Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- When You're Cutting Social Security, 'Wealthy' Begins at $25K
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- Not Guilty By Virtue of Videotape, Which, Unlike the Police, Doesn't Lie
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- Manning: Before Wikileaks, Leaked Docs Offered to NYT, WaPo
- Yoga Wlll Turn Kids Into Godless Sun-Worshipping Pagans, Lawsuit Charges
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- Big Winner in Italian Election? The Five Star Movement
- A Better Plan Than 'Endless Growth': Enough Is Enough
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
Popular content
Today's Top News
How To Frame Yourself: A Framing Memo For Occupy Wall Street
I was asked weeks ago by some in the Occupy Wall Street movement to make suggestions for how to frame the movement. I have hesitated so far, because I think the movement should be framing itself. It’s a general principle: Unless you frame yourself, others will frame you — the media, your enemies, your competitors, your well-meaning friends. I have so far hesitated to offer suggestions. But the movement appears to maturing and entering a critical time when small framing errors could have large negative consequences. So I thought it might be helpful to accept the invitation and start a discussion of how the movement might think about framing itself.
About framing: It’s normal. Everybody engages in it all the time. Frames are just structures of thought that we use every day. All words in all languages are defined in terms of frame-circuits in the brain. But, ultimately, framing is about ideas, about how we see the world, which determines how we act.
In politics, frames are part of competing moral systems that are used in political discourse and in charting political action. In short, framing is a moral enterprise: it says what the character of a movement is. All politics is moral. Political figures and movements always make policy recommendations claiming they are the right things to do. No political figure ever says, do what I say because it’s wrong! Or because it doesn’t matter! Some moral principles or other lie behind every political policy agenda. 
photo: Tom Giebel
Two Moral Framing Systems in Politics
Conservatives have figured out their moral basis and you see it on Wall Street: It includes: The primacy of self-interest. Individual responsibility, but not social responsibility. Hierarchical authority based on wealth or other forms of power. A moral hierarchy of who is “deserving,” defined by success. And the highest principle is the primacy of this moral system itself, which goes beyond Wall Street and the economy to other arenas: family life, social life, religion, foreign policy, and especially government. Conservative “democracy” is seen as a system of governance and elections that fits this model.
Though OWS concerns go well beyond financial issues, your target is right: the application of these principles in Wall Street is central, since that is where the money comes from for elections, for media, and for right-wing policy-making institutions of all sorts on all issues.
The alternative view of democracy is progressive: Democracy starts with citizens caring about one another and acting responsibly on that sense of care, taking responsibility both for oneself and for one’s family, community, country, people in general, and the planet. The role of government is to protect and empower all citizens equally via The Public: public infrastructure, laws and enforcement, health, education, scientific research, protection, public lands, transportation, resources, art and culture, trade policies, safety nets, and on and on. Nobody makes it on their own. If you got wealthy, you depended on The Public, and you have a responsibility to contribute significantly to The Public so that others can benefit in the future. Moreover, the wealthy depend on those who work, and who deserve a fair return for their contribution to our national life. Corporations exist to make life better for most people. Their reason for existing is as public as it is private.
A disproportionate distribution of wealth robs most citizens of access to the resources controlled by the wealthy. Immense wealth is a thief. It takes resources from the rest of the population — the best places to live, the best food, the best educations, the best health facilities, access to the best in nature and culture, the best professionals, and on and on. Resources are limited, and great wealth greatly limits access to resources for most people.
It appears to me that OWS has a progressive moral vision and view of democracy, and that what it is protesting is the disastrous effects that have come from operating with a conservative moral, economic, and political worldview. I see OWS as primarily a moral movement, seeking economic and political changes to carry out that moral movement — whatever those particular changes might be.
A Moral Focus for Occupy Wall Street
I think it is a good thing that the occupation movement is not making specific policy demands. If it did, the movement would become about those demands. If the demands were not met, the movement would be seen as having failed.
It seems to me that the OWS movement is moral in nature, that occupiers want the country to change its moral focus. It is easy to find useful policies; hundreds have been suggested. It is harder to find a moral focus and stick to it. If the movement is to frame itself, it should be on the basis of its moral focus, not a particular agenda or list of policy demands. If the moral focus of America changes, new people will be elected and the policies will follow. Without a change of moral focus, the conservative worldview that has brought us to the present disastrous and dangerous moment will continue to prevail.
We Love America. We’re Here to Fix It
I see OWS as a patriotic movement, based on a deep and abiding love of country — a patriotism that it is not just about the self-interests of individuals, but about what the country is and is to be. Do Americans care about other citizens, or mainly just about themselves? That’s what love of America is about. I therefore think it is important to be positive, to be clear about loving America, seeing it in need of fixing, and not just being willing to fix it, but being willing to take to the streets to fix it. A populist movement starts with the people seeing that they are all in the same boat and being ready to come together to fix the leaks.
Publicize the Public
Tell the truth about The Public, that nobody makes it purely on their own without The Public, that is, without public infrastructure, the justice system, health, education, scientific research, protections of all sorts, public lands, transportation, resources, art and culture, trade policies, safety nets, … That is a truth to be told day after day. It is an idea that must take hold in public discourse. It must go beyond what I and others have written about it and beyond what Elizabeth Warren has said in her famous video. The Public is not opposed to The Private. The Public is what makes The Private possible. And it is what makes freedom possible. Wall Street exists only through public support. It has a moral obligation to direct itself to public needs.
All OWS approaches to policy follow from such a moral focus. Here are a handful examples.
Democracy should be about the 99%
Money directs our politics. In a democracy, that must end. We need publicly supported elections, however that is to be arranged.
