I’ve been debating Lakoff again. Lord help me.
Understanding Lakoff’s framing theories involves understanding basic logic. And I don’t feel like giving an academic explanation of all the intricacies of symbolic logic. So, I’ll just use layman’s terms.
We are all familiar with polls. We all know that the result of a poll can be affected by how the question is asked. But to fairly judge the differential effect between two phrasings, the phrasings must be logically equivalent. Otherwise, the respondent may only be reacting to distortion or non sequiturs.
Here is an example:
How important is tax relief to you?
How important are revenue cuts to you?
You will discover that more people want ‘relief’ than want ‘cuts’. The difference in the polls is a ‘framing effect’. It has zero basis in the merits of reducing tax rates, and can only be explained by the differential visceral reaction to how the question was phrased.
That is what political framing is. It can actually be measured. But politicians (especially Republicans) do not stick to equivalent arguments. They distort. So, they might ask:
“Are you sick of spending your hard earned money to support able-bodied people who can’t find a job?”
That question is not synonymous with asking how important tax relief is to you. Still, it is possible to make an equivalent statement while using inflammatory language:
Affirmative Action=reverse discrimination
In this case, a policy of affirmative action (in practice) will mean that white men are at a competitive disadvantage. Since white men are usually at a default advantage and tend to discriminate against non-whites and women, this is a reversal of the norm. Therefore, the two phrases are fairly equivalent, and they are both playing on visceral reactions to make their appeal. ‘Affirmative’ and ‘action’ are generally positive words, while ‘reverse’ and ‘discrimination’ are generally negative words.
Not surprisingly, many more people support affirmative action than support reverse discrimination, even though the two phrases refer to the same policies.
The Republicans are careful to frame their policies negatively when they are against something, and positively when they support something. So, they talk about the ‘death-tax’ because they oppose it. They talk about ‘tax relief’ because they support tax cuts. And if their policies are unsupportable, they call them the opposite of what they are: like ‘healthy forests’.
We can see how important language is. We already knew that you can convince people by lying and distorting. Making people associate policies with something bad will increase people’s opposition to those policies, even if the association is basically dishonest.
The Democrats should frame their policies in a positive light, and they should frame the Republican’s policies in a negative light. But the proper response to Republican dishonesty is not to play their game of obfuscation. The proper response is to stick up for their policies with self-confidence, without apology, and, in doing so, to project conviction and strength. The effort to out-spin, out-package, and out-deceive the Republicans is a mistake.
_I don’t feel like giving an academic explanation of all the intricacies of symbolic logic. _
Wimp.
As sure as:
[(p -> q) AND (q -> r)] -> (p -> r)
(BooMan’s a sissy! BooMan’s a sissy!)
the contrapositive is also true.
Not Sissy is Not BooMan?
Exactly.
Ok, dammit, it’s just the one thing I remember from studying those Venn diagrams and thingies. I thought it would make me sound smart, but here you had to go and call me out on it. I prefer being part of the reality-based community without trying to understand the words “reality,” “based,” or “community,” mmmmkay? 🙂
I knew you would taunt me.
Hey.
Right now I’m heavily engaged in trying to understand Skolemization in a Herbrand neighborhood using Hilbert’s epsilon calculus and how that can be used – if at all – within Schemata used by Agents existing in Complex Fitness Landscapes.
So don’t come crying to me with your petty problems.
Bub.
🙂
existential on me? In a qualified way, of course.
The proper response is to stick up for their policies with self-confidence, without apology, and, in doing so, to project conviction and strength. The effort to out-spin, out-package, and out-deceive the Republicans is a mistake.
At the risk of fawning agreement, I applaud what you wrote here. The only point I’d like to again make is that framing is simply a tool–and a powerful one–that we have kept out of the Democratic toolbox for years. It can be used for smoke and mirrors, or it can be used to make an honest policy proposal resonate with voters’ values. Or at least to keep from inadvertently assisting Republicans by using their purposefully stilted language.
I’m all for the synthesis of plain talk and honest policy debate, because I think we win handily on such a level playing field. Let’s not throw out framing, just be wary of its pitfalls.
“I’m all for the synthesis of plain talk and honest policy debate, because I think we win handily on such a level playing field.” [ I agree, wholeheartedly]
“Let’s not throw out framing, just be wary of its pitfalls.” [I dont know about this one!?]
I am one who listens for the real talk not a guessing game for what the topic really means.
I am just that way tho! I am not a debator like I would like to become. I just see it like I think it is! NOw I would say to someone, can we talk about this with open rheteric??!! without framing or anything such as this.
in a different thread, but my “fallback” position on why we can’t toss framing out with the bathwater is this:
Republicans are already framing things to devastating effect: “pro-life,” “death tax,” and “Social Security modernization” are only three examples.
Well, ok, the last example is just for laughs.
But if Democrats learn nothing else from our allies at the Rockridge Institute, they must learn this:
Don’t use Republican frames.
excuse me then, I just missed that one. I am still for plain old discussion…calling an ace an ace is the way I like it. Sorry for not following thru with the earlier discussion..BTW, I am not a poli/sci major here…just a plain old woman and citizen…
I would say that framing by itself does not necessarily mean that the rhetoric used is indirect or even contrived. Framing strategy, like most things, can be used to trick people through the use of deceptive rhetoric, (like what the Repubs do), or it can be used to simply emphasize more clearly the fundamental value or meaning of a particular issue or action.
There’s a big differenc between framing used to deceive;
“The Bush tax cuts have been responsible for the economy’s recovery in the wake of 9/11.”
and framing used to state a truth;
“The Bush tax cuts have contributed to higher deficits that have left our children in debt to the tune of $xx per person.”
anything major, Brenda, I agree with both sides in this debate [MAJOR DICLAIMER: I have never read Lakoff] — having been immersed in poststructural thinking, reality-melding, critical theory, semiotics and all that fun stuff when I was getting my masters in English (along with lots of beer and darts), I have to say, that the best compliment I have EVER gotten on my “intellect” (whatever that means), is from a neighbor of mine who is the very definition of your average American (and I mean that in a VERY good way). She told me about 7 years ago, when we were first getting to know each other:
“You know, I really like you. You are getting and Ph.D. AND you have a LOT of common sense.”
Guess which mattered to her more?
Not at all. I was just noting that I’m repeating myself.
I did major in “public policy” way back when, but sadly it is rarely relevant to what we all chat about here, and I think of myself as a computer programmer, not a policy wonk.
Although I think by “average American” standards, you and I probably both qualify as incredibly well informed about politics.
I am one who listens for the real talk not a guessing game for what the topic really means.
Oh boy.
This gets us deep into 20th Century philosophy. So very briefly …
In a very Real and True sense there is no such thing as the “real meaning” of a topic. In a very Real and True sense the previous statement is obscurantist nonsense.
And … guess what?
Both statements are Real and True!
How can that be? It is well established (IMHO, this is somewhat contraversial) “Meaning” is not necessarily subject to the Law of the Excluded Middle which means it is not binary: 0/1, True/False, Ying/Yang, when many different people have access to a particular message. People take different “meanings” from a message.
(I now expect brickbats from both the Nominalists AND Phenomenologists.)
Not brickbats!
Booman keeps writing about framing as if it’s a color. “Could we just do painting without any red?” The answer is, “Yes, of course. Look at Picasso’s Blue Period. You can not only paint without red, you can create great art.”
But it’s not like color. It’s like pitch. “Could we just do music without any pitch?” The answer is “No. It’s not possible. Even drums have pitch, however ill-defined.”
Given any Act of Communication exists in a context and that context exists only in the mind presenting an argument in a manner to appeal to the broadest audience is just plain common sense.
‘Framing’ is a tool and, like any tool can be used to help or harm. The hammer I use to build housing for the destitute can be used for whapping people upside the head.
But by describing framing as a tool, you’re framing it in a positive light (as compared to Boo, who considers it snake oil, a less positive image). </snark>
You’re getting too “meta” for me. 😉
it is ‘meta’ but it really is important and something we, on the Left, tend not to do very well.
