Really appreciate this upload. It was interesting to hear the many points of view from every expert. They all made excellent points and got me thinking more deeply about ideology.
The Blake Hurst quote @ 22:57 is stolen from Robert A. Heinlein- a BASTARDIZED version of, Specialization is for Insects:
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
Lackoff was right to point it out as prop-agenda. Those whom control language control us. Welcome to the ideology war and the rise of Rove's republic. Feel the potency of Proprietary Capitalism, predatory deregulation and privatized EVERYTHING. ˙˙˙sǝıʇןɐǝɹ pǝʇɐıpǝɯ ɹnoʎ oʇ ʞɔɐq 'ʍou
I think Lakoff should call say "strict father" and "lenient mother" instead of "strict father" and "nurturant parent". That would be a neutral way to frame it. The way he frames the issue skews it toward his view, which is progressive.
I think Lakoff wouldn't aggree. His point (and frame) is that the liberal/progressive model is "sex neutral", while the conservative one is "male dominant". Using the word "mother" would not create a "neutral frame" (I believe there's no such thing as neutral frame), it would only be in opposition to the word "father". But Lakoff is trying to use the vocabulary that describes (and of course frames) the models so that the label reflects the actual nature of the model...
@QuarrymanCzech Lakoff would not agree, but by his own admission he is a "committed liberal". He is not politically neutral, so it doesn't surprise me that he framed the issue in a way that supports his political ideology.
@bamatommy Well, in a way yes. But the notion of e.g. "strict father model" is not just a product of Lakoffs pure 'political' creativity (in framing). The naming is based on observations of characteristics of the model. The expression "strict father model" itself can be framed positively (by conservatives) and it often is (see for example that the God in some conservative religions is defined as "Father" and as "strict"). So it's not just a product of Lakoffs imagination...
However, what IS consciously 'political' in Lakoff's discourse is the framing of both models... the way Lakoff is saying how one model is doing more good to the people than the other. And yes, here Lakoff demonstrates his political stance. And he does so explicitly and after disclosing the processes of framing... which could be understood as the difference between "effective framing" and "spin". It also proves, that NOBODY (unless mentally damaged or disabled) can ever be 'apolitical'...
@bamatommy I gotta say that (as a linguist myself) I don't like this frame. Linguistics is about studying words, but not about manipulating them. Linguistics is a science and as such it's trying to describe and explain some part of the world. Manipulating words is probably more a job for rethorics (I'd say as part of politics). In this way Lakoff is a linguist - his job involves studying words, and he is also a political activist - which involves manipulating words :o)))
@QuarrymanCzech I had noticed bamatommy's comment a while back & I was intending to respond to it, but I forgot about it. I read a fair amount of Lakoff's book Moral Politics where he describes these moral frames. It seems to me he was being objective as is possible in the names he gave. I'd point out there have been many patriarchal societies, but it's not clear that there ever has been an equivalent matriarchal society where women held all the power. But this is outside of Lakoff's discussion.
I'd further note that there is psychological research on traits which shows differences between genders. There seems to be some slight correlation b/t traits theory & Lakoff's model. Also, as I recall women are disporportionately represented among liberals. But that is far off from saying the moral frame is women-centric. Traditionally, conservatives believed men had a more central role as authority. Liberals, however, don't see women as above men. The moral frame of liberals is egalitarian.
W/in Lakoff's book, he isn't just speculating and labelling. Certainly, he isn't simply practicing ideological manipulation. He seems to be honest in his intentions that he sets forth in his book. To test his theory, he compared his family model frames to the psychological research done on childrearing. If someone doubts Lakoff's objectivity, they can look at the research for themselves. For Lakoff, the research is where the rubber meets the road.
@MarmaladeINFP Of course Lakoff is being honest. The point, however, is that that doesn't mean the conservatives are'nt honest. Most of them really are, they are'nt trying to manipulate the truth, for them the truth is just "sitting in a different frames". I'd say that the truth is simply "facts + frames". And that's the reason why we can (and we do) have several (often different) truths. Lakoff is not only uncloaking spins, he also explains the difference between an honest framing and spins.
@QuarrymanCzech I wouldn't say "Of course". Not all writers and scholars are honest in their intentions. I've met a few scholars who seem motivated by ideology rather than a desire to objectively understand. As for Lakoff, I never claimed he was arguing that conservatives aren't honest. I would, however, say that Lakoff does imply conservatives more consciously use their frames and he describes conservatives as being clever. Also, he argues the conservative frame isn't based on the known data.
@MarmaladeINFP I meant "of course" for us who have been following Lakoff for some time ;o)...
Conservatives (at least in the US) are active working on their frames through their think tanks. That's what the proggressives are still quite missing (for there to be some balance). Describing conservatives as "being clever" is, of course, a frame, that needs to be put into wider context (of what Lakoff is talking about). And no frame needs to based on "objective" data...
