I often begin public talks by asserting that what we believe to be true is more important than what is actually true. Then I share examples like these:
- Saddam Hussein is linked to the 9/11 attacks.
- Environmental action destroys jobs.
- Regulations hurt markets.
- Government is wasteful.
Each of these claims is based on an underlying belief about the world. In the case of Saddam Hussein, most Fox News viewers consider the linkage to 9/11 as incontrovertible regardless of the evidence presented to the contrary. Similarly, economists from the most prestigious universities have ardently declared that markets should be “free” from intrusion by government in order to create wealth and prosperity. This implies that regulations are harmful and restrictive to the workings of markets. It further inculcates the implicit belief that markets are inherently good and will always behave in the interest of public welfare, even in the face of a mountain of hard facts that contradict this view.
Why do I begin presentations with this strange assertion? Because it tells us something very important about how our minds work.
Many of us were taught that there is a single objective reality. We take as given the notion that our thoughts correspond with the external world in a straightforward manner, what mathematicians call a one-to-one correspondence. This is sometimes called the Literal Correspondence Theory because it asserts that all of our thoughts are literal and that they are true only if they accurately map onto the world.
Research conducted back in the 1970’s abolished the Literal Correspondence Theory, as documented in the groundbreaking book Metaphors We Live By (1980) by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. They turned 2500 years of philosophy on its head by demonstrating the widespread and pervasive role of metaphors in everyday conceptual thought. (For another read on this fascinating topic, check out Raymond Gibbs’ The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding published in 1994)
Here are two examples:
More is Up
It is quite common to conceptualize quantity as a vertical level, with sayings like “housing prices dropped” and”watch the stock market rise.” This metaphor provides a logic to the concept for magnitude that is intuitive and easy to grasp. It arises through the experience of stacking things such that a greater magnitude results in a higher level of the stack – be it a stack of books or the level of a liquid in a glass.
Knowing is Seeing
We often conceptualize the acquisition of knowledge as a visioning act, with sayings like “I see what you mean” and “that idea is a little unclear.” This metaphor arises through the experience of coming to know things when they appear in our line of sight.
More than 200 conceptual metaphors like these have been documented so far. (A sample can be found here.) The existence of conceptual metaphors tells us that our understandings are not tied directly to the world in a one-to-one fashion. We can reason with more than one metaphor about the same topic. So it is possible that we may think of a market as a tool – the Markets as Tools metaphor – when discussing how to “create a market” that reduces air pollution. At the same time, another person may think about a market as a self-directed person – the Market as Autonomous Agent metaphor – when suggesting that we should “let the market decide” how best to increase human well-being.
What’s a Worldview? Look for a System of Metaphors
The tendency to reason with a particular set of conceptual metaphors is indicative of a particular mental model for how the world works, sometimes referred to as a worldview. George Lakoff, in his effort to discover how political thought works, revealed that a specific metaphor is commonplace in political discourse. The Nation as Family metaphor – with examples like “founding fathers” and “send our sons and daughters off to war” – plays an essential role in organizing progressive and conservative political thought around coherent moral worldviews.
This metaphor arises with one of two idealized models for the family. For conservative thought it is the Strict Father Family with its authoritarian structure and an emphasis on discipline and order. Progressive thought arises through the Nurturant Parent Family with its egalitarian structure and an emphasis on empathy and shared responsibility. Each of these models brings with it a moral lens for understanding right and wrong, good and bad. (Get the full-blown coverage of this discovery in Lakoff’s book Moral Politics published in 1996 and 2002)
Each conceptual model represents a set of beliefs and understandings that is often contradictory with the other. Conservatives tend to believe markets can fix any problem. Progressives generally believe markets are capable of doing harm as well as good. While conservatives believe that nature is separate from and competes with the economy, progressives believe a fundamental interdependence exists. A long list of discrepancies like these are discussed in Moral Politics and its smaller companion Don’t Think of an Elephant!.
Our beliefs arise through coherent worldviews that differ from one another.
Beyond “Only the Facts” Strategies
A common mistake in political strategy is the notion that people are motivated by the facts of a situation. Any social scientist worth their salt will tell you that what a person knows in any particular context is grounded in a mesh of beliefs, value-judgments, and information that supports a particular viewpoint. It’s not simply a matter of getting the facts straight.