(Although I swear to God the first person refering to “semiotics” — OK, the second person to mention semiotics — will find me on their doorstep armed with a copy of Language and Meaning with which I will beat them to death.)
I’ll see your Language and Meaning and raise you an Archeology of Knowledge and a Travels in Hyperreality.
Then, I will ply you with beer and challange you to a dart game, becuase that is the way we always talked semiotics, I know no other way!
😉
-otics! So there!
Can you hit a Ton80 after three pitchers? Beer and darts are the most important frame of all!! Dontyasee?
Putting aside the fact after 3 pitchers of beer the only thing I can hit is the floor … Massive deconstruction of neurons with alcohol always seem to help these kinds of discussions along.
Those godsdamned Greeks were right.
Again.
I am one.
A godsdamned Greek, that is…..
😉
It’s like an indispensible aspect of music. It’s not something you take out when you say, “Hey, I think I’ll use some pitch now!” There’s music without harmony. Gregorian chants could be called music without rhythm (although I would dispute that, their rhythm is that of extended breaths). But pitch, timbre and volume are always present, whether you are paying attention to them or not.
Are you saying Framing = Rhetoric?
Or, Framing necessarily exists as an set of properties in intersection with certain properties of Context and Rhetoric?
Or, Framing = Context?
I think it is the middle potential but I want to be sure.
I’m not sure I understand. (A problem of underspecified context… or is it framing?)
My first instinct was to say that the middle is closer. Booman isn’t wrong to say that it’s implicated in rhetoric. But I honestly think of it more in terms of context.
All human cognition can be regarded as having content and context. At minimum, we have awareness of change–a photon strikes the eye. One bit of information in a specific location (conceptually, it may actually be stored distributively). If we have no context, then there is no place for the content to be. This is simply inconceivable. (The opposite, context without content, is at least conceivable. As in The Philosophy of Consciousness Without An Object, by Franklin Merrell-Wolff.)
But framing is not simply context. Content that appears together also creates framing effects. Trivial example: “T” and “H” sound different than “th”. We usually don’t think of this as an example of framing. But the principle is the same, and the textures and blendings of sound and meaning in a given language simply cannot be severed. Those who know words the most intimately–the poets–have always known this. Or consider “2+2” and “2*2”. Both are strings of 3 characters, in ABA structure, identical in value. But the second invokes the frame of a multiplicative field.
Now, I realize that one could say, “these all involve context–it’s just that the context is generated from the association of content.” Which is fair enough. But I don’t mean that to deny that framing has a role in rhetoric. It’s just that it’s not reducible to that role. It exists in all cognition, even in creatures quite incapable of rhetoric.
I think we’re getting somewhere. This is not meant nor should it be taken as snark. As I wrote elsewhere in this discussion we are coming at this from wildly different directions and I am more concern, at this point, to ensure we ain’t talking past each other.
1. All human cognition can be regarded as having content and context.
Agree.
2. If we have no context, then there is no place for the content to be.
Agree.
3. But framing is not simply context.
And here is where I have trouble.
For me “Context” is the inclusive environment in which an act of communication takes place. By “inclusive environment” I mean absolutely everything: all variables, all possible shades of meaning, all possible variations of reader/reciever interpretation, all possible means of physical communication, all possible ways of communication, all possible ways of mis-communicating … the whole freaking enchilada.
And this brief exposition may help with my previous post as well.
So I’m going to stop and give you a chance to respond.
If “context” as you describe it is both what is here and now and all the myriad variables that exist in this here and now, framing is (or should be) communicating with a thoughtful intent to keep the message as true to its heart or core as possible, and by doing so eliminate as much clutter and confusion as possible.
Some would cast “framing” as attempts to add emotional clutter and intentional misdirection and by so doing achieve a deeper meaning different from or more intense than the superficial statement. I do not deny that it can and frequently is used in that way.
But “framing”, as I have understood it, is a tool that forces the communicator to look backward and inward to the source and reason for the statement or policy and by incorporating what he or she finds in the message, achieve a clarity that neither lies nor spins, but reaches the audience on its deepest possible level.
To say that because such a message has emotional or subconscious appeal it is sub-rational or pre-rational assumes a separation of emotion from thought that I cannot accept as real, even for the most thoughtful and rational amongst us.
Framing, if taken as a quick and easy way to put new bows on old pigs, will not be effective. This type of framing is what both the political practitioners and ideologues fear.
But this is poor framing and poor politics.
I choose to see “framing” as a method of communication that attempts not only to define and describe where we stand here and now (context), but through careful attention to both the content and form of the message to give the audience a view of the direction in which the message and messenger will take them.
I realize that this is based entirely on my own definition of “framing”. Yup. That’s right.
I guess I’m just saying that
(1) “context” and “frame” are not necessarily synonymous. I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with someone using the terms interchangably. But I wouldn’t do that myself across the board, for two reasons:
(A) “Frame” sort of focuses on the context/content border–but this is more a matter of connotation than denotation, indicating how I would use the terms differentially.
(B) “Context” is frequently thought of as a term refering to meta-phenomena. But framing can also refer to para-phenomena. A raised eyebrow can change the meaning of spoken words. It’s really another channel of communication. And you can say that both channels are part of a larger context, so there’s really no difference. Which brings us back again to connotative differences, rather then denotatice ones, and why I wouldn’t object to someone using them interchangably, even if I might not.
(2) I’m explicitly not denying that framing is involved with rhetoric.
Paul: Aha! I begin to see a convergence.
Into the Woods: I assert the best message is one combining the maximum possible of both logos (Critical Thinking, Logic, & etc) and mythos (Art, Emotion, Myth in the broad sense, & etc.)
I will return tomorrow to continue.
I heard Lakoff speak a few days after Rove made his asinine comment:
Lakoff blasted the Democratic response – which sounded a lot like, “No we are not wimps. We don’t want to offer terrorists therapy.” He said the Democrats should have just changed the f’ing subject.
That they should have said – this war is a disaster, it was sold to the American people on lies, and it has made us and the entire world less safe. Say it loud and don’t back down. I do not see this as spinning, packaging, or deceiving.
I really don’t see how what he is saying and what you are saying is different.
The proper response is to stick up for their policies with self-confidence, without apology, and, in doing so, to project conviction and strength.
you keep acting as though I am saying Lakoff is wrong. I’m not. I’m saying that using his theories to package failed or unpopular policies won’t work.
We can never out-lie the Republicans and we don’t want to.
If you aren’t opposed to framing and reframing, then you should say so loud and clear. But instead you continually mishcaracterize and attack framing, until someone like Janet confronts you directly with something where there’s no wiggle room. And then you flip.
This is deeply disingenuous and not at all like you.
Well, I guess it’s because what I see as important about what Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute are trying to do is to identify our values – what it is that makes us progressives/liberals or whatever you want to call us – and then stand up and tell people what those values are, straight up and unapologetically.
As he says: Framing is about moral values and systems of ideas primarily, and secondarily about the language used to express those values and ideas. . . .
Being a linguist, he has interesting thoughts about how to say it – i.e. don’t just go around repeating “I am not a wimp.”
But I haven’t seen you discuss his primary focus. I just hear you saying “I hate framing, absolutely can’t stand it.” Since Lakoff is identified with the concept of framing – I get the idea that you reject what he is trying to do, even though he himself sees language use as secondary.
I hate it that many people seem to have missed his point and seem intent on using what he says about language to, as you say, “package failed or unpopular policies.” He does too: “But Pollitt asserts incorrectly that reframing is nothing but “repositioning their policies linguistically to give them mass moral appeal.”
[Emphases mine]
Many on the Le Roi est Mort thread were worried that we may take the House in 06 just to see another version of here comes the new (and probably even worse) Reagan and Gingrich years not too far down the road. I’m really worried about that too.
Lakoff is saying – I think – Job #1 is to make damn sure that we know what we stand for, and it’s got to be more than “We’re not as corrupt as they are.” Job #2 is to figure out how to communicate to the American people what we stand for.