@QuarrymanCzech You're correct. No frame needs to be based on "objective" data. I'm sure, however, that you'd agree that a frame is superior if it is based on or at least doesn't contradict the data ascertained from science. Lakoff argues the conservative moral frame not only isn't based on psychological research but directly is disproven by that research. This depends, of course, on your intentions. If you wish to create traumatized & stunted minds, Strict Father childrearing is very effective.
@MarmaladeINFP This is tricky, because "good", "bad", "correct", "wrong", "superior" etc. are in their nature ethical/moral cathegories and there is no objective criteria to judge what/whos moral is "more moral" than another one. So just from a scientific position you (and even Lakoff, I guess he knows that) can hardly say that "nurt. parent model" is "better" than "strict father model". Would you say that all biconceptuals are "half traumatized minds"? I would not...
@MarmaladeINFP So I think that Lakoff is not arguing, that "nurturing parent model" is simply "superior" (from an ethical point of view). He's too much a scientist for that. I'd rather say that he claims, that the nurturing parent model of ethics is for us (humans) more "natural", because it's based on empathy, and humans have the predisposition for empathy (thanks to the existence of mirror neurons). But again, to judge "natural" as "better" would be an ethical (non objective) judgment...
@QuarrymanCzech Words such as "superior" imply an evaluative judgment, but they don't necessarily equate to a moral value categorization especially not in the morally absolute sense. My meaning was merely relativistic. I pointed out it's relative to the value in relation to which one is judging. Lakoff seems to be clear in what types of behavior he considers relatively "superior" which is opposite the trauma and acting out that results from the violent punishments of Strict Father childrearing.
I would agree to your use of "natural". I consider practices that align with "natural" human tendencies are "good", "superior" even. Certain manifestations of human behavior are natural because they are more closely similar to the behavior manifest in human societies that exhibit lifestyles similar to the period of time when humans first evolved. As far as I can tell, the monotheistic tradition of Strict Father childrearing is very different from the childrearing practices of hunter-gatherers.
Conservatives are introverted sensors (primary or secondary) on the MBTI scale. That thought process is why they want things "in their place".
tstruss912 2 months ago
Really appreciate this upload. It was interesting to hear the many points of view from every expert. They all made excellent points and got me thinking more deeply about ideology.
sarcee1960 7 months ago
@EndTheDenial
Yeah it's probably stage makeup. But done badly
todanp 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Need to marry you **busizz4me.info**
mayakanthineela 1 year ago
Anyway, fut that Ayn Rand bullshit...
peeklip 1 year ago
The Blake Hurst quote @ 22:57 is stolen from Robert A. Heinlein- a BASTARDIZED version of, Specialization is for Insects:
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
peeklip 1 year ago
addendum:
Lackoff was right to point it out as prop-agenda. Those whom control language control us. Welcome to the ideology war and the rise of Rove's republic. Feel the potency of Proprietary Capitalism, predatory deregulation and privatized EVERYTHING. ˙˙˙sǝıʇןɐǝɹ pǝʇɐıpǝɯ ɹnoʎ oʇ ʞɔɐq 'ʍou
peeklip 1 year ago
I think Lakoff should call say "strict father" and "lenient mother" instead of "strict father" and "nurturant parent". That would be a neutral way to frame it. The way he frames the issue skews it toward his view, which is progressive.
bamatommy 1 year ago
@bamatommy
I think Lakoff wouldn't aggree. His point (and frame) is that the liberal/progressive model is "sex neutral", while the conservative one is "male dominant". Using the word "mother" would not create a "neutral frame" (I believe there's no such thing as neutral frame), it would only be in opposition to the word "father". But Lakoff is trying to use the vocabulary that describes (and of course frames) the models so that the label reflects the actual nature of the model...
QuarrymanCzech 1 year ago
@QuarrymanCzech Lakoff would not agree, but by his own admission he is a "committed liberal". He is not politically neutral, so it doesn't surprise me that he framed the issue in a way that supports his political ideology.
bamatommy 1 year ago
@bamatommy Well, in a way yes. But the notion of e.g. "strict father model" is not just a product of Lakoffs pure 'political' creativity (in framing). The naming is based on observations of characteristics of the model. The expression "strict father model" itself can be framed positively (by conservatives) and it often is (see for example that the God in some conservative religions is defined as "Father" and as "strict"). So it's not just a product of Lakoffs imagination...
QuarrymanCzech 1 year ago
However, what IS consciously 'political' in Lakoff's discourse is the framing of both models... the way Lakoff is saying how one model is doing more good to the people than the other. And yes, here Lakoff demonstrates his political stance. And he does so explicitly and after disclosing the processes of framing... which could be understood as the difference between "effective framing" and "spin". It also proves, that NOBODY (unless mentally damaged or disabled) can ever be 'apolitical'...
