|
Among other things, the discussion thread of my diary "Obama Praising Reagan--An Echo, Not A Choice???", again surfaced the confusion that falsely jumbles together framing, spinning and lying. Because framing is so fundamental, so important, and still so badly misunderstood, I felt compelled to address it, with yet another attempt to set the record straight.
Here's the basic picture:
Framing:
A: "The glass is half full."
B: "The glass is half empty."
Both are objectively true, but represent different views.
Spinning:
A: "The glass is half empty."
B: "Why didn't you say it was half full?"
A: "But that's what I DID say! They're both the same, you know."
Objective truth is involved, but it's being played with. You don't lie outright, but you clearly mislead. The sense in which what you say is true is not the sense in which you intend and expect to be taken.
Lying:
A: "The glass is half full."
B: "Why are you saying it's half empty? You're such a pessimist! Liberals are all pessimists!"
B is simply lying, and then generalizing from the lie.
The false equation of framing, spinning and lying comes in two particularly pernicious forms-those who make the false equation in order to attack framing, and those who make the false equation in order to support spinning and lying. A couple of years back, I stopped posting at Booman Tribune, because Booman dogmatically insisted on this false equation, irrationally rejecting repeated solid arguments, not just from me, but also from a number of other diarists and commentators.
Now, here at OpenLeft, I'm getting it from the other side, from folks who are defending Obama's parroting of rightwing lies about Ronald Reagan as simple acts of "reframing." Well, yes, technically, that's true, since lying is a form of framing, and recasting a lie in a somewhat different form is a form of reframing.
But there are important differences between the essence of lying and framing, and when you obscure those differences, what you're doing is spinning. The best way I can think of to defend framing, and distinguish it from lying and spinning, is talk about where it comes from, and what it's all about-and then to show how deeply contradictory the arguments against it generally are, once you understand what it really is.
|
| Framing = Contextualizing
Basically, framing is contextualizing, and because we are all creatures, embedded in creation, not gods set apart apart from it, we cannot escape the fact that all of our knowing is contextualized by our finitude, and our specific history, including the natural history of all our evolutionary past. This realization was first systematically developed in modern times by the nuerologists/psychologist/philosopher William James. James was a young student when Darwin first published his theory of evolution, and thus was part of the first generation to absorb the Darwinian worldview, and use it as a lens for viewing the world. James, however, was unique in the degree to which he turned that lens inward, and systematically related it to all three levels of his expertise-the physical foundations of awareness in nuerology, the full range of human information processing in psychology, and the fundamental possibilities of human knowledge, thought, values and destiny in philosophy.
James was, in fact, the first cybernetic philosopher, because he realized we are embedded in loops of circular causation, some of which span countless generations. He saw that even our imagined "analytical truths" of pure logic were the products of eons of evolution, shaping our nervous systems so that some things appeared impossible to doubt, and beyond the reach of any conceivable evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately, James fell victim to America's strange combination of anti-intellectualism and its cutlural inferiority complex in comparison with Europe. His more subtle views of science and human knowledge were largely ignored through much of the 20th Century, in favor of a simplistic positivism, on the one hand, and a bloodless analytical philosophy on the other. But the emergence of congitive science as a multi-disciplinary practice in the last few decades has revived the Jamesian recognition that our physical bodies, and the history embedded in them, are fundamentally involved in all our forms of knowing.
This was a point made forcefully in George Lakoff's first book on cognitive metaphors, co-written with philosopher Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, and it has recurred throughout his work. The book, Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being (co-authored by Rafael Nunez) is particularly fascinating and instructive, since it has nothing to do with language at all, but is entirely concerned with understanding mathematics as a human endeavor, a human activity experessive of human consciousness, rooted in the human body. However, it received it's fullest examination in the book Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought, also co-authored with Mark Johnson.
As I've frequently referenced, along a different line of thoght, Robert Kegan's schema of cognitive development also stresses the persistent fact that the foreground of conscious thought-that which is object for us-always exists against a more complex background context of what is subject for us. Put simply, we cannot escape the fact that, from multiple different perspectives, we are creatures whose rationality and autonomy is always dependent on the multiple contexts in which we live, think, and breathe.