Job 2 is how to win, but if we don’t do job one, winning is not going to get us very far in terms of making the world a better place. I argue with you because I hear nothing from you about Lakoff’s trying to get us to focus on Job 1. (Wish I could explain this better, but I have to run and give an exam – students don’t take kindly to the prof wandering in late on exam day.)
Silly me! I just don’t understand logic! Goodness! That means the tarot cards are wrong?!
/sarcasm
Again, I think you’re arguing with a straw man. Framing is not willy nilly manipulation. I repeat my comment in the other thread, to which you did not reply:
The (best) example I use to discuss framing is how “outright bigotry against gays and lesbians” has been framed as “defense of marriage.”
With lack of context this distortion has a certain beauty and is easy to explain.
In context, for example the 11 state initiatives last election, it is a perfect example of how to motivate prejudiced people to 1) act (go and vote) and 2) perpetuate lies (we don’t hate the sinner, its just that they undermine my marriage).
Then its fun to explain that these bans on gay marriage don’t stop gay peopel from getting married, it just stops gay people from marrying the people they love.
I guess I was wrong. Here you go again, framing “framing” in your own narrow way to make it fit into your neat little box.
Framing is so much more than you make it out to be. I can’t for the life of me figure out why you are so devoted to smearing it.
I was going to take up your challenge to do a diary on framing. Now I don’t really see any point.
I would be very interested in what you have to say simply because you are approaching Framing — what I call Context — from a intellecutal stance, background, and experience wildly different from mine.
Note: I didn’t write ‘wrong’ I wrote different!
Your thoughts would be, by me, greatly appreciated.
Er… that’s “Intellectual” and see our discussion elsewhere as what Mr. Roseberg calls Framing is not what I call Context.
it’s pointing out the difference between a lie and a frame. A framing effect is the heart of the matter.
If you want to talk about the importance of putting our ideas in their best light, and of beating back the GOP’s attempt to do the same, then we are in full agreement.
99% of all blogtalk on framing is not about that.
99% of all blogtalk about framing is about taking a policy that is killing us and making is palatable.
Here’s my message: it’s not the framing, it’s the wimpish reaction to being outframed.
And by ‘outframed’ I mean ‘out-lied’.
An awful lot of people don’t talk about framing. They just do it.
My latest diary, for example. “GOP Crime Wave Only Scratches Surface” is a way of framing the recent revelations–and revelations to come–of GOP criminality that is radically at odds with the GOP’s “criminalization of politics” frame.
Part of my strategy in writing it was to quote from conservative sources, to undermine the “partisan attack” aspect of the GOP frame. Another part was to place it into cultural and historical context, so it could be understood as something with roots, not just the result of a “few bad apples.” I’m not saying that I did a perfect job. But I thought about different things that would be useful for people reading it, not just in terms of informing them, but also in terms of inspiring them to develop their own narratives as well.
Now, people have been doing this sort of thing since forever. I certainly thought about writing things in a similar manner long before I ever heard of “framing.” But the more I learned about framing, the more consciously I tried to apply its lessons in my writing in different ways. And with all those copies of Don’t Think of an Elephant! out there, I know for certain that I’m not the only one.
So, even if it were true that 99% of talk of framing is misguided–which is certainly not my experience–that would hardly mean that 99% of the people who’ve read Lakoff got it all wrong.
It would only mean that there’s an inverse relationship between knowing and blabbing.
And how new is that?
I think it’s great that the ideas of framing and context are being explored in relation to political rhetoric and the mechanics of propaganda.
I also think, however, that the current wave of excitement about framing may be creating a significant problem that we would be well served to be aware of.
The problem as I see it is that many of us seem to endow framing with a bit too much importance, as though framing itself is the key to connecting with the public and winning votes. Certainly framing the rhetoric is an invaluable tool for conveying the message, but it is not the message itself, and I think many in the blogosphere sort of skate past this simple reality. And if we spend too much energy on the message delivery system and not enough energy on the substance of the message itself, we lose.
The Repub propaganda machine uses framing to deceive, and they lie about what their policies are, but we can’t play that game.
I would like to see the Dems use framing to articulate a set of threshold issues, core priniciples which they are unwilling to compromise on. Preserving abortion rights, preserving the spearation of church and state, restoring the country to an equitable tax code, etc. Also, the Dems could use framing to present a set of threshold concepts, describing goals they believe it’s always important to work toward and charting out the directions they’d like to guide the country.
Proclaiming a positive vision that regards universal heath care, quality education for all, a living wage, legal recourse for all against the depradations of others, proclaiming these kinds of things as fundamental essentials to any advanced and freedom-based society could be a powerful statement if framed well, and if people understood that the people speaking these words actually meant it. (This of course is always the rub; talk is cheap, and trust is essential if people are to believe).
I think the establishment of threshold issues and threshold concepts is an important first step around which the framing strategy is implemented. Without a message of substance, unless framing is used to deceive it won’t be the “magic bullet” I suspect many think it is.
I agree with your conclusions, but I beg to differ on the assertion that framing is merely rhetorical posing.
Framing is rooted in worldview. Framing is about speaking from and to those values that inform and support that worldview.
I am very big on the importance of framing. And because of that, I am very big on the importance of talking about values, core issues, morality. Framing without core principles is not framing at all, except to frame the debate as without principles.
I’m not aware that I asserted anywhere that framing is merely rhetorical posing. The purpose for framing is to communicate ideas, or in some cases emotions, and to either stimulate or repress thoughtfulness. Framing is also used sometimes to enlighten and other times to deceive.
But whether framing is used to accurately inform or to deceive, it’s mechanism has to do (primarily) with the sometimes artful use of words, and the use of words, whether spoken or written, is often commonly referred to as rhetoric.
Framing is about creating particular views, whether they’re worldviews or not. But framing is also used by unscrupulous creatures, (like those running the Repub propaganda machine), to conceal their either local or world views.
I believe framing is very important; it’s at the fundamental heart of our ability to comunicate with each other and we engage in framing all the time. I don’t agree with you that framing absent core principles is not framing at all. The odious and pathetic Frank Luntz has been very useful to the wingnuts in the past at providing them with effective “framing” strategies, but his framing strategies were used to deceive, to spin, and to propagandize. But, IMHO, it was still framing, (absent the core principles referenced in the rhetoric).
I don’t subscribe to the idea that “framing” by itself has an inherently laudatory aspect. It can be used for good just as easily as it can be used for bad. IMHO.
My reading of Lakoff is very different than what you’re describing.
To me, as I understand Lakoff, framing starts with the values, the worldview. The words come after.
It’s not helpful to just say Luntz is a liar. What the GOP has done very well is appeal to worldviews average Americans have. They are existing worldviews. Framing does not create the worldview, it evokes it, invokes it. To dismiss Luntz as just using framing without core principles is to miss entirely what the Republicans have been so effective at doing, which is to convince average Americans that the GOP is comprised of people who think like them, have the same values, want the same things. When they talk of “tax relief” or “the problem with entitlements” they are speaking to very commonly held worldviews. Everyone wants “relief” from something oppressive. Nobody thinks it’s fair that some people feel “entitled” to government aid, when everyone else is working hard.
It takes more than word spinning to counter that. First one has to step back and see how that very worldview places the issue in the wrong light. One has to clearly define for oneself what the proper worldview is — and not just “Luntz is a liar” — in order come up with the frame that evokes that worldview that puts the issue into a new light (such as “cutting revenue” or “cutting off assistance for those who most need it” or whatever).
Again, I think it’s a mistake to think offraming as simply the “artful use of words.” Rhetoric is involved, yes. But ethos, pathos, bathos, logos etc. don’t quantify or define framing at all.
People voted republican because they truly believed that was the best option — not because of their self-interest, but because of how they view the world, and how the republicans positioned themselves in it, and how the republicans engaged in the debate over the various issues. In other words, it really was about values, in a way — but not just church values, but everyone’s values. We voted values, too.
