I read the article.

I think Lappe is quibbling about terminology in criticizing "nurturant parent," particularly by accepting the Right's stereotype of liberals as "coddling the lazy poor" to do so. It's a measure of how successful the Right has been in shaming us away from our basic values that we'd be so quick to disown language that sounds "motherly."

Lappe seems hung up on the “nuclear-family” imagery of the Lakoff models. The family metaphors are only the root of the strict vs. nurturant view; they each branch out to community, nation, and world scopes. However the strict father view of community is very different from the nurturant parent view. The point about nurturant parenting is that it's both male and female, emphasizing the equality of all "family" members – even the less capable children – whereas strict father is a purely male, hierarchical dominance. The strict father idea of community is where the father-leaders set the rules and the subordinates comply (i.e., no one but the leaders ever get to grow up), while the nurturant community is egalitarian. Taking the characteristics of nurturant parent model and calling it "strong community" won’t win points with the other side. Remember how Hillary was pounced upon over "It Takes A Village?"

Especially at first, until we build up the communication channels to counter right-wing control of public dialogue, whatever language we use to describe our inclusive, mutually supportive worldview is going to sound less convincing and well-practiced. Plus, we're not trying to convince the Neo-con mouthpieces who will mount the resistance to our frames. Lappe is correct that many who've been manipulated into supporting conservatives will respond to latent liberal tendencies, once we help them reconnect with those values (like the Democrats who voted for Schwarzenegger, for instance).

A careful reading of Lakoff shows that he neither suggests that creating the correct frame is all that's needed, nor does he ignore that the Neo-con willingness to fight dirty. He emphasizes that we need to be just as focused, coordinated and strategic as they've been in funding liberal think tanks and commandeering media to market our ideas.

Lappe makes a number of statements that sound good, but are unsupported, and don't jive with history.

· "Most Americans would be appalled – if they knew: There’s no evidence the majority of Americans approve this ends-justify-means, destroy-the-enemy approach."

If only. Strict father morality depends on and blithely accepts winners and losers. Talk to any conservative Christian and you'll see that on the contrary, they are quite comfortable with suspending earthly norms for what they believe to be heavenly reward. The happy ending in their story has the vast majority of humans destroyed by the ultimate Strict Father. Religion aside, humans are notorious for dividing their fellow beings into "us" versus "them." Most Americans know our government has suspended basic human rights of people they label terrorists, even justifying torture of "them." Yet where’s the outrage? The answer is to teach people that “them” are really “us.”

· “If the Left is indeed stuck with nuclear-family metaphors, they’re seriously out of luck; in scary times like these “strong father” will win out over what is seen as “soft mother” every time.”

Gee, we hardly need the Right to attack Lakoff, when the left is so quick to form a circular firing squad. The very suggestion that mothers are weaker than fathers is a right-wing frame that we should reject utterly. There are always scary times, whether real or manufactured. If her statement were true, neither women nor blacks would have gained the vote in this country, nor would Ghandi have won independence for India with non-violence.

Overall impression: everyone wants a piece of Lakoff’s action and will nitpick the theory to death – if we let them.

*****A

Posted by: Adrienne at January 21, 2005 04:11 PM

Thanks for such a lengthy, detailed commentary Adrienne.

a. I totally agree with you that a circular firing squad is the LAST thing we need.
b. I totally agree with you that people overestimate how much other people care about torture and the like...see the entry I posted today in response to Frank Rich's latest column.

I guess I really like a lot of what Lakoff says about language and framing, and am just not sure about the whole "parenting" metaphor for either party.

Not that I have a better metaphor in mind right now, I grant you.

Posted by: Elisa at January 21, 2005 04:21 PM