People are actually motivated by core beliefs about the world, deeply felt concerns they have, aspirations that call upon them to grow and thrive, and the connection of personal identity with people who share their values. Political strategists ignore these motivations at their peril, as has occurred over and over again in failed campaigns to elect candidates (John Kerry come to mind?), pass key legislation (Will we ever get universal health care?), and cultural change agendas (How do we nip rampant consumerism in the bud?).
Unfortunately, advocates of progressive social change are all-too-often not aware of conceptual metaphor and worldview as influences on social behavior. Perhaps this isn’t surprising. Few among us keep up with the latest research in human semantics. Yet, discoveries like these will be vital for practitioners in the advocacy world to understand and incorporate into their practices if they are to engage their audiences at the deepest levels – where behaviors emerge from. It will be vital that we recognize the role of beliefs and worldviews in political thought in order to engage the populace in meaningful ways.
At Cognitive Policy Works, we’re dedicated to converting discoveries like these into learnable practices so that it becomes possible to communicate effectively in our rapidly changing world.
——–
Enjoy this article? Perhaps you’d like to sign up for our newsletter.
——–
Hi Joe,
I can see where using the term “Gang Of Pirates” does attack the GOP as a “Tribe” attack of name calling, but I do see two advantages to it. The first was pointed out by George Lakoff that every time an association is made in the brain the connection gets stronger and if, as I had hoped, others would use it more so that it became more generalized then even if they thought themselves part of the tribe, just seeing the initials GOP would bring “Gang Of Pirates” to mind bidden or not.
The GOP has used this very effectively to link Liberals to Russian hegemony whenever any positive ideas were expressed and even created such a negative stereotype that John Kerry ran from the Liberal label just as folk run from the much more defensible Socialist label today.
But there is a much deeper reason to use “Gang Of Pirates” in that it perfectly describes the real conservative ideology in a NP frame. Even conservatives oppose the illegitimate “free enterprise**” of the mugger, burglar, or pirate, and recognize that such financial success does indeed pose the fear of, and actual losses for themselves, and brings to mind also the need for police to protect them from the criminals. Such “government interference” in their enterprise is of course the last thing the pirates want, and that too I try to weave into the story. The Gang structure also is very SF is a very dysfunctional way that I would also think that Conservatives would reject, just as we would reject a “Nanny State” as irresponsible leadership.
I do also limit the “Gang Of Pirates” label to Conservative leadership and even toss in the odd Lieberman Democrat just to emphasize that I am not talking about rank and file Republicans (while of course building the GOP mind link and tossing in a wedge with that leadership)
I agree that once one side has laid claim to Freedom it is hard to break or oppose. I do try that by proposing the Feral Child vs Socialized Child metaphor that also hearkens to the Pirate metaphor. Now every parent can understand the feeling when an unsocialized child takes a dump on the living room floor, and the howl of outrage when his “freedom” to do so is regulated by his parents. It also highlights the terrible aloneness and vulnerability of a feral existence vs the warm embrace of a socialized family that for all the positives still has many boundaries.
I do understand that in contesting a concept we are directly challenging deeply comfortable ideals and trying to make them uncomfortable, however that is exactly what has been done to us over the past fifty years. Also I have had some success, often I suppose because they have never had competent opposition to the ideas they have been immersed in (one was even seeking a degree in Libertarian philosophy)
The one area that I am particularly troubled by has been the explicit need to address
the issues directly, insisting on the Socialized Child metaphor, rather than allowing the implication of the Soviet definition to slide by, even as they are actually conflating the Soviet and West Europe versions in speech if not thought. And Socialized Capitalism they insist is an oxymoron rather than the opposite of Feral Capitalism that examples should be seared across the mind of nearly everyone awake this past few years.
Similarly the need to call out explicitly Socialized Values of empathy, empowerment, responsibility/accountability and still the need to go farther and explain that empathy is neither sympathy or charity, that empowerment is for those without it, and accountability is for perpetrators and not victims as is the Conservative mantra. There is a galaxy of details to discuss in the best way to accomplish a Socialized Society and yet the entire conversation keeps going around Socialized vs Feral.