And winning voters will take more than goring their ox and convincing them that Republicans are just a bunch of corrupt liars and thieves. We have to reach down to our core beliefs, and frame everything we talk about in terms of the worldview that makes our take on the issues just so obvious it hardly needs further discussion.
I agree and disagree and I’d like to explain.
However one identifies framing, I think it’s fair to say that as a strategic system, framing works when the message resonates with the target audience. In this sense, framing is certainly more than the rhetorical structure of the message itself, because it needs to connect and harmonize with a pre-existing concept already in someone’s mind.
I also agree with Lakoff that, by and large the GOP has a “Father Knows Best” rubric and the Liberals or Progressives have a “Nurturant” framework within which their views have cachet. (I would describe these two divergent forms more as “Authoritarianism vs Democracy”, but that’s perhaps for another time). And it’s virtually a no brainer to grasp the fundamental reality that people adhereing to these different worldviews are going to react favorably and supportively to rhetoric that supports those views.
Where I disagree with your perspective is that I believe the broader arena within which framing is practised is also about creating worldviews and then exploiting or weaponizing those worldviews with framing afterwards. Let me explain.
In the past I worked in the field of cultic dynamics, working with people coming out of cults, and constantly examining the mechanisms and strategies used by cults to take otherwise normal and intelligent and well-integrated people and compromising their psychological autonomy and turning them into often times irrational, violent, and delusional human beings. And one of the main ways cults are able to make these transformations is by controlling the language used in the cult and linking that language on an emotional level to the cult recruits and members by exploiting vulnerabilities. And not all the exploitation is based on emotional weakness or ignorance. Idealism is frequently exploited, (witness the heavy recruitment efforts by cults on college campuses, for instance, seeking the idealistic youth to join the cult “commune”), as is the desire for love, (one of the most common recruitment tactics used in cult’s is referred to as “Love Bombing”), fear of lonliness, search for meaning in life, and so on.
But here’s the point. Cults use language to create new world views, and as those new worldviews are formed, the cult uses the corresponding subservience induced in their victims to further exploit them for whatever it is the cult seeks, whether it’s money, sex, or just plain power. And,, importantly, the changes induced by language are incremental; one little psychic compromise sets the stage for the next one to take root. In a sense it’s the same thing as using one frame to set someone up to be exploitable by the next frame.
The GOP extremist conservative machine has been doing this sort of cult-like manipulation of the public psyche for 30 years, and they’re very good at it. Some of it certainly is a reflection of their warped views of what a society of man should be, but most of the agenda is about power and money for the few at the expense of the many. And I submit that their well-funded, decades long propaganda campaign has created worldviews, but more importantly, has deliberately magnified the importance and emotional impact of certain views in ways that has allowed them to then weaponize those views in the political arena and achieve goals that have actually nothing substantive to do with the frame they were using. (The “gay marriage” issue used to whack Kerry had some general resonance on both sides of the political aisle, but it was the accompanying fear campaign waged by the religious nuts that weaponized it and made it effective. “Clear Skies” or “Healthy Forests” have nothing to do with clear or healthy; nevertheless the frames these names signify were effective, even though they didn’t reflect the principles of the party propagating them.
I will concede that a purist definition of “framing” does not by itself include the attribute of creating those views which allow it to be an effective communication tool. But, if framing is to be effective beyond the realm of it’s own choir, so to speak, it seems to me that it requires the accompaniment of some sort of substantive message that extols the virtues and values and benefits of those principles that the framing seeks to resonate with. And this is where I find a significant problem with how the “framing” concept’s efficacy is perceived.
On a smaller point, I didn’t “…just say Luntz was a liar”. Luntz is a liar, as anyone who knows his history can attest, but that’s not what I said. I said he used his framing strategies to deceive and propagandize, and everyone knows that you don’t need to lie in order to deceive. And, re Luntz, there is no doubt his framing keyed on sets of beliefs held by his targets, but the agenda advanced by the Luntz doggerel has little to do with the beliefs or principles it exploits.
It seems framing genrally works best when it helps us to believe what we want to believe. But sometimes our propensity for believbing what we want to believe amounts to us being in a state of denial. With this inj mind, I think the discussion of framing might serve us better if we expand the arena in which framing has relevance.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree with pretty much all you say. But….
I’m not sure I’m with that. I think framing works best when it resonates with people’s worldviews. Trying to frame something while creating a new belief window is more than double duty. But touching on people’s inherent sentiments can be very effective.
The battle over Social Security was proof of that. The GOP tried to get people to value budget cuts over their own economic security, and it didn’t work. The Dems hardly had to do anything but say, “But it’s not more secure!” And there went the agenda.
Sometimes events conspire to help, too. Post-Katrina, it’s a lot harder for conservatives to appeal to people’s sense that everyone should be self-reliant, trumping everything else. We haven’t seen any sort of real progressive push back on that, but people now are more inclined to value how government can step in and help people, simply because shit happens. In effect, the government’s inept response to the disaster helped reframe people’s view of the role of government in society.
But we can’t count on natural disasters to reframe our issues for us, just like we can’t do something like wait until Roe is gutted completely or overturned altogether before truly aggressively trying to reframe the question. Abortion is a perfect case of framing, because the social conservative frame manages to obfuscate the real issue altogether. Talk to women who work at PP (some who post here) and they will tell you about these “pro-life” women who come in to abort pregnancies. “Pro-life” has come to mean valuing life, so that people are not even thinking about governmental intervention in women’s private lives … until it hits close to home.
I’m not suggesting our counter is to try to spin issues into frames that do not really relate to the matter at hand, but rather to recognize that these frames are the real enemy because they are blinding people to even seeing what we’re talking about. And that’s why “reframing” is an essential task for us.
And that’s why I challenge attacks on framing using distorted definitions in order to score some gripe with a straw man.
I don’t think we disagree about too much, and I have to say it’s a pleasure to “talk” with someone knowledgable and who seems truly interested in exploring and defining the dimensions and value of framing.
I think your statement;
“I think framing works best when it resonates with people’s worldviews.”
is functionally identical to mine saying;
“It seems framing generally works best when it helps us to believe what we want to believe.”
in the sense that even when we may not a particular something that we might believe, we nevertheless want to bel;ieve that we are right to believe it.
And where you talk about reframing, I want to emphasize again that peoples worldviews do change, just as their “inherent sentiments” change, changes sometimes induced by natural forces like hurricanes, sometimes by simplerepetitive experience, and sometimes as the result of clever rhetoric.
With this in mind, I want to better clarify something I didn’t do too good a job with in the previous post. that is that while framing works because it resonates with worldviews, I suggest that it also works quite effectively because of how it exploits emotion.
Cultivating and capitalizing on perspective, on worldview, to me is quite a different thing than capitalizing on emotion. Most of the GOP rhetoric is effective because it operates on an emotional level, rather than a cognitive one. even with the language they so carefully created over these last few decades, they still need the emotional bludgeons to get their way.
Exploiting fear and guilt and envy and other huge emotions is fundamental to the success of the Repub message having resonance with the public. And when you can use the frame of “fear” for instance, you then can chgange a worldview by identifying a traget for that fear in the rhetoric you devise. And step by step, new perceptions are created, new worldviews generated, and former beliefs obliterated.
I’m not sharp enough right now to even provide a specific example of where I think “framing” performs this incremental, one step at a time worldview-changing function, but I’m fairly certain it’s there and that it represents the subversion of cognition to an emotion-driven decisionmaking process that frequently leads to disaster. (Hitler used the frame of anger and despair and fear because of the failing economy in Germany to set the stage for his use of the frame that took advantage of the human propensity to identify someone to blame for the trouble. And he used this blame frame to identify the Jews as the cause of the problem and then he used the frame that relates to our propensity to punish those who do us harm to ghet the German people to support his murderous campaign against the Jews). This is not an exactly accurate example of what I’m trying to say, but it’s close.
One final question is this; Do the Democrats need to change worldviews or inherent sentiments in order to implement a successful political framing strategy, or can they just discover framing that will resonate with already prevailing worldviews?
BooBoo!
