|The Idea: The only way to prevent extremists from holding nations hostage to their emotions is to devolve power so that no one wields enough of it to exploit it the way untrammeled tyrants and fanatics inevitably do if they can. And the way to reopen dialogue isn’t by re-framing, it’s by refocusing on what we can all agree on, regardless of frames: The need to create a healthy, happy legacy for our children.
Last January I reviewed George Lakoff’s book Moral Politics, which lays out the difference between progressive and conservative worldviews and ‘frames’, and explains how to ‘re-frame’ debate in positive ways:
Hold your ground. Always be on the offense. Never go on defense. Never whine or complain. Never act like a victim. Never plead. Avoid the language of weakness, for example, rising intonations on statements. Your voice should be steady. Your body and voice should show optimism. You should convey passionate conviction without losing control…Never answer a question framed from your opponentís point of view. Always reframe the question to fit your values and your frames. This may make you uncomfortable, since normal discourse styles require you to directly answer questions posed. That is a trap. Practice changing frames…Show respect; Respond by re-framing; Think and talk at the level of values; and Say what you believe.
Lakoff also explains why an appreciation of different frames is actually comforting (instead of seeing those with opposite perspectives as stupid or irrational, you start to understand where they’re coming from, and, sometimes, you get a better understanding of where you’re coming from). I worried out loud about our human propensity (a) to be seduced by false comforts and (b) to believe what we have ‘come to believe’ even in the face of overwhelming evidence of its absurdity. Such is our ability to filter out what doesn’t jibe with our preconceptions.
In the same article, I referred to Frances Moore LappÈ’s GNN essay espousing the need to move away entirely from ‘nuclear family’ frames (conservative = strict father; progressive = nurturing parent), and the need for progressives to acknowledge neocons’ willingness to use blatant lies, deception, fear-mongering and emotional coercion to meet their ends, rendering mere ‘re-framing’ an inadequate progressive response to conservative assaults on citizens’ opinions. I expressed my view that she was right, but that her (re-)frames were unsatisfying because they weren’t intuitive, visceral and engaging enough. And her argument about the ‘unethical’ nature of conservative tactics struck me as ‘crying foul’ just because the other team wasn’t playing by your rules — when the battle over public opinion has never been constrained by either principles like fairness, or accepted ‘rules’.
I recently re-read that essay, which was entitled Time for Progressives to Grow Up in light of events of the last few months, and realized I missed some of her points. She describes the neocons’ “ends-justify-means, destroy-the-enemy approach”, a brutal, manipulative and over-reaching strategy that is abhorrent to most of us of all political stripes, but the point is that it works. Killing the guy who seduced your daughter may not be legal or ethical, but it sure is effective. And that ferocity is the signature of the neocons’ high-adrenaline campaign to win the hearts and minds of the world at any cost, and is increasingly being used by conservatives outside the US as well.
LappÈ also makes the point that progressives need to call neocons to account for such extremist tactics, but warns this is difficult to do without “making those who have been manipulated feel ridiculed and put down”. This difficulty, and progressives’ reluctance to fight fire with fire (by using lies and manipulation proactively themselves) is precisely what the neocons are counting on. When such tactics are used by extremists from any side, moderation, civility, consensus, rationality and the truth always lose out. The neocons have learned this lesson from the successes of terrorists and warmongers since the dawn of civilization. Such provocation always leads to hysteria and/or escalation — and the triumph of extremism over moderation. As Oscar Wilde said, “Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.”
Is there anything that can be done to counter this tactic effectively, and to keep things reasonable? Take a look at the situation in the Middle East or Ireland and you’ll find your answer: As soon as reason and moderation look like they might win the day, all it takes is one extremist act to nullify a generation of diplomacy and reasoned negotiation. We are at heart emotional creatures more than rational ones, and passion can always trump reason. I recently argued that this passion might just push the US over the line to totalitarianism — it’s happened often to democracies before, sometimes improbably. The only answer, I believe, is to devolve and dilute power, take it away from hierarchies and move it to communities, so that no extremist group can ever accumulate so much of it that they can use it to hold a nation hostage to its own emotions, which is the situation the US currently finds itself in. You don’t defuse a barroom brawl by pleading for civility, you arrest it by taking away the antagonists’ ability to fight.
That takes me back to LappÈ’s other quibble with Lakoff — the use of nuclear family metaphors to contrast frames. She argues for a new, broader frame of Strong Communities:
A ìstrong communitiesî frame might require progressives to stop, for example, talking about the ìenvironment,î which non-progressives can hear as a ìsoftî distraction in war time, and frame ecological challenges as threats ìto safe air and water and food.î We might stop talking about poverty, and alleviating it, which evokes images of do-gooders, and talk about ìfair-chance communities.î Stop talking about reforming criminal justice and talk about results-based crime prevention.