Strong Wages Make a Strong America
Middle-class wages have not gone up significantly in 30 years, and there is conservative pressure to lower them. But when most people get more money, they spend it and spur the economy, making the economy and the country stronger, as well as making their individual lives better. This truth needs to be central to public economic discourse.
Global Citizenship
America has been a moral beacon to the world. It can function as such only if it sets an example of what a nation should be.
Do we have to spend more on the military that all other nations combined? Do we really need hundreds of military bases abroad?
Nature
We are part of nature. Nature makes us, and all that we love, possible. Yet we are destroying Nature through global warming and other forms of ecological destruction, like fracking and deep-water drilling.
At a global scale, nature is systemic: its effects are neither local nor linear. Global warming is causing the ferocity of the monster storms, tornados, floods, blizzards, heat waves, and fires that have devastated huge areas of our country. The hotter the atmosphere, the more evaporated water and the more energy going into storms, tornados, and blizzards. Global warming cannot be shown to cause any particular storm, but when a storm system forms, global warming will ramp up the power of the storm and the amount of water it carries. In winter, evaporated water from the overly heated Pacific will go into the atmosphere, blow northeast over the arctic, and fall as record snows.
We depend on nature – on clean air, water, food, and a livable climate. And we find beauty and grandeur in nature, and a sense of awe that makes life worth living. A love of country requires a love of nature. And a fair and thriving economy requires the preservation of nature as we have known it.
Summary
OWS is a moral and patriotic movement. It sees Democracy as flowing from citizens caring about one another as well as themselves, and acting with both personal and social responsibility. Democratic governance is about The Public, and the liberty that The Public provides for a thriving Private Sphere. From such a democracy flows fairness, which is incompatible with a hugely disproportionate distribution of wealth. And from the sense of care implicit in such a democracy flows a commitment to the preservation of nature.
From what I have seen of most members of OWS, your individual concerns all flow from one moral focus.
Elections
The Tea Party solidified the power of the conservative worldview via elections. OWS will have no long-term effect unless it too brings its moral focus to the 2012 elections. Insist on supporting candidates that have your overall moral views, no matter what the local issues are.
A Warning
This movement could be destroyed by negativity, by calls for revenge, by chaos, or by having nothing positive to say. Be positive about all things and state the moral basis of all suggestions. Positive and moral in calling for debt relief. Positive and moral in upholding laws, as they apply to finances. Positive and moral in calling for fairness in acquiring needed revenue. Positive and moral in calling for clean elections. To be effective, your movement must be seen by all of the 99% as positive and moral. To get positive press, you must stress the positive and the moral.
Remember: The Tea Party sees itself as stressing only individual responsibility. The Occupation Movement is stressing both individual and social responsibility.
I believe, and I think you believe, that most Americans care about their fellow citizens as well as themselves. Let’s find out! Shout your moral and patriotic views out loud, regularly. Put them on your signs. Repeat them to the media. Tweet them. And tell everyone you know to do the same. You have to use your own language with your own framing and you have to repeat it over and over for the ideas to sink in.
Occupy elections: voter registration drives, town hall meetings, talk radio airtime, party organizations, nomination campaigns, election campaigns, and voting booths.
Above all: Frame yourselves before others frame you.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
286 Comments so far
Show AllI guess when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Conservatives are experts at framing because that is all they have - they can't tell the truth and have nothing to offer, so they must resort to sales and marketing.
I don't see it as "dirty." I see it as dishonest and counter-productive. Buddy.
I've got your back on this one too TA. Words are nothing, ACTIONS that scrap a rotten broken system and start a new one are everything.
"Those interested in "framing" are those interested in sales and marketing. Sales and marketing are the tools of the enemy and using them can only help the enemy." -- Two Americas
I agree with your entire post! No one I've met is participating at OWS for just themselves. They are participating on behalf of their families, their neighborhoods, their communities, their communities across their states, for changes not only nationally but globally.
For the first time in years, I feel some hope. And, I'm spending every minute I can at OWS, talking with people and listening to people. It's refreshing to know that so many people really do care about each other and they know it's the systems that need changing in order to create a healthier way of life for ALL living things! I've met people from other countries who are here to support us, and I have met people from many, many states at OWS who are here to support us and to learn how to build a movement within their own communities.
It might sound like a cliche, but it really is a beautiful thing to behold!
Thank you for your posts!!
"For the first time in years, I feel some hope."
Same here. I never cared much for tattoos and body piercings, but these young people are the most beautiful people I've seen in a long time. I especially like their aversion to "leaders" - it seems like they're trying to make an evolutionary leap up out of the muck of our primate past.
Thirded!
There actually 3 levels you are wrong:
1. A static list of grievances the simplest level that has failed again and again.
2. Using framing which is just a nice way to say propaganda or brainwashing to attempt to control the process by controlling the terms of the linguistic battlefield, like 1, it assumes the system is going nowhere and merely is looking for more sophisticated means to control the"debate." The problem is there is no real debate it's just pretend, a show for the rubes, the people with the money write the policy in think tanks as white papers, and the scripts for the spokesmodel "news" anchors to read as well. You aren't going to win a "Manufacturing Consent," war in a stacked system and it's ludicrous and naive to think you can.
3. Complete economic and political system change. Starting over from scratch most occupiers I have talked to, DO realize this is the level we need to work at to replace predatory capitalism with co-ops and mediated faux democracy with local self direct self rule.
So in sum I think you are wrong you are working at level 2. and think the occupiers are working at level 1. when in fact they are working at level 3.
guitarist,
This is all very new and uncertain; we all refeerence precedents we like but the truth is everything that’s been tried has failed sometimes and won sometimes. The Indian swaraj movement used demands; the Montgomery bus boycott won with demands. Maybe the crucial thing is our relationship to our demands.
