 |
|---|
| Home |
| Who We Are |
| What We Do |
| Contact Us |
| References |
| Spotlight |
|
Framing the Debate: By R. Matthew Lytle Language is one of the most fundamental abilities that separates humanity from all other living things. Humans have the capability to communicate thoughts and ideas through spoken and written communication, among other means. The people who can most convincingly communicate their ideas are often the ones who are most successful in various areas of life. Some are naturally gifted communicators, for whom this ability is almost tacit. Others work to hone this skill in order to be more successful. George Lakoff, Professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Science at the University of California, Berkeley, has devoted much of his time and energy researching the connection between communication and public policy.1 Lakoff is a man who understands how language works, and as such, is an expert on how best to use linguistic principles with persuasive effect. Frames and Framing The key to understanding Lakoff’s increasingly influential theory of linguistics and policy lies in the existence of frames, which Lakoff defines in his book Thinking Points as “mental structures that allow human beings to understand reality.”2 In his book Don’t Think of an Elephant, Lakoff writes that frames “shape the goals we seek, the plans we make, the way we act, and what counts as a good or bad outcome of our actions.”3 Each frame comes with its own language in the form of sets of terms and concepts, which help shape how people see and understand the world. Deep Frames. Frames come in all shapes and sizes, and some are more fundamental than others.4 The most fundamental of these frames is what Lakoff calls “deep frames.” Lakoff defines deep frames as “the most basic frames that constitute a moral worldview or political philosophy. Deep frames define one’s overall ‘common sense.’”5 In other words, deep frames are the components that make up one’s worldview. These frames form a matrix through which one sees and understands the world. Anything that resonates with these deep frames “makes sense.” Issue-Defining Frames. Closer to the surface than deep frames are “issue-defining frames.” An issue-defining frame, according to Lakoff, “characterizes the problem, assigns blame, and constrains the possible solutions.”6 The fact that frames come with their own language and concepts gives issue-defining frames a special importance. In any debate, the issue-defining frame will dictate how people talk about and understand the issues being debated. Lakoff illustrates the issue-defining frame by discussing immigration. One way of debating this issue is by using the issue-defining frame of “illegal immigrants.”7 The phrase “illegal immigrants” defines the issue so that it must be discussed in terms of immigrants who have crossed the border illegally. Those who are in favor of more lax immigration standards must now argue in terms of legality or illegality of the immigrants. Those who take the opposing side in the debate may have a much harder time getting their point across because they are fighting against the preconceptions activated by the phrase “illegal.” In other words, by defining the issue and the language used, one defines the parameters of the debate. Lakoff suggests reframing the debate in terms of “illegal employers.” When the debate is framed this way, the issue moves from the immigrants to “the employers who are hiring undocumented workers so they can pay workers less or skirt paying taxes.” Instead of portraying the immigrants as the villains, “Employers are recognized as driving down wages, hurting American workers, and exploiting immigrants, many of whom have already fled oppressive circumstances.”8 The Power of Frames Lakoff makes no secret of the fact that his mission is to change the deep frames, or worldviews, of conservative citizens.9 The chief weapon in this quest is his linguistic expertise.10 According to Lakoff, changing one’s deep frames may not happen overnight, but it can happen. By repeating the same words (which Lakoff refers to as surface frames) in a debate, the debater is able to affect deeper frames. When one activates surface frames, Lakoff argues that “the deep frames that make sense of them are activated as well.”11 This is the arena in which Lakoff seeks to change deep frames and worldviews. By framing the debate using issue-defining frames and the repetition of surface frames, Lakoff seeks to slowly re-engineer the cultural worldview of citizens. The fact that Lakoff ‘s mission is to change the fundamental value system of citizens begs an important series of questions. A change in one’s worldview means that it moves toward being like someone else’s. What will these changed worldviews look like for Lakoff? In short, they will look like his own worldview. This fact begs another question: on what basis does Lakoff believe that his worldview is so important that he sees the need to want to recreate other worldviews in his image? Instead of appealing to a transcendent source of right and wrong such as God or the Bible, Lakoff instead appeals to what he calls “progressive values,” which he ironically claims are actually “the very values that have made America a great and free country—a country where tolerance has led us to unity, where diversity has given us strength, where acting for the common good has brought our dreams to fruition, and where respect for human dignity has increased opportunity, released creativity, and generated wealth.”12 Even a cursory glance at the national landscape today shows that American society is not unified, but is instead fragmented into separate ghettos and subcultures. Even so, by embracing the much-touted “virtue” of tolerance as it is widely defined in the culture, Lakoff frames this debate so that those who do not share his views are seen as intolerant, and therefore are portrayed as villains. Lakoff has shown how properly understanding frames can be a powerful, worldview-altering offensive tool. Understanding this can also be a powerful defensive weapon. By properly understanding how frames work and how they can be used to powerfully express core values, citizens and lawmakers can begin to analyze and critique opposing arguments, even those arguments that seem reasonable on the surface. The case study below will serve as a brief demonstration of how understanding frames can help one critique and respond to arguments. A Public Policy Case Study In his book Thinking Points, Lakoff writes the following sentence in his defense of how he understands progressive values: [Promoting life] means fulfilling the promise of stem cell research, rather than destroying the hopes of millions of suffering Americans for the sake of a tiny cluster of undifferentiated cells that will otherwise be destroyed.”13 By analyzing the way that Lakoff frames this statement, one can begin to understand what makes up Lakoff’s deep frames when it comes to embryonic stem cell research. Lakoff has listed two different groups in his sentence: (1) millions of Americans, and (2) human embryos. And for Lakoff, the rights of the first group are more important than the rights of the second group. While both groups are made up entirely of humans, Lakoff only characterizes one group as “human,” while he characterizes the other group in cold, clinical terms. These deep frames lay the foundation for how Lakoff uses surface frames. Of the two groups Lakoff mentions, he only frames one in such a way that is designed to elicit sympathy in others. He refers to millions of suffering Americans. Furthermore, these suffering Americans have hopes, presumably of an end to their suffering. An unspoken assumption of Lakoff’s sentence is that the hopes of these suffering Americans can be met in the destruction (through stem cell research) of the “tiny clusters of undifferentiated cells that will otherwise be destroyed.” The villains in this frame are those who would “destroy” the hopes of these “millions of suffering Americans” for the sake of preserving “a tiny cluster of cells that will otherwise be destroyed.” There is, however, another way to frame this debate: Lakoff’s idea of “promoting life” is prejudiced toward those humans who look like him and with whom he can identify, and is prejudiced against those humans who are simply at a different stage of development. After all, everyone reading these pages was once what Lakoff refers to as a “tiny cluster of cells.” The deep frames here include the fact the unborn—even at one cell—contains 46 chromosomes and is therefore human. A second deep frame is the belief in the sacredness of all human life, born and unborn. Another deep frame is the moral imperative that no human being should ever be used as a means to an end.14 The fundamental belief that the unborn are as human as the ones who stand to benefit from stem cell research means that both groups are undeniably human. Moreover, it is immoral to use one group of humans as means to an end, even if that end is helping others. Lakoff’s description of the unborn as “clusters of undifferentiated cells” is an attempt to dehumanize them by noting their “inhuman” appearance. In other words, Lakoff’s framing of the debate betrays a prejudice for those humans who look like him. His dehumanizing of the unborn betrays a prejudice against a group that is just as human. Conclusion Even though Lakoff uses his understanding of linguistics to frame debates in favor of issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and tolerance, his frame theory of argumentation is a helpful resource for advocates of Judeo-Christian values. This is so because Lakoff and those he influences will continue to frame debates with ever-increasingly complex arguments. It thus behooves advocates of Judeo-Christian values to understand how Lakoff’s frame theory works. Although most people use frames tacitly, a lack of understanding how people frame arguments can mean that they are swayed to believe something that contradicts their deep frames. By becoming aware of the process as Lakoff has described it, one can (1) understand and critique the framework of opposing arguments, (2) craft a well-framed response to those arguments, and (3) promote one’s own arguments more effectively through thoughtful framing. R. Matthew Lytle is director of research for the North Carolina Family Policy Council. ENDNOTES 1. Lakoff is more interested in politics, but much of what he has to say has a direct impact on policy. 2. George Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute, Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision: A Progressive’s Handbook (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2006), 25. 3. George Lakoff, Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate: The Essential Handbook for Progressives (White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green, 2004), xv. Lakoff’s version of the frame theory has certain affinities with Chomsky’s theory of deep grammar, which theorizes that individuals are born with a so-called “deep grammar” or “generative grammar” that lies beneath the grammars of individual language. See Noam Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1965). According to the deep grammar theory, the human mind is wired in such a way that intuitively understands how grammar works at the most fundamental level, even if this understanding is tacit. Both Lakoff’s and Chomsky’s understanding of frames and deep grammar accords well with Kant’s theory of mental categories, which systematize and arrange the data collected through the senses. 4. Lakoff refers to quite a few frames, but the scope of this article allows an analysis of only those frames that most affect discourse in public policy. 5. Lakoff, Thinking Points, 29. 9. Toward this end, Lakoff founded the Rockridge Institute, a nonprofit organization, which has the following goal: “Using the tools of neuroscience and cognitive linguistics — combined with decades of practical political experience — Rockridge promotes the effective articulation of progressive values. We do this by monitoring public debate and suggesting both long-term and short-term options for framing that offer a progressive perspective.” <http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/aboutus>, accessed 27 March, 2008. 10. Lakoff, Thinking Points, 37. Concerning this aim, he writes, “Brains don’t change quickly. Just using your own language, with your own surface framing, won’t necessarily convince people. Your deep framing must be established in order for your surface frames to have any effect. Persistence is the key!” 11. Lakoff, Thinking Points, 37. 14. This is a derivative of the second formulation of Kant’s “categorical imperative.” Copyright © 2008. North Carolina Family Policy Council. All rights reserved.
|