Should be; “…in the sense that even when we may not like a particular something…”
“We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” He said, in effect, yes you might feel scared, but don’t give into it. But he said it in a simple sentence that did not command anything from anybody.
I agree that incremental reframing happens all the time. I think that’s what “Reaganism” did — it started reframing political debate in terms of conservative values, so you’re either for tax relief or tax increases, for example, never mind what taxes do or why we have them or even that taxation is perhaps less important than how what money that is taxed is spent. We never talk about that, except as “budget cuts.”
And yet in a radical and profound bit of reframing the political debate, Ross Perot stepped in with charts and straight talk and a bit of homely charm and got everybody talking about the deficit. He also talked about protectionism — “A giant sucking sound of jobs going south” — but that didn’t seem to connect with people like the looming debt. I really don’t think Clinton and congress would have balanced the budget and then pulled several years of surplus without Ross Perot’s having reframed the debate.
Then came the “peace dividend” — and what do you do with dividends? Give them out! There goes concern about the debt. Back to big spending. And, well, getting into W’s fiasco of a presidency and how all the cynical reframing of issues and events to political advantage are worthy of a Ph.D. dissertation. So I’ll stop here.
I can’t answer that, because for the life of me I cannot even start to guess what the Democratic worldview is now. I see that as a huge problem. No wonder they’re losing the war of ideas! They don’t seem to have any of their own!
We’ll see what they cook up for their own “contract with america” recipe. I can’t say I’m optimistic. But I don’t think they can start framing anything until they actually take a stand for something.
Picking up on the music analogy someone else posted, it’s like our values are tuning forks. They don’t do anything, unless they’re struck or are exposed to a harmonic frequency. If you tune a violin out of tune, it won’t resonate with the tuning fork. You may be playing music, but it won’t resonate.
The same is with talking politics without values. One can frame all one wants, but without the values it’s just out of tune, with no resonance.
It’s late and I’m not sure I’m making sense. When I woke up today I had no idea so much time would be spent on framing. But I’ve enjoyed it, and it’s helped me clarify some of my own thoughts on the subject.
Framing is much more than how you package a message. As Janet Strange explained in the discussion that spawned this diary, it goes to the very heart of how you connect the issues of the day to your core values.
While many people understandably only get part of the picture at first, critics like Booman make things a thousand times worse by insisting that those who have misunderstood have gotten it right, and that therefore framing is a dead end.
What’s truly, deeply frustrating here is that virtually everything specific that Booman says is 100% correct. It’s the way he generalizes that is wildy off base and destructive to the long-range goal of developing a coherent counter to the conservative movement.
I’m not sure what the point of your comment is, except that having read your other previous comments in this thread it seems you’re more concerned with criticizing the diarist than offering any substantive input on what framing does mean to you and how the rest of us have it wrong.
where this discussion originated. And it’s not what framing means to me. This is no more a matter of opinion than the theories of evolution or global warming. Booman is deliberately confusing matters by equating “framing” with the union of several small subsets of dishonest, mistaken and disingenuous uses.
You don’t have to take my word for it, even here. Janet Strange, Parker and media girl all have a very good grasp of what framing is.
now I can understand that one!!!!!!!!!!! :o)
I am not used to speaking in codes…unless you mean to speak in medical terms, which is a different language to the common man. That to me is speaking a foreign language for the most part, to some….:o)
When I say something, I have to make it that everyone in concern can understand, this is why I do not like talking in terms of framing in politics. This leaves a lot to be desired, only when not making oneself clear on topic.
So this is a thing that I can use if desired or I can leave alone. Depending on whom I am speaking with, I suppose. I hate to change in midstream for interpretation. Nothing disturbes me more than to take issue with this type of language. Hope I am making sense to you all here on my thinking. BTW, the medical field is a political field for the most part when you look at it squarely in the eye.
I speak in codes all the time… Bush sucks spider awesome impeach the bastards recommend this diary women’s rights etc. etc.
Is that considered framing too? 😉
I thought the basic concepts of Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant were rather simple to grasp, being there were many simple common sense type examples used to make his points.
I don’t see that having some university level logics classes under one’s belt would be at all necessary.
Those who have not yet read the book would be wise to do so, especially those who will be running as candidates or advising candidates. Only a fool would avoid knowledge that could benefit a campaign.
well, I think you’ll find several complicating factors in understanding Lakoff if you read through today’s threads.
One, it is a cognitive theory (and a good one) that is being selectively used to describe political messaging and behavior.
Two, the cognitive theory would embrace much more than speech, let alone usage. But the political writings of Lakoff concentrate (quite properly) only on political ramifications.
Three, to understand the effectiveness of political framing you have to separate it from lying and distortion, and compare two equivalent messages to see which is more effective.
After all, it is not part of the cognitive theory that rose-colored lies are less effective than sobering reality. Framing precedes cognition.
When you tell a debator to stand up straight, clearly enunciate, smile, etc., you are helping him frame his arguments so they will be received gladly. But that is not what is usually meant when framing is discussed.
Those aren’t complicating factors, Booman. They’re confusing factors. And they don’t get unconfused with the help of a university-level logic class. (Do they even have any other kind? It’s not like it’s so difficult, it’s just not taught in high school.)
The next place to go for a deeper understanding of what’s behind Don’t Think of An Elephant is (1) Moral Politics, followed by (2) Metaphors We Live By. Then, when you want to go all college-level, skip the classes in logic, and go to Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Check them all out at Rockridge’s Bookstore. (Not so much a plug, more a desire to just type in one link.)
is what the effect of a framing phrase is.
You were telling me that any adjective is a frame. That is not true. At least, it is not true in a political context focusing on political speech.
“I’m for a higher minimum wage!!”
is only framing if you willing to posit the alternative:
“I’m for a less-low minimum wage”.
I hope you aren’t a quibbler.
A declarative sentence is qualitatively different than a framed one, as in:
“I think it is a crime that Wal-Mart is opposed to raising the standard of living of their hard-working and loyal employees.”
You might make marginal gains with the last one, but you’ll make gains with the first one too. Especially if people are opposed to a ‘hike’ in the minimum wage.
The difference is that the last statement also leaves a residue that give me more confidence in how the speaker might address other issues of interest to me.
Now if you added some explanation of “why” you support decent wages for working people, why it is important to you, important to your listener’s life and important for the future of our country – then you get some deep vibrations going. But if all you say is “this is important to me, to you and to the future of our country” it slides off like the rehashed script it is.
No predicate calculus or model theory anywhere that I can see.
But it does further confuse the issue.
So, one out of two ain’t bad.
Let me say this one more time: Framing is ubiquitous. That means that every word (not just adjectives) has framing effects. Every poet knows this intuitively. It’s one of the reasons that translating poetry is such a challenge.
Beyond that, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you say:
And I’m further perplexed when you continue:
You get an “A” for obfuscation. But I was aiming for clarity.
But it does have to do with Epistemic, Prohairetic, and Deontic Logic and their respective Formalizations generally considered specialities within Modal Logic.
But that secular humanist modal logic thingie, that’s the reason God smote us with Katrina, know what I mean?
Don’t forget the Woodie Allen syllogism:
Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Therefore, All men are Socrates. Q.E.D.(?)
is available. If we want to reach the …um … ‘down market’ segment with our messages.
I haven’t spent, honestly, a whole lot of time pondering this stuff because I tend to have plenty of other stuff on my mind, but:
When you tell a debator to stand up straight, clearly enunciate, smile, etc., you are helping him frame his arguments
This is not the way I understand “framing”. This is what I would call “a style of presentation”. And I think that while “framing” seems to me (and I’m not claiming to know better than anyone here) to be more about taking an idea and placing it in a logical framework or context, as part of a network with other ideas, what you’re describing is not about the idea at all but about its presentation. Now, we can say that the presentation helps to place the idea in a mental context for the audience, and that’s true, but there’s more to constructing that than just the presentation.
Now, certainly you can make connections in people’s heads that have basically nothing to do with reality, and the right does that frequently. But an idea is always going to be placed in a context within the mind of its audience. You can’t avoid that, and trying within reason to help those connections be ones that build your case — that are not just BS or untrue crap, but build a whole framework for understanding how democratic ideas fit together — that would be helpful.
You’re making this about communication (essentially marketing) of those ideas; that’s maybe a part of it, but it’s far bigger than that alone, so far as I’m concerned, getting into the core of how the idea fits into a bigger philosophical or cognitive framework, during its time being communicated.
Copper coinage, and I certainly don’t claim to be any sort of authority here.
you are right and wrong, and you have hit on the confusion here. I keep trying to talk about framing in a strictly political sense, and as it pertains to political speech. And Paul keeps insisting that I can’t do this, because framing is not limited to the political or to speech. And he is right.
Framing is really a word for something much broader, and it is a study of the brain, and how data and perceptions enter into consciousness and color how people interpret that data intellectually.
So, if I am a tiny unthreatening person, my message will come framed as non-threatening, no matter what I say. If I am a great hulk of a man, my message will come framed as intimidating no matter what I say.
Ever wonder why big people are so-often soft-spoken and small people are aggressive and loud? It’s because they are compensating for a bias they experience whenever they interact with people. They are trying to counter the frame by belying expectations.
So presentation is a huge part of framing, but not really relevent to policy and politics, except as the common wisdom of how to deliver a speech, or how to do a TV interview, or what color tie to wear, and so on.
Remember Alpha Gore and his efforts to look manly?
I see real framing (Lakoff) as discovering your foundation (unifying values or principles) and making sure everyone knows that foundation, so that as the details of your message fades, the underlying (real) message sticks around and works on the listeners on a very primal level to motivate them to support you. (“Can’t really remember what her specific proposal was, but she seemed like she would approach that kind of issue in the same way I would, or at least how I would like to think I would.”)
This involves addressing the “why” of every issue and letting the potential voters see who you are as person. Voters will chose to support a less than pretty face over a pretty mask every single time. If they think they don’t know you, and they think they know your opponent, unless your opponent is particularly vile, positions on issues will lose their power to persuade.
How you approach this “framing” is up to you. You can lie like Luntz and Rove advise, or you can approach it like Wellstone did. This is who I am. This is where I stand. It is much more difficult, but it sure worked for him.
It is my experience that the hard-boiled political hacks and consultants think real framing is bullshit. They think of it as high school valedictory, all warm and mushy, but not worth much to a real campaign.
I have a different perspective. If we don’t learn how to speak powerfully to the decision driving personal fears and inadequacies of the general public (as well as the equally powerful but seldom addressed hopes and dreams) we will not win. And if we cannot come up with something different than yet another barrage of programs and statistics or turning to mimic the dark arts of Luntz and Rove, then we won’t deserve to win.
Go directly to Grandmother’s House!
Can I get an agreement that it is better to describe a new eggbeater with the words: “Revolutionary, inexpensive, and lightweight” then “Untried, cheap, and shoddy”?
trying to get my teeny brain around the whole “framing” thing.
I’ve pictured a campaign: “Universal Health Care Is Pro-Business”. Would that be a “frame”, and would it be workable?
Just thinking…
Ok as a slogan, now back it up. Why should I care about either issue (health care and business)?
Is it possible that treating people well is not inconsistent with good, bottom line business success?
Is it possible that in this emerging global economy based on information and technology that having healthy workers benefits all business?
Is it possible that we are wasting our country’s human capital by not ensuring that our next Einstein or Bill Gates grow up healthy and achieves his or her potential?
Is it possible that some decent patriotic employers are tired of trying to compete on a cost basis with those irresponsible employers that count on Medicaid subsidy to provide a competitive level of compensation and benefits?
Is it possible that what really matters is not whether one or another individual is “entitled” to health care but what it says about us as a people and a nation that with all of the money and material wealth we possess, men and women and children still die in this country because they had the poor judgment to be born into a poor family?
Health Care Access for Everyone is part of Government’s responsibility to provide the basic foundation so that everyone has an equal opportunity for success. The more of us that achieve our individual potential, the more our business and culture will grow and prosper.
I think stuff like this sticks with people better, explains why I think it is important, hopefully gives them a different way to think about the issue than what they have been fed for 20 years. That’s the goal. Whether this stuff works, I don’t know, but that’s what we aim for.
that most people in this country need to have the question “why should I care about healthcare” answered for them?
Is it possible that the long explanations of WHY people should care is why democrats keep losing elections?
The question is not “why should I care about health care”.
The question is “why should I care whether that Other person gets health care”.
Obviously, the answer to the second question is either not obvious to the majority or we as a country have been incredibly inept at achieving that end.
The other side of this debate is constantly questioning those basic assumptions which we believe are self-evident. So while we go on merrily supposing everyone agrees with or understands the basic assumptions of our positions, they are undermining every single one.
Health Care
Good Education
Decent Wages
Financial Security
Freedom of Speech, Religion and the Press
Individual and Global Cooperation
Separation of Church and State
Progressive Taxation
No Preemptive Nuclear Strike
This list is almost endless.
They have no problem defending or supporting these concepts where they benefit themselves. Their message is simple and direct and is borne of their market fundamentalism. Seek and protect your own self interest and everything will sort itself out the way God has commanded.
The rubber meets the road when someone suggests that someone across town, or down the road, or across the country or globe should have access to that same basic foundation on which the chance for equal opportunity rests. It is there that we have not made the argument – out of our assumption that we need not make it. And in making this assumption have lost not only elections, but that foundation of equal opportunity for millions of our brothers and sisters.
So yes, I think most people in this country need to hear this type of explanation, especially those well-meaning liberals who can’t explain, at least not in a way that most Americans will understand, why anyone should care about someone they don’t know.
Ok. Say I agree with you that most people need to hear some kind of explanation (not sure that I do, but…)
How is the one that you give above going to make someone with a “every one of us for ourselves and let God sort it out” worldview understand or support getting healthcare to all?
Explanations like the one that you give make sense to ME, but aren’t you arguing from the same kind of assumptions that you say leave us without an argument int he first place?
That is, assumptions grounded in your own worldview? How do jump outside YOUR frame and make a convincing argument to someone who is not only in a different frame, but on a different wall alltogether?
(and yes, it’s turtles all the way down…)
Ok, Huxley and Darwin. Where do I go from there?
First, most people don’t even recognize how much they have been converted to the Holy Right Wing Church of America. If asked to consciously respond to what is moral, what is right, how things should be, the majority comes down mostly on our side of things. (e.g. pre-election poll results of voters’ position on issues vs support of President Chimpboy.)
But their premise of self-interest is woven into all of their arguments and rests to some degree on our self image of spirited individualism. (It is also promoted in no small degree to serve our consumption based economy.) I think it has strength precisely because it is never identified and called out to account for itself.
I believe we can eventually convince people to challenge and change that worldview by identifying it and its consequences as directly and openly as we can. We also need to identify how a better worldview includes the beneficial aspects of the invisible hand and enlightened self-interest, but also includes the bedrock values of cooperation, compassion and community that have equal or greater standing in both our history and in our daily lives.
Secondly: In the meantime, we need to appeal to that self-interest. The self-interest of companies competing with Walmart is to not have to pay taxes to support Medicaid benefits for Walmart employees while at the same time paying for benefits for employees of their own. The self interest of us all is to have as few as possible people walking around with any kind of flu.
Redefining self-interest to show both indirect and long term consequences will contribute to change. (We did it with crazy concepts like pollution and eco-spheres – we can do it with health care and wages.)
Thirdly: We try to trump self-interest with appeal to motivations that are of equal or greater power – the need for individual and national meaning and identity. FDR’s incredible support came at least in part from the people’s belief that together he and they were participating in a world changing movement. They felt that way in part merely because he told them they were. He appealed to not only the immediate need for basic necessities, but the higher and deeper sense of the people that they needed to change the course of their country and that together he and they could achieve just that. JFK’s appeal (and maybe even more so RFK’s) had much of the same basis.