QuarrymanCzech 1 year ago
@QuarrymanCzech We are definitely in agreement here. :)
bamatommy 1 year ago
@bamatommy Lakoff is a linguist. His job involves studying and manipulating words.
bamatommy 1 year ago
@bamatommy I gotta say that (as a linguist myself) I don't like this frame. Linguistics is about studying words, but not about manipulating them. Linguistics is a science and as such it's trying to describe and explain some part of the world. Manipulating words is probably more a job for rethorics (I'd say as part of politics). In this way Lakoff is a linguist - his job involves studying words, and he is also a political activist - which involves manipulating words :o)))
QuarrymanCzech 1 year ago
@QuarrymanCzech Fair enough.
bamatommy 1 year ago
@QuarrymanCzech I had noticed bamatommy's comment a while back & I was intending to respond to it, but I forgot about it. I read a fair amount of Lakoff's book Moral Politics where he describes these moral frames. It seems to me he was being objective as is possible in the names he gave. I'd point out there have been many patriarchal societies, but it's not clear that there ever has been an equivalent matriarchal society where women held all the power. But this is outside of Lakoff's discussion.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
I'd further note that there is psychological research on traits which shows differences between genders. There seems to be some slight correlation b/t traits theory & Lakoff's model. Also, as I recall women are disporportionately represented among liberals. But that is far off from saying the moral frame is women-centric. Traditionally, conservatives believed men had a more central role as authority. Liberals, however, don't see women as above men. The moral frame of liberals is egalitarian.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
W/in Lakoff's book, he isn't just speculating and labelling. Certainly, he isn't simply practicing ideological manipulation. He seems to be honest in his intentions that he sets forth in his book. To test his theory, he compared his family model frames to the psychological research done on childrearing. If someone doubts Lakoff's objectivity, they can look at the research for themselves. For Lakoff, the research is where the rubber meets the road.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Of course Lakoff is being honest. The point, however, is that that doesn't mean the conservatives are'nt honest. Most of them really are, they are'nt trying to manipulate the truth, for them the truth is just "sitting in a different frames". I'd say that the truth is simply "facts + frames". And that's the reason why we can (and we do) have several (often different) truths. Lakoff is not only uncloaking spins, he also explains the difference between an honest framing and spins.
QuarrymanCzech 1 year ago
@QuarrymanCzech I wouldn't say "Of course". Not all writers and scholars are honest in their intentions. I've met a few scholars who seem motivated by ideology rather than a desire to objectively understand. As for Lakoff, I never claimed he was arguing that conservatives aren't honest. I would, however, say that Lakoff does imply conservatives more consciously use their frames and he describes conservatives as being clever. Also, he argues the conservative frame isn't based on the known data.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP I meant "of course" for us who have been following Lakoff for some time ;o)...
Conservatives (at least in the US) are active working on their frames through their think tanks. That's what the proggressives are still quite missing (for there to be some balance). Describing conservatives as "being clever" is, of course, a frame, that needs to be put into wider context (of what Lakoff is talking about). And no frame needs to based on "objective" data...
QuarrymanCzech 1 year ago
@QuarrymanCzech You're correct. No frame needs to be based on "objective" data. I'm sure, however, that you'd agree that a frame is superior if it is based on or at least doesn't contradict the data ascertained from science. Lakoff argues the conservative moral frame not only isn't based on psychological research but directly is disproven by that research. This depends, of course, on your intentions. If you wish to create traumatized & stunted minds, Strict Father childrearing is very effective.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP This is tricky, because "good", "bad", "correct", "wrong", "superior" etc. are in their nature ethical/moral cathegories and there is no objective criteria to judge what/whos moral is "more moral" than another one. So just from a scientific position you (and even Lakoff, I guess he knows that) can hardly say that "nurt. parent model" is "better" than "strict father model". Would you say that all biconceptuals are "half traumatized minds"? I would not...
QuarrymanCzech 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP So I think that Lakoff is not arguing, that "nurturing parent model" is simply "superior" (from an ethical point of view). He's too much a scientist for that. I'd rather say that he claims, that the nurturing parent model of ethics is for us (humans) more "natural", because it's based on empathy, and humans have the predisposition for empathy (thanks to the existence of mirror neurons). But again, to judge "natural" as "better" would be an ethical (non objective) judgment...
QuarrymanCzech 1 year ago
@QuarrymanCzech Words such as "superior" imply an evaluative judgment, but they don't necessarily equate to a moral value categorization especially not in the morally absolute sense. My meaning was merely relativistic. I pointed out it's relative to the value in relation to which one is judging. Lakoff seems to be clear in what types of behavior he considers relatively "superior" which is opposite the trauma and acting out that results from the violent punishments of Strict Father childrearing.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
I would agree to your use of "natural". I consider practices that align with "natural" human tendencies are "good", "superior" even. Certain manifestations of human behavior are natural because they are more closely similar to the behavior manifest in human societies that exhibit lifestyles similar to the period of time when humans first evolved. As far as I can tell, the monotheistic tradition of Strict Father childrearing is very different from the childrearing practices of hunter-gatherers.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago