Moral Politics (book)

Moral Politics is a book by cognitive linguist George Lakoff.

(Please speak up if this term is too general to be used for just the book - that is, if a disambiguation page is in order.)

(This page is still really, really under construction by Ryguasu.)

Background

Lakoff's work can be seen as the product of at least two arguably contradictory motives. On one hand, he attempts to use the techniques of cognitive linguistics to better understand the mental frameworks that lie behind comtemporary American politics. In this sense, he strives to objectively describe which mental concepts make up a "liberal", and which a "conservative". (What Lakoff means by these two terms is considered below.) On the other hand, he also attempts to justify why "liberal" morals and politics (of which the author admits to partake) are superior to "conservative" morals and politics.

The book's form makes a distinction between these two goals; in theory, the majority of the text is devoted to objective study, while only the closing section is devoted to the author's personal views. In practice, however, the separation ends up being much less air-tight; both conservative and liberal readers could probably infer from almost any single chapter in the book that Lakoff is partial to the liberal viewpoint. This liberal coloration could be seen as anything from unnecessary malice against conservatives, to a successful demonstration of liberal superiority, to scientific ineptitude, to the unfortunate but inescapable fact that a completely neutral consideration of morality is impossible. Partly because of this, the book will mean different things to different people.

Lakoff wrote Moral Politics soon after the Republican Party's "Contract With America" takeover of Congress under the Clinton presidency, and his usage of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" is strongly correlated with how those labels might have been used in the 1996 elections, the former having much to do with the Democratic party and the latter with the Republican party; indeed, chapter 9, "Moral Categories in Politics", presents Hillary Rodham Clinton as a prototypical "liberal" and Newt Gingrich as a prototypical "conservative". (Lakoff actually puts this somewhat differently, suggesting that Clinton is the prototypical arch-nemesis of conservatives, while Gingrich is the prototypical arch-nemesis of liberals.)

The central problems

The major observations/assumptions and questions on which the book is founded include these:

There is one cluster of beliefs that most conservatives share (including some kind of condemnation of abortion, a positive emphasis on military spending, and a fixed-percentage income tax) and another cluster that most liberals share (including some kind of support for abortion, a negative emphasis on military spending, and a progressive income tax). What is the explanation for this clustering? After all, each of these beliefs seems to be logically independent, i.e. it is possible to believe, as surely some people do, that both the right to abortion and significant military spending ought to be supported. Nonetheless, such "mix and match" views seem comparatively rare. How come?
Liberals and conservatives usually not only disagree with one another but view the "other side" as largely incoherent. Many liberals, for example, see building more prisons a completely ineffective and illogical solution to crime, while many conservatives view it as the obvious solution. Why can't the one side even begin to understand the other?
Why do liberals and conservatives tend to use different vocabulary, and to make different issues the focus of campaigns? For example, why did the Republican leaders emphasize "family values" so much in their 1996 campaign, and why was similar emphasis not made by Democrats? Don't liberals also have families and a moral framework for reasoning about families?

The solution: a metaphorical model

Lakoff tries to resolve these difficulties through a model in which liberals and conservatives have different and contradictory worldviews. These worldviews are thought to conflict in a number of ways relevant to the understanding of politics. Nonetheless, Lakoff claims that all these differences center naturally around the two sides' respective understandings of the ideal nuclear family.

The family is central to Lakoff because he views it as our most common ways of understanding the country; Americans often metaphorically understand their country as a family, the government corresponding to the parent(s) of the family and the individual citizens corresponding to the children. Thus, one's understanding of how a family should be will have direct implications for how the country should be.

Liberals' ideal conceptualization is in terms of the "nurturant parent" family, while Conservatives' is in terms of the "strict father" family. Given the importance of these concepts in Moral Politics, it is important to consider what they mean, along with how each suggests and is justified by a corresponding way of viewing the natures of child rearing, morality, and justice.

...

A "nuturant parent" family is one that revolves around the principle of emphathy; it is of extreme importance that both parents and children learn to understand and care for one another. The authority of the parents over the children must be legitimized through the care and respect they give their children. Children learn how to become good people by following the example of their parents. Children must learn to share, and to help one another in a spirit of cooperation.