This may sound pollyannish, but I sincerely believe it is effective on a very practical and bottom-line basis. It is in appealing to people’s highest ideals and asking them to join in a historic undertaking to remake their world and by doing so preserve it for themselves and their children, that we can overcome the shortsighted and selfish worldview currently in power. It is not a time for faint hearts and half-measures. And if we think we can merely ride Palmegate to any real change than our post-Nixon flash.
Speaking of Darwin, it has always amused me that those most opposed to his teachings relating to the origin of the species, are more than happy to take as gospel the Social Darwinism that not even he (or Adam Smith) would support in governing the survival of the species.
Dropped a line there.
then our success will be even more brief than our post-Nixon flash.
Too much screen time.
To me, it sounds like framing has turned into another memetics.
For those that don’t know, memetics was a very basic thought experiment that posited that you could model exchanges of ideas, themes, etc. as exchanges of “mental genes”, or “memes”. “Fitness” was defined as the “catchiness” of the idea, etc. It was quite big during a sudden spike of interest in genetic models, and has now generally subsided to the point where the only people that still take it very seriously are transhumanists. (I think it’s an interesting idea, but good as a thought experiment only, as it quite obviously breaks down when you try to apply it predictively.)
Similarly, framing is a very simple idea at its core: the way you talk about an idea affects how people will perceive that idea. In other words, language matters. However, framing’s had massive layers of meaning built on top of it by the blogsphere, to the point where the whole thing is just (IMHO) absurd. Every time a lie, spin, or position comes out, we hear talk of this frame or that frame. This makes Eg want to SMASH!
That said…
Yes, Booman, absolutely. We should not be lying to win, as doing so is ultimately self-defeating. Nor should we be attempting to directly counter Republican spins. Rather, we need to aggressively define our own platform for improving the country, and articulate it positively.
And this is one more reason why many progressives are opposed to centrist candidates. They, by their very nature, defeat our attempts to create and articulate such a platform. Supporting centrist DLC candidates is doing the very thing you condemn, Boo.
Yup. It means whatever we use it to mean. But to the extent it shines a light on the need to look at our message, not just how we say it, but what we are saying, that is a good and necessary thing.
What if the Democrats had all the power the Republicans do now. Do you really know what they would do?
Neither do I. Evidently neither do most Americans. The Democracy Corps polls in February and March of 2005 found that after the last election when asked “Do you think the [Republicans] [Democrats]know what they stand for?”, 77% responded that the Republicans know what they stand for, while only 47% thought the Democrats know.
(See “Sources of Republican Strength at
http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_March_2005_Analysis.pdf.)
Huge gap. Framing (if we mean better spin) can’t fill that gap. The Democrats need a comprehensive and cohesive statement of what they want to achieve (framing the way I think of it).
One suggestion, use FDR’s Second Bill of Rights from 1944 State of the Union. For more on this go to http://west-tc-politics.tripod.com/ncwa.html.
Hey Boo,
This reminds me of our first online encounter at dKos… remember that Progressives Support Osama thread you initiated that I troll rated you for? Ha! Old times…
I think I understand what you are saying, and I am sure that my comments will probably be better received here than at dKos, so here goes…
Is your point that some framing is being done to protect the entrenched leadership of the Democratic party?
I believe that many people mistake the application of framing in a political context for sloganeering, or manipulation of words to play to people’s understanding of the world, when in fact, the application of framing in a political context actually compels people to look at the world in a different light.
Let me explain further.
I have done some framing work in the past year, and I owe my interest to the topic to Jeffrey Feldman’s frameshop series on dKos and Paul Rosenberg’s contributions to those conversations; thanks Paul.
The thing that I constantly run into from people interested in framing is that a new frame simply won’t play in today’s political climate because, “people don’t want that”, or “that is too far out there”. Damn! That pisses me off.
The whole concept of framing is to lead people to different understandings of policy, issues, and the status quo. Framing is leadership through rhetoric; leading the audience to a slightly different understanding than they are used to.
Republicans did not create the liberal media moniker out of some serious bias that already existed in the general population, they led the population to this understanding by cleverly choosing their words, their arguments, and their battles. The testament to the power of framing is that they succeeded wildly. The fact that the media is liberal is almost laughable, and yet there it is; most people have no doubt that the media is liberal and to say otherwise is to be immediately discounted as a credible source.
The Republicans led the population to this understanding through ruthless messaging, repitition, and most importantly, the conceptual notion that their rhetoric matched their values. It didn’t matter that they lie, it simply matters that there are kernels of truth to point at and that the message fits their values.
This was replicated over and over:
Isn’t this what you are talking about?
That many Democrats are looking at framing as a silver bullet, but are missing the point that the rhetoric must match the values. These Democrats believe that all they have to do is repackage the tired old centrist positions supporting free trade, market based solutions and corporate governance into something that resonates with the swing voter, and they are willing to sacrifice our values in order to accomplish this goal. That they are being disingenious in trying to make that rhetoric into something that is distinctly Democratic, when in fact, it is nothing more than a cheap Republican knock-off.
So here we go again, running after issues that are never going to win for us, but painting them as something distinctly different; something progressive, through the use of framing.
I believe that this is the case, and I am wondering if your diary alludes to this as well.
A properly framed argument should not play to the biases or prejudices of the status quo. It should transcend them. It should lead people to a different understanding.
Lakoff talks about framing in terms of metaphor much of the time, and right now the only metaphor that has any weight today is Morality as Wealth. This is not a healthy frame for Democrats. A healthy frame for Democrats would be Morality as Health, Morality as Fairness, Morality as Community.
Each of these Democratic frames sounds so strange because they are so foreign to today’s society. There was a time that they were quite common, though, and some of our greatest historical quotes are direct representations of these Progressive metaphors:
Where did these concepts go? They have been replaced with ownership metaphors, profit metaphors, investment metaphors; just about anything that has to do with making money or protecting property.
Unfortunately, the centrists running the show for the Democrats have no understanding of these concepts (FLAME ON!), or if they do, they think that they are election day losers . They find them to be rhetorical instead of metaphorical, so they dance with their words, and try to please the base while courting the swing voter with half assed arguments that accomplish neither goal.
The Republicans are not strong on the issues, they have cohesion between their values and their rhetoric. The Democrats have mistaken that cohesion for strength on the issues, and have torn apart the connection between their values and rhetoric in search of election day gains.
Well, we all know where that has gotten us, don’t we?
I believe that the Booman is right on in this post. I believe that many, many Democrats are looking to framing not to lead the people to a new understanding, but as a bandaid to hide the rot that is in their pseudo-Republican platform.
briefly to well worked out post, but ‘bingo’ would be a fair and complete response.
As for the UBL diaries, it was my own extremely cynical effort to demonstrate to myself how easy it is to manipulate people using framing.
It’s funny you mention it. I was quite naughty that day.
I don’t care beans about memes, and I can’t blame frames. “Meme”, “frame”– are words that people use and define according to their understanding if the word and how they find them useful, or near enough to what they believe. In pure form, I regard Dawkin’s idea of memes as preposterous, and frames as Lakoff defines them as irrelevant.
Most people use “frames” as the word has been used in ordinary language, as short for “frameworks” and as in the expression “framing an idea” or even “The Framers.” It’s how you express a particular organization of facts, from your perspective. The importance of that certainly makes sense.
The frame debate is useful in that people see that how you express an idea is important in how well people understand it. A revolutionary concept in a technocratic society, addicted to abstractions and passive voice, with little respect for language.
But all too often confused with adspeak and sound bite, slogan and cliche. A good slogan is a good slogan, as helpful as slogans can be. But it ain’t the Gettysburg Address.
As an exercise in realizing what it is you actually think and feel, figuring out the elevator mantra–describing a party’s political beliefs between Reception and Accounting floors—is useful, and might lead you to better ways to express it. But it’s not the only path, and it’s not everything.
People used to value clarity and eloquence. Now they debate frames.
My biggest quarrel with the reframing that goes on is that most of it isn’t any good. It’s just a new set of abstractions, little better than the old.