Call it names if you think that discredits framing, but what do you say to the brain research that shows that framing issues in a certain way calls to mind (in both listener and speaker) certain images, thoughts and feelings, and that making any statement about those images etc . reinforces the frame and defeats any argument against before it even gets going? Don’t think of an elephant.
See this brief mention on how framing an issue in 2 perfectly truthful ways gets very different reactions:
http://the-mouse-trap.blogspot.com/2006/08/metaphors-framing-lakoffchomsky.html
Saying “complete economic and political system change” is meaningless. Currently space aliens are not represented in our system. People in politics are allowed to speak, write, vote, appear in media, and breathe. And in the winter in Minnesota and Maine political meetings are generally held in buildings. Are you saying, with your “complete” change that you want to do away with all that?
Let’s talk about reality. even if you "start over" there are things you want to change and things you want to keep. That’s a list of demands.
Starting over, aka Zero-based Constitutioning may work, except most of the ideas most people in the US would accept are not going to be what you want, to put it mildly (nor what I want, I’d guess, since we’re probably not too far apart on that). How are you going to change that fact without talking to people who don’t agree with you? And how are you going to reach them except by putting things in terms they can understand and agree with? That’s the definition of framing.
Maybe what we have to do instead (or in addition) is to advance the movement by taking provocative action and living the change we want in more revolutionary and mundane ways. That is, if they let us have the sidewalks, take the streets, if they let us have the streets, take the banks and federal buildings… and so on. (I’m assuming non-violence on the part of the demonstrators and eventual violence on the part of the police, as we see is happening in a halting way now.At this moment I am debating about whether to head down to Oakland or SF to help stand against the police attacks massing blocks away) At the same time, we set up parallel forms and systems of production and government that are both symbolically inspirational and attractive in a practical sense so that many join and the old system rots on the vine. corporations can’t control much if their stock prices are jumping off buildings and tumbling into the streets. But that takes huge numbers of disciplined, inspired people with a useful alternative.
There’s a fine line between having faith in simply acting, no matter what (or however a rational observer would characterize what’s happening) and simply believing in the Disney rule: wishing will make it happen. While the achievement of success often seems mysterious from an uninformed perspective ( and from any perspective when considering lots of examples of success and failure in very complex systems) that doesn’t mean there aren’t specific necessities and concrete things that need to happen. No doubt it will drive many absolutely foaming at the mouth crazy to hear it but the fact that so many people in this movement (and I strongly suspect, on this comment thread) are young, and therefore have had no time to either live in a functional system or learn enough history in enough detail to recognize either the truth in what I’m saying or even the specific (and inevitable) mistakes. I find myself in both admiration and solidarity with the Occupy movement but this, this particular point that is the cause of so many of these attacks on Lakoff, seem to me to be the main drawback to the movement at the moment.
Felt reality trumps "frames" every time. Framing works during those vast periods of numbness, not now.
Well said.
One of the main purposes of education should be to train people to see through "framing" to the underlying truths, and to be able to recognize disingenuous framing whose purpose is to deceive. That ability is sadly lacking in the U.S. electorate, but the younger generation, or at least those involved in the protests, seems to be less susceptible to manipulation through propagandistic framing.
That said, it does make sense to choose phrasing that is likely to persuade others, as long as you're honest about your goals and your intentions are good. But Mr. Lakoff's purpose is to support the Democratic Party, and as such, he's part of the problem. I trust that most of the young people camped out in city squares will see him for what he is.
The Tea Party found itself a couple of billion-dollar-deep pockets. That pays for a lot of 'self framing'. Thats the unfortunate truth about America today.
Do not look to the OLD DOGS to define your movement. You are doing fine on your own. TRUST THE PROCESS, TRUST YOURSELVES. The movement HAS NOT matured. Allow it time to expand and ferment. Your VISIONS will form as time passes. Do not feel pressured to make a list of demands. The beauty of the process IS it's decentralized amorphous nature. It's working. It requires no further definition. Take your time, enjoy the process, invite more participants. Frames are limiting. You are developing new lifeways, a new MYTHOS. It is a work in progress. Any effort to crystalize the movement now would be a mere snapshot of a moment in time, a momentary look at the process. The OLD DOGS failed, don't allow them to define your movement. Do it yourselves and enjoy the ride. You are doing fine.
Perhaps it is better that the movement remains "amorphose" and "leaderless" at this point. Judging from the very different demands from the crowd and the commentaries in the websites it is clear that to ACTUALLY make demands and find solutions to the various problems and grievances the campaigners would have to get down to the fundamental philosophical principles involved. To make demands and to suggest particular solutions now would be very very difficult and ultimately will cause great splits and division among the campaigners. Take for example the question of the long term viaility of capitalism as a economic philosophy. Do we just need tweaking or complete abandonment of capitalism? Take the question of the majority of Americans' attitude towards imperialism. Right now, as I see it, a great majority of Americans do not see the history of USA as a history of imperial expansion. Some might even think that our exploits in the rest of the world, from Latin America to Africa, from Asia Pacific to West and Central Asia, are examples of glorious civilizing missions and enterprises. They continue to see great advantages for USA accruing from this foreign policy. Many Americans are merely frustrated by the failures and costs of our recent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. It will be a long struggle. Perhaps it is better not to be too specific at this point in the struggle..
There is sufficient idealism and adequate skepticism among the participants to continue on the decentralized path. Change everywhere at the same time is well beyond the control of the status quo. The OCW numbers will swell beyond 54% support of all Americans if we continue to address and confront the issues peacefully. The numbers will create change. If it's inadequate then the numbers can be unleashed.