"nurturant parent":

morality: the basis of morality is in understanding, respecting, and helping other people, and in seeking the happiness of one's self and of others. The primary vices are selfishness and anti-social behavior.
child development: children develop morality primarily through interacting with and observing good people, especially good parents. punishment is necessary in some cases, but also has the potential to backfire, causing children to adopt more violent or more anti-social ways. though children should, in general, obey their parents, they will develop best if allowed to question their parents' decisions, to hear justifications for their parents' rules, etc.. Moral development is a life-long process, and almost no one is so perfect as not to need improvement.
justice: the world is not without justice, but it is far the ideal of justice, and we must work hard to improve it.

...therefore...

A "strict father" family is one where power is centralized in the father-figure. The father makes the importance decisions in the family and also is personally/ultimately responsible for the actions of the family as a whole. Authority to the father figure is extremely important. Disobedience must be punished, and, though care and nuture of the children is important, it cannot end up dilluting their obedience. ...

morality: the basis of morality is self-reliance and self-discipline. The primary vices are sloth and gluttony. ... (the lack of self-discipline)
Children develop self-discipline, self-reliance, and virtues primarily through rewards and punishment, through a system of "tough love". Setting a good example and being nurturant also help, but bad deeds must be sure to get punished. Obedience is very important...(say why) Moral development basically lasts only as long as childhood; it's important to get it right the first time, because there is no "second chance".
justice: the world may be a difficult place to live, but it is basically just; people usually get what they deserve. the difficulties in one's life serve as a test to sort the deserving from the undeserving

...therefore...

...

As a Cognitive Scientist, Lakoff means these to be claims about what is in your head. Conscious vs unconscious....

...

The book's two subtitles

It is interesting to note that the subtitle of the book changed between the first edition and the current edition. Once titled Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know and Liberals Don't (?), it has been rechristened as Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. The original title reflected Lakoff's idea that 1) how one pictures the ideal family influences one's political views, and that 2) conservatives, unlike liberals, understand this connection. Because, he claims, conservatives better understand the true nature of politics, they can harness this fact and gain supporters through, for example, their extensive references to "family values". Indeed, the original edition contains something of a call-to-arms to liberals, along the lines of: if you guys don't get as good of an understanding of politics as the conservatives, we'll never win any votes and save the world. ...

Has the content of the book changed as well?

Arguments against shallow stereotypes used by both liberals and conservatives

Although some may argue that he fails to rise above this, Lakoff claims to oppose superficial, stereotypical, and patently false characterizing of both liberals by conservatives and conservatives by liberals. (In chapter x), he says he hopes to raise the level of public discourse. ... propoganda vs true understanding

The book does make some effect to disspell some common oversimplifications...

(two different chapters)

Comparison to other thinkers

Lakoff's own descriptive/proscriptive distinction, esp. RE Rawls

(One or both of these claims about Jane Jacobs may be blatantly false. Could the author of the original Jane Jacobs observations correct this?)

Jane Jacobs, in her 'Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerece and Politics, shows how identical policies are rationalized in different ways for audiences of different interest groups. Lakoff's model helps explain why this might be an effective stradegy. Lakoff also claims that, as of the date of writing, conservatives had much better stradegies for providing a palatable rationalization for their constrituents than did liberals, which was to explain some of their successes.

Jane Jacobs, in her 'Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerece and Politics, discusses how conservative politicians exploit "the logos", or male fascination with beauty, violence, and moral certainty, in order to gain power.

...And, in claims remniscent of George Orwell, that English usage in late-20th-century politics reflected a deliberate attempt by "the right" to impose its views by repeating idioms and altering terms of reference in debate. (Orwell-ish stuff: p 29)

What the book means to different people

The book's duality of purpose means that it will be a very different work for different people. For those sympathetic to cognitive science in general or cognitive linguistics in particular, the book might provide "enough" objective content to suggest a useful model of how human language and concepts are structured. For conservatives the book's failure to provide a truly objective view of politics may render it useless as anything but an arrogant, liberal diatribe. For those who view Lakoff's "liberal" or "conservative" views as poor taste parodies of their own beliefs, the book may seem much more insulting or condescending than scientific. For others, the book may be uninteresting as far as scientific implications are concerned, but insightful in terms of better understanding the political thought of either themselves or "the other guys".

whether Hillary and Newt makes sense as prototypical figures

criticism of the ahistorical nature of it all

...

Moral Politics. University of Chicago Press, 1996.