And I absolutely agree that the best expressions not only sum up what you’re trying to say, and the values implied, but connect with people because you’re using words and expressions they know. But they require more than words—they require credible speakers and backup.
As to whether the Repubs succeeded because of their more handsome frames, maybe. But they also talk in code. You know what I mean.
So if you need frames, fine. Me, I’m interested in clarity and eloquence. Pith and moment.
off.
Sorry, could not resist. This has been so, so serious.
Just wait a moment! I’ll have you know I’ve won every Pith-Off I’ve ever entered! Are you trying to frame me? Are you that meme a person?
http://demspeak.com/?q=node/874
Here is a platform, or part of a platform that I worked up a while back that I feel is quite well framed. I would be interested in what you think of it. (I did not write the Fair Taxes bit, but am not opposed to the concept.)
While I agree that lack of conviction and aggressive defense of principle is indeed the main problem with the Democrats for the last several election cycles (Clinton did TREMENDOUS damage to the Democratic cause, BTW), I also feel that framing and the understanding that working on framing yields is very important.
Let me know what you think, and don’t hold back. I won’t be pithed if you don’t like it.
Later,
Ron
Thanks for asking my opinion. I read it through quickly so my first impression is that the language is better than a lot I’ve seen, it’s at least not so abstract. There’s not a lot exciting about it either.
I’m not sure what it is part of, since I’m guessing it’s not the whole platform, so I can’t comment on selection of priorities.
By the way, Clinton ran on “Putting People First,” which emphasizes the relationship of the messenger to the message. He’s still very popular, and his speaking style is one reason for that. Clinton used “No child left behind” first, and his program supported the idea, if not sufficiently, whereas Bush appropriated the “frame,” to mask a program that does the opposite. Another lesson in the use and misuse. And in the need to match actions to the words for them to be really credible and powerful.
Clinton may have ran on that, but he sure as hell did not produce.
Instead we got welfare to work, media deregulation, and a flat out continuance of Reagan era corporatism. Clinton was in charge when the stock market was ‘overly exuberant’.
It’s the economy stupid was a titanic mistake; one that we are still feeling to this day. It was a collosal blunder in terms of framing. There is a whole generation of Democrats that support this corporatist economy that is steamrolling all those people he put first.
Back to my piece…
I believe that there is quite a bit exciting about it. It flat out attacks every plank of Republicanism (and centrist Democratism) that is killing our country and our ability to check this trainwreck:
All of these issues are diametrically opposed to Republican ideology.
Can’t you just hear them trying to refute any of these points?
Attacking funding for first responders would be irresponsible now, no? Especially when we are paying tenfold the amount to support 2 foreign countries that are about the size of California or Texas.
Defending accountants and insurance companies control of medicine and the ability of the market to protect ALL Americans health is a sure loser as well. We have major companies drowning under health care costs as we have 40 million of our fellow Americans unprotected.
Fighting public transportation might be a bit of a battle, but I am betting that in today’s energy and traffic climate that we can win that one too.
Defending the corporation’s unfair advantages including the ability to write legislation, regulate themselves, and escape accountability for negligent or fraudulent behavior should be a sure loser as well. Tying it to the fact that they pay little taxes compared to little old you and me should shift supporting deadbeat taxpayers to the corporation where it belongs.
Attacking working Americans and their ability to provide for their families is a loser. It draws the ‘living wage’ into the debate in a way that all people can relate to. Let them say that families should not be able to care for their children.
Let them attack renewable energy in order to protect their corporate sponsors. Peak Oil is here, and it is time to shrug off the ‘reduce dependence on foreign oil’ argument in favor of one that really addresses our problems. Let them be the force that keeps our factories shuttered and allows them to dilapidate.
Let them defend their ‘go it alone’ mentality, their isolationist relationship to the world. Let them defend perpetual war.
I think that this is a fairly holistic platform, especially when compared to things like ‘lockbox’, ‘reduce dependency on foreign oil’, ‘pollution credits’, etc.
WTF did Kerry run on again? Being tougher than Bush? At least he could have went after being smarter.
This is pretty good stuff, I believe, better than anything I have heard from any candidates. It is well framed to address the current structural and political advantages that the Republicans currently hold, and well framed in terms of progressive values.
Thanks for taking a look and for giving me the opportunity to flesh out some of the applications of it.
ron
WTF????
We are framed daily…
We have an administration that governs by “photo op” and “framing” and the have been able to push through the most regessive policies since the Civil War.
I don’t know what your problem is with framing because you still haven’t made your case… you are battling non existent straw men, and when REAL evidence is given you poo poo it.
There are three major importance of understanding framing. One is how to make frames and the other how to avoid being framed and more importantly how to break frames.
The Frame Shop has a great analysis by Jeffrey Feldman on the “Blame Game” framing that went on. And if the Democrats were savy in framing could have broken the GOP’s “Blame Game” frame.
that analysis is so juvenile that it amazes me they waste their time.
It’s exactly why I hate framing.
It should be obvious that the proper response to the administration trying to put off an investigation is to demand that they not put it off. In other words, you directly confront the charge and refute it. ‘Yes, we have plenty of time RIGHT NOW to investigate this, and we will do it in a basement furnace room, if you won’t do it yourself.”
But no. They want us to change the subject to ‘accountability’, which is impossible if the the delaying tactics are not prevented. Worked great on voter fraud too. While you steal a second term in office we’ll talk about accountability down the line.
It’s garbage analysis. Worse than Cheney’s WMD analysis.
Poo poo’s … once again…
This isn’t really a critique of framing. It’s more of an example of anti-intellectualism. The post agrees that the words we use are important. And agrees that it is important to be organized and intentional in our words. It just isn’t comfortable with the idea that there might be professionals with professional terminology in this arena who we would need to turn to in order to make this happen.
It’s really an example of tension between activists and intellectuals. It’s understandable tension, but I think we can do better.
It’s pretty consistent with a wave of opinion that’s starting to form amongst Democratic leadership. They believe that the words we use are important–and assert that belief–but then they say something along the lines of “but we don’t need fancy talk to do it.”
The idea that the truth comes in small, straightforward packages is as old as mom and apple pie in this country. Sometimes it does, but those simple packages are also the product of hard work. The Constitution wasn’t jotted down on the back of a bag of feed corn. It was the product of intellectuals hashing things out until they hit on the right ideas and the right words to express them. They called those folks “framers.”
So, I think the post ultimately presents readers with a false choice. It’s not about complicated vs. simple approaches to framing. It’s just about whether we are going to choose to take control of our language–and that means everything, from soup to nuts (moral foundation all the way to soundbites)–or we are going to concede that to someone else. And if we are going to take responsibility, then swing that door wide open and bring in everyone who has ever had anything of value to offer and get them working on it. I don’t care if they speak ancient Greek–get them working and raise this barn.
The alternative is that we allow our discomfort with certain styles of working get in the way of our common goals. And that would mean not achieving them.
wow. I’ve gone from an elitist to an anti-intellectualist.
Taking control of the language is a fine and noble goal. Of course, we already control most of it, and we only object when the republicans make inroads like ‘homicide bomber’ or ‘death-tax’.
I have no objection to people studying and using frames. I object to the obsession with frames, and the idea that they offer the answer to our powerlessness. I’m tired of talking about them. When you and Lakoff discuss them there is usually a value in reading what you have to say. When unqualified people try to apply your theories, it is usually a car-wreck.
I’m feeling kind of sick today, but you can see my ideas on this more extensively in this thread and Rosenberg’s.
I appreciate that and I actually tend to agree. I think there is a problem in the way Lakoff has been presented in the books, in that it leads people into these cul-de-sacs where they are toying with langauge and not getting anywhere.
Different than Lakoff, though, I believe that language is only one aspect of “framing.” The larger issue is a fundamental, re-invention of what it means to be a voter. I think the last big change like this was the rise of public protesting in the 60s. This is, I think, where Rosenberg and I see eye to eye.
(I’ll head over to his diary. Feel better. Stay away from Romanian birds…)