurial, pay more attention to available resources, recognize that your well-being depends on the well-being of others. This metaphor is noteworthy in its emphasis on: a) a highly differentiated system of education, and b) the adaptive and qualitative character of schooling apart from rating schemes that designate winners and losers (Greene,1988).
Homeland and household metaphors. The difference in these two images of survival can be related to the public and private character of parental roles. For the public system of schooling, the parent must assure the security and survival of the “homeland.“ This requires a stance analogous to “tough love” with strict standards for all, accountability, consequences for non-compliance, and survival of the nation as a whole.
In contrast to the homeland as a national context for decision-making, decisions made in a household are more intimate. Parents expect to have some autonomy in raising their children. In a given household, “tough love” may be the rule, but there may also be a willingness to negotiate and flex rules in the interest of each person and the family unit as a whole. Further, private schools, like private homes, tend to be viewed as sanctuaries where kith and kin are usually welcome. School choice is analogous to choosing friends and neighbors who have mutual interests and values.
The conservative agenda for national policies, articulated in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, makes use of the homeland and the household metaphors. Public schools are construed as risk-laden venues endangering the quest for homeland superiority in a global economy. The public educational system is criticized for being too homelike, trying to accommodate everyone, insufficiently rigorous in its demands, too concerned with psychological and social relationships. The “corrective” is an unprecedented number of federal and state mandates for public schools based on higher standards and a system of accountability that requires reports to Congress.
The conservative agenda for parental choice relies on the household metaphor, a private and intimate place. In order to accommodate the preferences of parents, No Child Left Behind calls for a dramatic increase in charter schools and for-profit management of public schools, with the ultimate aim of privatizing and deregulating the entire system of schooling even if this direction does not add more rigor and greater competitiveness to the system as a whole. In this respect, the quest to create a free market system of schooling with parental choice (the household metaphor) actually trumps the quest for national excellence sufficient for survival in a global economy (the homeland metaphor).
LikeLike
No matter what theory we ascribe to, our country and other aging economies are suffering from globalization. “Reform” has been the reality for the past fifteen years, and the results have been lackluster. Even using scores as criteria, we are not improving as NAEP scores are stagnant or declining. Disruption and assault plans on public schools are not healthy or in the best interests of our young people. They need stability and security in order to be able to focus on academics. Our policies are narrowing the curriculum for too many public school students, not expanding horizons. “Reform” is moving us backwards, not forward, as this post from EduShyster points out. We do not need more regressive ideas from economists and business leaders; we need progressive ideas from legitimately trained, authentic educators. http://edushyster.com/teach-like-its-1895/
LikeLike
Laura…your essay remains timely and on the mark. As to Lester Thurow, who was a brilliant and respected economist from MIT, he should have stuck to his main specialty of the banking system. His book (circa 1981) on the rise and fall of the Savings and Loan industry, the first debacle to bring down our economy, is still used by Economics educators and is a bible for that event. His thoughts and personal subjective insights on education…not too relevant. I personally however learned much about economics from Lester Thurow.
LikeLike
Awwwwwkward!
https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2016/07/23/nyc-public-schools-follow-in-racial-privilege-brainwashing/amp/?client=safari#
We need better people in charge, people more sensitive who can provide more coherent and sensible direction, and really, palpably discourage a lot of the idiocy and abuse that still goes on.
LikeLike
Those people in charge? You mean the current adminimals in the schools and the educrats at the state department of education?
Good luck with getting “better ones” because those “better ones” are never given a chance since they don’t believe in competitive ass kissing.
LikeLike
Freud rediscovered a century later.
LikeLike
Which part of Freud’s theory are you referring to?
LikeLike