One simple way to describe our current (which has been continuing for some time) predicament is that the US, as is generally true for capitalist systems, is run by bullies, for bullies. Maybe a good OWS slogan, that could help people think about the OWS movement in a positive way, would be "Don't bully me, bro!" or just "We refuse to be bullied!"
i have been a critic of Lakoff in a number of areas - especially when he tells the Dems how to "frame" their issues, but i have to say "Amen!" to his observation that issues need to be "framed" in moral terms, although the term "framing" smacks of Madison Ave. The fact is that the complaints of all these folks arise out of a deep, if inchoate, sense of righteous "moral" indignation over the fundamental unfairness of our current system, and it is time, way past time, we started talking about it in these terms. The Right has had a monopoly on "moral values" discussions for far too long.
It has been my observation, both here on CD, and in the "outside" world that too many lefties are uncomfortable using these terms - they much prefer to "frame" their discussions in terms of systems of thought and policies instead of starting with the basics - what we all, in terms of our existence not only as living beings but human beings, need to survive and thrive, and figuring out a way to provide them for ourselves and our progeny within a "framework" of the rest of the planet. Instead we get into our respective framework of Socialist or Capitalist or Anarchist, or Atheist or Christian or whatever and argue from there, quoting our favorite gurus to prove the "legitimacy" of our positions. Whenever "morality" is mentioned, we get in a food fight, "Who's morality?" and it goes downhill from there.
Start from scratch - get back to the basics, define the needs - I think they are pretty basic and universal - survey all these systems, pick and choose the best from each - "best" in terms of being able to meet those needs - or if none are suitable in a particular instance for meeting a particular need, invent something new, but stop clinging to a set theories or "principles" that may, in fact, not work as well as we need them to ...
Morality, IMO, is the "framework" of how, we, as individuals and as a society, conform our personal and societal actions to meet those needs - anything else is just packaging ....
Aquifer: It's true that "The Right has had a monopoly on 'moral values' discussions for far too long.", but the main reason for that is that mainstream liberalism intentionally and gleefully abandoned and deprecated the very notion of morality as a constraining and archaic concept. To them, morality was church, chastity belts, and other abominations. After all, everything's relative, right? Who's to say what's "right" and what's "wrong"?
The real motivation for adopting such an attitude is that it affords one complete freedom to be as decadent (read "selfish") as one wishes. The kind of decadence I'm referring to is on full display in the Democratic Party and its faithful adherents.
Fortunately, many of the young protesters seem to have been born too late to have been indoctrinated in the mind-ways of mainstream liberalism.
Well, duh.
This is well written and misguided on elections but generally good advice.
While I won't speak for other Occupy groups, Tucson has already discussed these issues and are on it. I have also seen literature from other groups that said nearly the same as Lakoff does here. There's nothing new in what he says except that perhaps more people will learn about framing.
The speakers for the Occupy Tucson movement at the weekly city council meeting put on a clinic in framing. I will do my best to get permission to post the best speakers. I am proud of my fellow Tucsonans.
Peace,
Tex Shelters
COLONIALISM and the Occupy Wall Street Movements "To speak of colonialism without moving into decolonization on the ground is without purpose."
http://cdb-tonatierra.blogspot.com/2011/10/colonialism-and-occupy-wall-street.html
"I'm not a per cent, I am a PERSON!"
Posters here might reject George Lakoff on account of his advocating some
things that they oppose, such as voting. I -- and perhaps others who do not
oppose voting -- ascribe truth to Lakoff's statement: "All politics is moral."
I thus consider that politics is neither amoral or immoral. Perhaps better said:
Politics is purpose-driven; most of those who do engage in politics consider
their purpose to be based in morality and ethics. [They may be argued to be
fools; we had better hope that they are no worse than fools.]
Lakoff goes on to declare: "Immense wealth is a thief." That is just exactly
true, and it has been true for a long time. From such truth are revolutions
born. Thomas Jefferson's proclamation that " ... all men are created equal."
They should be permitted to live in a nation based on a constitution according
to COMMONWEALTH. No one likes a thief.
Big [and perpetually lived] corporations are essentially vile, usually engaged in
thievery by Lakoff's concept. Corporations should be made subject to definite
limitations. In some nations, maybe in Canada, the term "limited" must be
included in any corporataion's name. Lakoff: "Corporations [should] exist
to make life better for most people." What "should be" isn't always "what is".
If some corporations operate outside the common good, they should be
"term-limited".
I agree with port_lookout at 11:29 when he posted: "As corrupt as the system
is, voting is necessary if violence is to be avoided." Assuming that there must
be fighting, voting is the non-violent way to fight. Any deeply held ethical/moral
principle must be "acted out", or else it will vanish into ineffectual affectation.
If no non-violent means of acting is provided, violence will happen.
If you can't vote for the D's or the R's because you believe both are corrupt,
then vote for a third party. If a third party received 30% of all votes, that would
surely shake-up a bunch of politicians. Remember, the effects of the vote
in 2012 will reach beyond the 2013-2016 terms of office of the president
and congress-persons. Presidential politics in USA has a long memory;
what is done in 2012 will reverberate for the next 30-50 years at least.
aequum, you wrote "... most of those who do engage in politics consider
their purpose to be based in morality and ethics." I would ask you to read that a few times, think about how our politicians typically behave, and let us know if you stand by your statement.
I think maybe you should re-read his posts a couple times, simply because I got the sense that he was talking about the public, not politicians.
Re. my comment dated Oct. 19 at 2:24 under the
article by George Lakoff.