I would like to understand how to talk of other things that implied a NP approach and did not bring out the various Conservative derisions of it, but derided their ideology as well as Gang Of Pirates does.
**(It is in fact the origins of the term “Free Enterprise” as participants in the vast piracy of the British East India Company would take a bit of time off to do a bit of their own “freebooting” looting and burning the odd ship or town for extra personal profit. A point I try to make where appropriate)
Hello Bob,
One thing I like about your approach is that you are seeking to show the vulnerable underbelly of our opposition. Where I think it would become stronger is if you target the attacks against conservative ideology instead of the label attributed to their community. People act defensively when their “tribe” is called names, which means you’ll only polarize them further instead of getting them to think differently.
The deeper problems reside in the assumptions and internal logic of conservative ideology. For example, the notion that markets are inherently good and naturally lead to widespread wealth and prosperity is nothing more than a clever facade for the wealthiest group (mainly the top 1%) to appeal to populist sentiments while concealing their elite agenda.
On the topic of socialism, we need to think more deeply about what the underlying fears and concerns are that are tapped by the propaganda. Shifting names won’t get us very far unless we think about these deep motivational drives. One thing that springs readily to my mind is the fear people have of losing the feeling of control over their choices. While “free market” ideology actually reduces peoples’ freedom (especially with regard to a corrupted democratic system where key decisions are made without public accountability) it appears in the daily experiences of people as an expansion of individual choices – the semblance of increased freedom.
Once this perceived freedom is acquired, experiences of loss arise automatically if people imagine losing it… with considerable anxiety accompanying the sense of loss. These deeper tendencies are at the heart of the attack on democracy by calling it fascism (with the moniker “socialism” to conceal this implied state of affairs), while efforts are made strategically to advance toward a real form of fascism under this guise.
Best,
Joe
Hi Paul,
I totally agree with you about the asymmetries in our organizational capacity and infrastructure. The place where I disagree is with your dismissal of the importance of realizing how the propaganda works in the brains of everyday citizens.
For example, if we were to spend billions of dollars investing in communications infrastructure and then take an “only the facts” approach to communicating – while disregarding a mountain of research showing that human psychology involves values, beliefs, cultural narratives, and other vital meaning-making devices – we would still be unable to engage the populace successfully.
One thing that conservatives have going for them that tilts things in their favor is that fear responses align with authoritarian ideas. This happens because our brains hone in on a “quick decision” mindset when we experience threats. This mindset includes (a) seeing the world in black-and-white, (b) huddling close with our fellow community members for safety, (c) experiencing all out-groups as potential threats to our existence, and (d) shutting down our internal capacity to empathize with others.
We need to know things like this in order to develop effective strategies (and institutional forms) that counter the massive spin machine that we’re up against. This needs to happen alongside investments in communications infrastructure.
Best,
Joe
The four assumptions you open with are widely believed because of a large, deliberate, well-coordinated propaganda effort to make people believe them — and because of the absence of a large, deliberate, well-coordinated effort to counter such propaganda.
Consequently, many people hear the propaganda much more often than they hear the truth.
In the case of the Saddam-9/11 link, nearly every single conservative politician and pundit continued to loudly proclaimed this link even after — or especially after — the weapons of mass destruction didn’t turn up. But how many mainstream politicians or pundits decried this deceit as loudly?
I’ll tell you how many: Somewhere in the neighborhood of zilch.
So rather than look into cognition and other psychological processes, it’s better to focus on the extreme asymmetric nature of the two sides’ media machines.
Because as you-know-who said, tell a lie often enough, and people will believe it — especially when that lie goes unchallenged, as it too often does in America.
I would be very interested to see what you think of the Socialism Vs Feralism (antisocialist & Unsocialized and similar concepts as ways to break their metaphor of Socialism) and also the Gang Of Pirates metaphor as a way of conveying the idea that markets can be feral or socialized and only a mechanism of a “police” that hold pirates accountable can allow honest businesses even to exist and not driven out of business.
If not, than I would like to ask what such short processes could be used instead, or how a conservatives reaction might make such a position counterproductive. I am also exploring the metaphor of the Vegan butcher and Amish automobile designer/mechanic as the GOP expressed ideas of governance and would like to see what you think about those or how they could be improved.