Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Politics and Rhetoric

In recent years, the distinguished Linguist George Lakoff has been applying this expertise to Political matters, in an attempt to reinforce the Liberal cause. One key notion for him is 'framing', as expressed in his prescription that Liberals need to learn how to frame issues better. For, as he sees it, how a debate is framed can be decisive in how it is received by the public. For example, Conservatives have recently been framing their defense of the Iraq invasion in terms of Iraq being better off without Hussein, which might be more difficult to dispute than if the matter were framed in terms of whether or not deposing Hussein were worth the tens of thousands of casualties, the loss of American credibility, the economic burden, the escape of Bin Laden, etc. However, the relevance of the other main aspect of Lakoff's theory of framing, that it is merely a rhetorical strategy, is unclear in this example, in which the difference between the two frames is analytical, not linguistic. The shortcomings, and even the potential counterproductivity of his program, are more patent in his recommendation that Liberalism present itself in terms of maternal tropes, in contrast with the paternal ones of Conservativism, i. e. nurturing vs. tough love. This proposal is profoundly misguided in two respects. A family is an involuntary association, while Democracy is a voluntary one, so using familial metaphors, of any sort, completely falsifies one of the essences of Democratic activity. Secondly, Democracy is comprised of adults, so to represent citizenry as children, is, again, fundamentally flawed. More generally, Lakoff's notion that Political conflict can be reduced to Rhetoric, implies that the participants are special interest groups seeking to dress themselves up as attractively as possible. Such an implication completely misses the substantive ambitions of pioneering Liberals such as Spinoza, Kant, and Dewey, the language of all of whom is as potentially vital today as it was when originally conceived.

2 comments:

  1. Yes but what about Socrates?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Socrates, with respect to which of the claims that I make? And, do you mean Plato's character Socrates, or the historical Socrates of e. g. the Apology? Certainly, either 'Socrates' can be taken as a critic of mere Rhetoric, but the connection of either to a Modern Political doctrine like Liberalism is a lot more tenuous. (I might have added above that the main problem, in my opinion, with the Left these past few decades has been not their Rhetoric, but a lack of courage of their alleged convictions.)

    ReplyDelete