Reply to John Mitchell's post of same date at 3:54:
In my statement: " ... most of those who do engage
in politics consider their purpose to be based in
morality and ethics", I intended to express my
perception that the political individuals CONSIDER
THEMSELVES to be motivated -- or have purposes --
based on THEIR OWN systems of morality and ethics.
It is, of course, one thing for a poitician to believe in
his own ethics; it is something else for the rest of us
to believe the same. Anyone reading this can surely
believe as he/she chooses. On Oct. 19 I went on to
say that self-approving politicians might well be taken
to be fools. I admit now that they may be fooling
themselves as to the consequences of their decisions
however motivated. They may think themselves only
a little compromised and not comprehend the ill effects
of their compromises. I think that something like that
was the concept that Lakoff intended to express, and
that I agreed with.
Lakoff posited the concept, that politics involves
[not to say demands] "competing moral systems."
In that sense he goes on to write of his concept-
ualization that "All politics is moral." If some of us
(maybe a majority) hold to a different moral system
then we should seek to change the existing system.
Dare I say that a majority-for-a-difference can only
change the existing system through voting? Vote
the foolish rascals out of office and put better
people in office. If you won't do that, you'll continue
to be subjected to the same old fools.
Voting is not necessary, the system is WAY past reform like the Soviet Union was. Imperialism and economic exploitation is NOT going to go away until we END the government that nurtures and protects it. The government is not your savior, the people working together face to face to rebuild our communities from the ground up without state or capitalist mediation is our only hope in my strong opinion.
"Assuming that there must be fighting, voting is the non-violent way to fight.
NO! Occupying and not leaving and keeping a CONSTANT day to day our non violent protest pressure on the system from the outside is the only non violent way to fight it. If you let the system co-opt you, you are no longer fighting it, duh, basic logic!
Think Gandhi's Salt March!
"The Salt Satyagraha, which began with the Dandi March on March 12, 1930, was an important part of the Indian independence movement. It was a campaign of nonviolent protest against the British salt monopoly in colonial India, and triggered the wider Civil Disobedience Movement. This was the most significant organized challenge to British authority since the Non-cooperation movement of 1920–22, and directly followed the Purna Swaraj declaration of independence by the Indian National Congress on January 26, 1930. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (commonly called Mahatma Gandhi) led the Dandi march from his base, Sabarmati Ashram near Ahmedabad, to the sea coast near the village of Dandi. As he continued on this 24 day, 240 mile (390 km) march to produce salt without paying the tax, growing numbers of Indians joined him along the way. When Gandhi broke the salt laws at 6:30 am on April 6, 1930, it sparked large scale acts of civil disobedience against the British Raj salt laws by millions of Indians.[1] The campaign had a significant effect on changing world and British attitudes toward Indian independence[2][3] and caused large numbers of Indians to join the fight for the first time.
After making salt at Dandi, Gandhi continued southward along the coast, producing salt and addressing meetings on the way. His group planned to stage a satyagraha at the Dharasana Salt Works, 25 miles south of Dandi. However, Gandhi was arrested on the midnight of May 4–5, 1930, just days before the planned action at Dharasana. The Dandi March and the ensuing Dharasana Satyagraha drew worldwide attention to the Indian independence movement through extensive newspaper and newsreel coverage. The satyagraha against the salt tax continued for almost a year, ending with Gandhi's release from jail and negotiations with Viceroy Lord Irwin at the Second Round Table Conference.[4] Over 80,000 Indians were jailed as a result of the Salt Satyagraha.[5] However, it failed to result in major concessions from the British.[6]
The Salt Satyagraha campaign was based upon Gandhi's principles of nonviolent protest called satyagraha, which he loosely translated as "truth-force."[7] Literally, it is formed from the Sanskrit words satya, "truth", and aagraha, "asking for." In early 1930 the Indian National Congress chose satyagraha as their main tactic for winning Indian independence from British rule and appointed Gandhi to organize the campaign. Gandhi chose the 1882 British Salt Act as the first target of satyagraha. The Salt March to Dandi, and the beating by British police of hundreds of nonviolent protesters in Dharasana, which received worldwide news coverage, demonstrated the effective use of civil disobedience as a technique for fighting social and political injustice.[8] The satyagraha teachings of Gandhi and the March to Dandi had a significant influence on American civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., and his fight for civil rights for blacks and other minority groups in the 1960s."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Satyagraha
This is one of the most irritating things I have read.
There seems to be some good advice in this article, despite the attempt to corral us into the current corporate duopoly.
I found myself thinking that Lakoff should go "frame" himself.
His obsession with the word moral was deliberately annoying and clearly disingenuous.
"All politics is(!) moral,"
"Moral system(s)" - twice,
"Moral enterprise,"
"Moral principles,"
"Moral framing,"
"Moral basis" -twice,
"Moral hierarchy,"
"Moral vision,"
"Moral worldview,"
"Moral movement" -three times,
"Moral in nature,"
"Moral focus" -SEVEN times,
"Moral beacon,"
"Moral views,"
"Moral and patriotic,"
"Positive and moral." -five times.
As I recently said, the word "moral" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. Clearly, Mr. Lakoff shares that belief. At one point "Individual responsibility, but not social responsibility" is part of a "moral system" and then, later, we are told that Wall Street "has a moral obligation to direct itself to public needs."
So, why does he go to all the trouble to insert the word moral so frequently?
He comes off as if he is the cat and we are his mouse,
but then,
I know I cannot possibly be "positive" enough to understand.
"There seems to be some good advice in this article,"
Thank God there are a few here that don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
After Buck pointed out something I had missed I went back and read it again. You are right, the use of moral "is" irritating. But he is a tenured professor so his style is symptomatic of his class.
"alugilac"
This piece was deliberately written in an annoying manner. It is not typical of anyone's writing style, not even Lakoff's.
I do not know what he is up to here, but it is not genuine. If this had been a paper turned in for a grade, it would have been seriously red-inked by any reputable professor.
Lakoff is toying with people.
_______________________________________
I'm not inclined to paranoia, but that's my sense also. This actually looks to be "framing" advice for eventual co-optation, not for a burgeoning, anti-establishment movement striving to create a grassroots independent voice for sanity.
""framing" advice for eventual co-optation, not for a burgeoning, anti-establishment movement striving to create a grassroots independent voice for sanity."
Ding, ding, ding we have a winner, Lakoff as a spokesperson of the "liberal" arm of the 1% ownership class is one of the many people there people trying to herd us into the slaughterhouse of reforming the system, we must resist the destructive siren call of joining the power elite, and of those same who fear a more systemic non violent leaderless revolution against the controlling elite. The controlling elite will never be MORAL and thus cannot be reformed. If they were capable of being moral or humane, or thinking of others or long term sustainability they never would have been elevated to the elite on the first place. And further any elite that rules over others will be corrupted sooner or later, the rule over mentality and greed mentality endemic of the elite hierarchical power and economic control allows for no other outcome.
Lakoff's message is a more sophisticated version of "use the dark side Luke." If you remember from the Star Wars story Anikan Skywalker, Luke's father (Darth Vader) was seduced into using violent force out of a sense of just outrage of his family being slaughtered unjustly. Once the use of the dark force of violence was unleashed within him, it was a short step for him to embrace state centralist tyranny. Lets not give into the temptation that organized violence and coercion which is what the state is, is somehow useable for good, that is the quite literal Darth Vader mistake.
"This is one of the most irritating things I have read."
I second that.
Lakoff is a propagandist.
That's what "framing" is ALL about.
The man -(who is all about "fakery") has nothing of any value to add to what the protestors are doing (which is genuine).
This guy sits in his office suggesting ways that people can "frame themselves"?
What a pompous ass.
Look up RHS Crossman.
David Comey, famous anti-nuclear activist, gave a talk about him to the nuclear power industry. Crossman was the head of British propaganda during WWII and came up with 6 principles (I think they can be whittled down to about 3 but whatever), essentially they say the best propaganda is that which tells the truth. Of course there's more to it, and Lakoff follows C&C pretty well. The point is you have an immediate and partly unconscious reaction to the words propaganda and framing and some others here that seems to be completely precluding any quiet, rational discussion about how to communicate with conservatives so we can get what we and the world want and need. Please try to understand and get beyond it.
Please stop trying to be the person who knows and understands all, with Lakoff as the past master prophet. Lakoff is annoying as hell in a number of ways, whether you choose to respect anyone's annoyance or not. If you're entirely taken in by his framing lexicon, and his dualistic fixation with conservatives/progressives as the absolutley ONLY political categories worth anyone's attention, so be it. But not all of us as quite so narrow and naive.
"J4zonian"
Smells like triangulation. Looks like triangulation. Sounds like triangulation.
Where IS Monica Lewinsky?
Propaganda ALWAYS corrupts read about Edward Bernays or watch the BBC documentary "Century of the Self," for more info on that...
I wish people posting here would at least try to understand that Lakoff is phrasing things in a way that people on the right will respond favorably to. That is why the words and concepts are not how you understand things. They're not meant for you and it's not surprising you don't think they're convincing arguments. It's like hiring someone to translate your speech into Chinese and then being angry because you can't understand what he's saying to the Chinese person. It's not gibberish, it's just Chinese.
Do us a favor and memorize the suggestions and the next time you're talking to a conservative use them. See if they work better than talking about the necessity of taking down the system and how monstrously evil all CEOs are.
"People on the right" will never respond favorably. Fortunately they are a tiny minority - the wealthy and their mouthpieces.
Conditions will drive the rest of the people to resistance and radicalism, not sales pitches. It doesn't matter whether they are "conservatives" or "progressives," whether they vote Democratic or Republican. Neither of those categories mean anything. Lakoff's work all starts with the premise that those categories DO mean something, and then he goes about "proving" his unexamined and unsupported premise. His conclusions are only true if his premise is true, since his conclusions merely re-state his premise.
Radicalism is not a belief system or ideology, not something people need to be sold, it is the appropriate response to conditions. Once all else has been tried, people become radicalized. It is inevitable. All of the "framing" and spin and chatter about beliefs and ideologies serve merely to confuse people and distract them from reality. When that doesn't work - and it won't because the conditions will continue to deteriorate no matter what beliefs people are persuaded to - the framers, including Lakoff, will be calling for police state suppression of the OWS movement and whatever it spawns.
Agree here too about the conditions that lead to revolution being economics and not pretty propaganda, but I think the proper radical response to failed finance capitalism and state imperialism and police state is direct participatory democracy in our communities and relocalizing, co-ops and reclaiming common spaces.
Yes, I know. And in response I would suggest that we think in terms of global working class solidarity rather than building small local communities. So long as capitalists are left in power anywhere they will hunt down and destroy any local efforts. In fact, that is an ongoing phenomenon. Communities around the world, living peacefully, suddenly find the capitalists showing up and are destroyed. There is no "live and let live" with Capitalism.
Wow. I am as baffled and befuddled as when dealing with a raving lunatic climate denialist. Maybe that is your aim, consciously or un-, although I hope not. There are so many things wrong in that short post I'm at a loss as to where to start and what to leave out.