The Argument At Booman Tribune
There were a number of different diaries in which Booman reiterated over and over and over again his baseless belief that "framing=lying", and a truly impressive group of crtics-folks like pyhrro, Media Girl and Janet Strange-tried to dissuade him... all to no avail, since reason is always powerless in the face of pure dogmatism.
I summoned up my best efforts at a response in a diary, "Why Booman Hates Framing... He Just Doesn't Get It!", which spawned nearly 200 comments, a lot of them quite insightful, but all to no avail. You just can't argue with someone who doesn't listen to you. It's just that simple, even though it's incredibly frustrating when it's a person whom you've often violently agreed with.
In one of the diaries, I responded like this:
You're Framing 'Framing' As Lying
You can't stop framing, even when you're attacking framing. By framing 'framing' as 'lying' you are blinding yourself to the fact that you are framing in the very act of denouncing framing.
Just because conservatives and Republicans use framing in a perverted fashion does not change the facts. Framing is an inescapable aspect of human cognition. It operates through a variety of different mechanisms, and has been studied by hundreds, probably thousands of different researchers. Denying framing is like denying evolution or global warming.
The problem with GOP/conservative framinig is two-fold: (1) Much of it is Orwellian.
And Lakoff points out: Clinton figured out how to handle this problem. He stole the other side's language. He talked about "welfare reform," for example. He said, "The age of big government is over." He did what he wanted to do, only he took their language and used their words to describe it. It made them very mad. Very smart technique. It turns out that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and guess what? We get "compassionate conservatism." The Clear Skies Initiative. Healthy Forests. No Child Left Behind. This is the use of language to mollify people who have nurturant values, while the real policies are strict father policies. This mollifies, even attracts, the people in the middle who might have qualms about you. This is the use of Orwellian language--language that means the opposite of what it says--to appease people in the middle at the same time as you pump up the base. That is part of the conservative strategy.
Liberals and progressives typically react to this strategy in a selfdefeating way. The usual reaction is, "Those conservatives are bad people; they are using Orwellian language. They are saying the opposite of what they mean. They are deceivers. Bad. Bad. " All true. But we should recognize that they use Orwellian language precisely when they have to: when they are weak, when they cannot just come out and say what they mean. Imagine if they came out supporting a "Dirty Skies Bill" or a "Forest Destruction Bill" or a "Kill Public Education" bill. They would lose. They are aware people do not support what they are really trying to do.
Orwellian language points to weakness--Orwellian weakness. When you hear Orwellian language, note where it is, because it is a guide to where they are vulnerable. They do not use it everywhere. It is very important to notice this, and use their weakness to your advantage.
(2) The rest reflects a flawed worldview--the Strict Father worldview. This worldview is extremely vulnerable to criticism. But only if you understand what it is. And if you understand the alternative--the Nurturant Parent worldview.
For example, when you look at data like the General Social Survey time series on supporting social spending, it's clear that the vast majority of people--including self-identified extreme conservatives--adopt the Nurturant Parent worldview when it is presented to them in terms of specific policies and programs that meet an identifiable need. Our problem is, we have failed to develop consistent arguments and political narratives that connect those specific commitments to a larger vision. And this can only be done with the use of framing.
I'm not saying that framing alone will do it. But it can't be done without framing.
And Booman responded:
Please don't hit me
with a tautology.
I can't describe the framing debate without describing what I feel framing is. The second I do that you accuse me of framing what framing is.
Framing as a cognitive description goes to the visceral, the subconscious, the non-rational.
It works, which is why it is used. It is usually only necessary as a strategy when one is weak.
When one is strong, you lead with your ideas in a honest manner. When reason is on your side, there is less need to resort to the visceral.
Example: the word 'discrimination' has a bad connotation. On a visceral level the mind recoils from the word before the context is understood.
It used to be that gambling had such a connotation, so they invented gaming.
The left's obsession with framing reflects (too often) a lack of faith in the rightness of our beliefs and their attractiveness.
Just as the right resorts to Orwellian language, the left attempts to trick people into supporting policies that studies show the people support without trickery.
It becomes a defense mechanism against Orwellian language. It's weakness. I hate it.
Notice how emotive, expressive, non-rational, and visceral Booman's argument is. Not to mention totally unresponsive to the arguments I've just presented. There is not one shred of argument here that makes the case against framing per se. It simply assumes that framing is defined by the dishonest, manipulative use of framing. And that's simply par for the course. Framing can only be dismissed by misrepresenting it, by framing it dishonestly.
Booman ascended to the height of such misrepresentation in his diary "What is Framing in a Political Context?" In this diary, he attempted to define "Framing in a Political Context" in terms of Frank Luntz, as a poll-driven, consumer-oriented attempt to pick off small demographic splinter groups. There are two main problems with this. First, it is totally anathema to what Lakoff believes should be done. Which, of course, makes it utterly absurd as an argument against Lakoff.
In Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, Lakoff writes:
A third mistake is this: There is a metaphor that political campaigns are marketing campaigns where the candidate is the product and the candidate's positions on issues are the features and qualities of the product. This leads to the conclusion that polling should determine which issues a candidate should run on. Here's a list of issues. Which show the highest degree of support for a candidate's position? If it's prescription drugs, 78 percent, you run on a platform featuring prescription drugs. Is it keeping social security? You run on a platform featuring social security. You make a list of the top issues, and those are the issues you run on. You also do market segmentation: District by district, you find out the most important issues, and those are the ones you talk about when you go to that district.
It does not work. Sometimes it can be useful, and, in fact, the Republicans use it in addition to their real practice. But their real practice, and the real reason for their success, is this: They say what they idealistically believe. They say it; they talk to their base using the frames of their base. Liberal and progressive candidates tend to follow their polls and decide that they have to become more "centrist" by moving to the right. The conservatives do not move at all to the left, and yet they win!
Why? What is the electorate like from a cognitive point of view? Probably 35 to 40 percent of people-maybe more these days-have a strict father model governing their politics.
Similarly, there are people who have a nurturant view governing their politics, probably another 35 to 40 percent. And then there are all the people in the "middle."
The key can be found in Lakoff's subtitle: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate (Accordingly). Don't pander. Build your campaign on articulating your value system through a systematic unfolding of the frames that express it. This is nothing remotely like what Booman is talking about.
The second problem is that it is disingenuous way to obscure the actual logical relationships involved, which can be seen in the following diagram:
(Of course, it's oversimplified, since politics involves other sorts of framing, as well, most notably the visual staging of political events, campaign ads, etc. But that's well outside the frame of discussion in which the framing debates occur.)
Booman has to ignore and obscure this natural order of embedding, because it contradicts the very heart of his argumnt, which is to center "political framing" in the practice of corrupt and/or rightwing political operatives, rather than in the actual reality of how it works in human reason.
Arguing The Other Way-The Obamaphile's Excuse
More recently, here and elsewhere, we've seen the opposite side argued. Obama is not lying about Reagan's record, he's reframing it. Obama is not spinning Reagan's record, he's reframing it. But, as indicated by the logical relationships mapped out at the beginning of this diary, such claims are disingenuous. Lying and spinning are simply dishonest ways of framing, and what we want Obama to do-just like any other politician-is to frame things honestly. That's why I fought so hard against Booman's misrepresentations-because I want to preserve and incredibly valuable distinction. And I refuse to surrender that distinction to excuse-making Obamaphiles, just as I refused to surrender it to Booman.
The examples I presented in my previous diary, "What If Obama Tried to Split The Right, Instead of the Left?", are examples of how such framing can be done. There are countless other examples as well. But the point is simple: If we set this standard for ourselves-the standard of honestly framing and re-framing-then we can meet it, and we can succeed politically. But if we remain irrationally opposed to it, or blindly ignorant of what the standard is, then we stand very little chance at all.
|
STATE BLOGS