Lakoff believes those categories mean something because cognitive science has found that they do. I'm aware we're now in the Alice in Wonderland Era of politics during which people are encouraged to believe as many impossible things before breakfast as they get paid for, but that has been mostly a phenomenon of the far right. Is it now contagious? People whose beliefs fall on the right and especially biconceptual-oriented folks will believe about conditions whatever is framed for them first, or most, or in the most convincing way based on their previous experience and inclinations. That might be that Ay-rab mooslums and echo terr'ists are takin our freeeedums and terrorizin the place and gotta be stomped, or it might be that democracy works better when wealth is spread more equitably and money can't buy a government. If we neglect effective communication we risk a fall into the 4th Reich. (and this time I ain't talkin about Wilhelm.)
Radicalism (from radicans, meaning root, as I recall) colloquially means an extreme position, of either right or left. Radicalism is neither inevitable nor especially desirable if it means what it has most often meant in the past--a limited and immature people under extreme stress, projecting and scapegoating some internal and external groups and becoming violent toward them. Brownshirts. Jacobins. Xe.
I can be slow sometimes, there is no doubt about that, but with your last paragraph
"All of the "framing" and spin and chatter about beliefs and ideologies serve merely to confuse people and distract them from reality."
I finally can figure out what the problem is. You believe there is one reality and that you see it and everyone else sees it the same way. Those who don't are simply inferior versions of yourself, either inconsequential or inexplicable (or both) and deserve no consideration or investigation (which would tax your brain and be inconvenient and confuse the issue with facts; what's the point of having more than 1 track if you've only got 1 train to put on it?). I clearly also need practice at effective communication; without face to face contact in the context of somatic psychotherapy I am at a loss as to how to reach you in any human way. I'm stopping now; maybe some time you will soften and allow other ideas in.
Yes, I think there is one reality. I don't agree with the anti-science people who believe that we create reality with our thoughts and feelings, and that we each live in a different reality.
No, wrong he isn't even a good political linguist:
"So what's an earnest, honest liberal to do when nobody wants to hear the truth? Why not turn to personal therapy disguised as politics, psychobabble as electoral strategy? Lakoff, revealingly, provides nary a word on reshaping the Democratic Party itself, blunting the influence of corporate cash, eliminating the stranglehold on the party and its candidates by discredited but omni-powerful consultants, reversing its estrangement from the white working class, finding some decent candidates, or just about anything else that might require actual strategic thinking, organizing, and politicking. Never mind. What liberals most need to do, Lakoff says, is "be the change you want."
This is not to disparage as self-indulgent, latte-sipping navel-gazers and whiners the 48 percent of the electorate that voted Democratic. But Limbaugh-driven stereotypes aside, the Democratic liberal and activist crust does indeed seem ever more in denial about the depth of its defeat, about its detachment from what it claims as its "traditional base," and about its apparent willingness to pursue little more than a self-referential, self-indulgent political aesthetic. It's much easier nowadays to fancy yourself a member of a persecuted minority, bravely shielding the flickering flame of enlightenment from the increasing Christo-Republican darkness, than it is to figure out how you're actually going to win an election or, God forbid, organize a union."
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/04/thinking-of-jackasses/3838/
See also:
"Rather than defining the Democrats as a group powerfully apart from the Republicans and their alleged linguistic sorcerers, the terminology in this brochure sounds—well, it sounds like Frank Luntz might have a very good case for copyright infringement. His memo offers, with scarcely Einsteinian originality, this thought: "The best way to communicate values is to use words and phrases that no Coke-drinking, apple-pie-eating American could disagree with. Family. Freedom. Opportunity. Responsibility. Community."
Of course, buzzwords are not going to rescue a failing party. That so many Democrats have achieved the Olympian state of denial necessary to believe otherwise suggests that the tempting abstractions of language and messaging have diverted them from a truth that ought to be perfectly clear: rather than being misunderstood, they were understood all too well."
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/05/it-isn-apos-t-the-message-stupid/3903/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff#Reappraisal_of_metaphor
Chomsky could eat a lightweight like Lakoff for lunch and not even burp.
OWS should avoid framing itself as such because that would make it just another appendage of the Demok establishment. The frame Lakoff suggests is the Demoks' very own frame and we know where the Demoks sit today: squarely in the extreme right gutter with the Repuks, serving the elites all the same, only with a different pretense.
OWS should remain frameless, but bodyful. Bodies on the street, bodies waving signs that say "we're the 99%", which is quite intimidating to the 1%. Let the people continue breathing lungfuls of "we the people" air. Like the lady said, the people's agenda is complex, not chaotic. Its main feature is enlightenment/equity/justice for all, with a lot of energy focused on discovering what that is. The next step is returning that discovery process to the civic space. OWS is taking that step now.
George Lakoff is a brilliant cognitive scientist who deeply addresses not just political image issues like 'framing' to best achieve a favorable political impression and attract advocates to a moral sounding perspective that comports with their own world view and self-image, as he is doing in this advice essay, but he also deeply studies how people's brains actually work when thinking.
On the issue of this essay, Lakoff's advice seems practical and sound, but only in the sense that contrary advice from a idea management and word-smithing propaganda pro like Frank 'death-tax' and 'job creators' Luntz would provide for his hard-right/conservative clients.
So while Lakoff's advice of 'framing' in a positive and moral way is probably just as good as Luntz's advice about 'framing' in a guileful but believable way to crush the opposition's framing, this does not fully take advantage of Lakoff's own unique academic knowledge and his moral support of the left/progressive side.
On this basis, I would propose that Lakoff's initial moral equivalency of saying that "Conservative 'democracy' is seen as a system of governance and elections that fits this model of primacy being 'self-interest'", and "The alternative view of 'democracy' is progressive: with citizens caring about one another" already surrenders the word 'democracy' in terms where these two views, and the use of the same single word 'democracy', are categorically NOT equivalent.
With Lakoff's superior knowledge and ability of how to technically test and show how brains work and think, he need not surrender the word 'democracy' at all.
Rather Lakoff should take the more principled, scientific, and provable position that there are actually two types of thinking itself; "democracy-thinking" and "Empire-thinking", and he could then set-out to show that the brain function of 'self-interested' thought to the exclusion of the brain's ability to show empathy toward any others can be demonstrated through high-resolution and real-time MRI scanning to be using specific brain functions and areas, which can be defined as "Empire-thinking" ---- in fact, such testing might well show high corelation with what behavioral psychology would term sociopathy (which effects about 1% of the general population).
Likewise, Lakoff could endeavor to test, validate, and describe the normal brain functions of a vast majority of people, who exhibit the trait of natural human empathy brain activity, and coin the term "democracy-thinking" to describe this characteristic in the 99% of us whose brains are naturally empathetic to the plight and interests of others, and react demonstrably under MRI testing to the concept of human equality.
Such detailed and peer reviewed testing by Lakoff in his area of greatest expertise, along with his naming of the results that he uncovers as "Empire-thinking" vs. "democracy-thinking" (rather than the current terminology of 'sociopathic' vs. normal) would do an even greater service to the goals of the Occupy movement, the 99% of us, and the recovery of our democracy than any 'framing' advice that Lakoff offers herein.
Much as Fitzgerald asserted (without MRI proof) to Hemingway, "the rich are different than us", most of normal humanity know well before Lakoff completes such an advanced testing regime that the 1% actually think differently that we do.
But it sure would be helpful to our cause if Lakoff could prove the cognitive difference between the 99% of "democracy-thinkers" and the 1% of "Empire-thinkers" who are making many of our lives as tough and unequal as they are.
Best luck and love to Occupy,
Alan MacDonald
Liberty & democracy
over
violent/Vichy
empire
Thank u Alan; your framing of 'Democracy Thinking vs Empire Thinking" has just become part my verbal battle chest. Carry on and peace to you all.
More 'framing' by yet another political author, professor, democratic hack. But then again, what else can they do?
No Lakoff, the occupy movement will not be sold off to the two party system. What kind of moral would that be?
An Alternative to Capitalism (if the people knew about it, they would demand it)
Several decades ago, Margaret Thatcher claimed: "There is no alternative". She was referring to capitalism. Today, this negative attitude still persists.
I would like to offer an alternative to capitalism for the American people to consider. Please click on the following link. It will take you to an essay titled: "Home of the Brave?" which was published by the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
John Steinsvold
Perhaps in time the so-called dark ages will be thought of as including our own.
--Georg C. Lichtenberg
The Occupy Movement:"Our interests are the same"
“He who serves all, best serves himself.” Jack London
I've never read Lakoff and I suppose I should but I've been too busy researching other subjects. As it is, I take it that what he's saying with is similar to NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) which made a lot of sense to me and wasn't all that difficult to learn how use in real-world situations.
According to my take on the subject, there are two basic ways to use NLP: with written text and face to face (I suppose you could also use it for spoken non-face-to-face but I never learned how to do that very well).
NLP's basic theory is quite simple: when people are thinking they do so in one of three modalities: visual, auditory, kinesthetic. Each modality has it's advantages and disadvantages: the trick is to match your modality to what is appropriate for the situation. Some people only know how to think in one modality which limits the types of situations they can deal with successfully.
In order to become successful in any given situation you need to understand the situation and then use the appropriate modality. Nothing new here, it's as simple as wanting tighten or loosen a screw: in order to know which screwdriver you need to use you need to determine what kind of screw it is. Wikipedia shows 20 kinds some of which I've never heard of. In everyday life I use slot, Phillips, hex socket (both inches and millimeters).
I got into NLP when I was running out of money in Japan and needed a job. About the only thing I could get a visa for was teaching English Conversation. All the people who came to the classes had already had a couple of hundred hours of learning the English Language which was useful for taking paper and pencil tests, but not for conversing. I used NLP to determine what their internal program was and then replace it with a program that worked better for them.
Thus my take on Lakoff is that his "frames" are two internal processing programs which are used to deal with the world. However, he seems to think that the Progressives ("I believe, and I think you believe, that most Americans care about their fellow citizens as well as themselves.") are somehow "better" than Conservatives while I believe that each of these frames are useful in some situations.
The "Bucky Fuller"s of Liberty Park, YEAH!
Large corporations give us computers, software and ISP's, the tools that let us stay informed and communicate globally. Corporate economies of scale have enabled them to develop the infrastructure needed to build such products and make them universally available. They are manufacturers doing what they were designed to do--make profits for their owners and shareholders any legal way they can while employing a fair amount of people and staying ahead of their competition. Their owners charge CEO's with the job of carrying this out, often by making legal political bribes to hungry politicians trying to keep their jobs in a corrupt system of representative government designed and rigged by the oligarchy. Their conservative Supreme Court made unlimited political bribes legal and we are rushing headlong toward fascism on a global scale.
The question is, should we be demonstrating against the corporations whose services we all use? Should we be railing against their oligarch owners, products of a demonic system of their own making that glorifies greed and the worst in humankind? Should we be ending a representative government designed to direct the money-power to a tiny few that misuses it to rape, pillage, plunder, torture, invade, murder and enslave us all instead of for universal benefit?
Will these demonstrations result in cosmetic changes only, or will we dump the corrupt system of representative government once and for all?
Direct democracy