Regular readers of How to Save the World know of my passion for communities, and I do believe this is a psychological improvement over ‘nurturing parent’. And LappÈ does provide a host of examples that suggest there is a great appetite for moving much more human activity and authority (and hence power) to the community level from the state level (and to some extent even from the family level, at least for those who appreciate “it takes a village to raise a child”). Both conservatives and progressives share a loathing for hierarchy and bureaucracy, although they see them through very different frames.
But as I noted in my earlier article, in fairness to Lakoff, he suggests progressives use precisely these community-based re-framings to further appreciation and support for the ‘nurturing parent’ cause; nurturing parents, I suspect he would argue, instinctively ‘get’ the value of community in supporting the learning, nurturing, responsibility to all, and egalitarianism that are so dear to the progressive movement.
And the term ‘community’ does not (yet at least) mean the same thing, or as much, to many of our planet’s citizens as it does to us, who see its value in social networks, global communications, self-governance, ecological thinking, citizen boards and open source. To most of the world, especially those on the other side of the digital divide, community may more likely mean claustrophobic small towns, violence-obsessed neighbourhoods, dying farm villages, ghettos (of different types), despair and even tyranny (from warlords or tin-pot community dictators).
So I don’t think we’ve yet found the right frame that will bridge the chasm that extremists and isolation have opened up between conservatives and progressives. As much as LappÈ might want us to choose an ‘adult’ metaphor, I suspect that the best bridging metaphor might be another family one: Legacy for Our Children. The fact that 90% of the inhabitants of this planet want an average of 2.8 children each threatens us with extinction. But it also ensures that creating a healthy, happy world for those children is an issue almost everyone, of every political stripe, really believes in and can agree upon. And most importantly, it provides a platform for dialogue that is as close to ‘frame-neutral’ as we could hope to find.
Other Writers About CollapseAlbert Bates (US)
Andrew Nikiforuk (CA)
Carolyn Baker (US)*
Catherine Ingram (US)
Chris Hedges (US)
Chris Martenson (US)
Dahr Jamail (US)
David Petraitis (US)
Dean Spillane-Walker (US)*
Derrick Jensen (US)
Dmitry Orlov (US)
Doing It Ourselves (AU)
Dougald & Paul (UK)*
Gail Tverberg (US)
Guy McPherson (US)
Ilargi & Nicole (CA)*
Jan Wyllie (UK)
Janaia & Robin (US)*
Jem Bendell (US)
Jim Kunstler (US)
John Michael Greer (US)
Jonathan Franzen (US)
Kari McGregor (AU)
Keith Farnish (UK)
NTHE Love (UK)
Paul Chefurka (CA)
Paul Heft (US)*
Post Carbon Inst. (US)
Richard Heinberg (US)
Robert Jensen (US)
Roy Scranton (US)
Sam Mitchell (US)
Sam Rose (US)*
Tim Bennett (US)
Tim Garrett (US)
Umair Haque (US)
William Rees (CA)
Archive by Category
My Bio, Contact Info, Signature PostsAbout the Author (2016)
--- My Best 100 Posts --
Preparing for Civilization's End:
What Would Net-Zero Emissions Look Like?
Why Economic Collapse Will Precede Climate Collapse
Being Adaptable: A Reminder List
A Culture of Fear
What Will It Take?
A Future Without Us
Dean Walker Interview (video)
The Mushroom at the End of the World
What Would It Take To Live Sustainably?
The New Political Map (Poster)
Complexity and Collapse
Save the World Reading List
What a Desolated Earth Looks Like
Giving Up on Environmentalism
The Dark & Gathering Sameness of the World
The End of Philosophy
The Boiling Frog
What to Believe Now?
Conversation & Silence
The Language of Our Eyes
Cultural Acedia: When We Can No Longer Care
Several Short Sentences About Learning
Why I Don't Want to Hear Your Story
A Harvest of Myths
The Qualities of a Great Story
The Trouble With Stories
A Model of Identity & Community
Not Ready to Do What's Needed
A Culture of Dependence
So What's Next
Ten Things to Do When You're Feeling Hopeless
No Use to the World Broken
Living in Another World
Does Language Restrict What We Can Think?
The Value of Conversation Manifesto Nobody Knows Anything
If I Only Had 37 Days
The Only Life We Know
A Long Way Down
No Noble Savages
Figments of Reality
Too Far Ahead
The Rogue Animal
How the World Really Works:
If You Wanted to Sabotage the Elections
Collective Intelligence & Complexity
Ten Things I Wish I'd Learned Earlier
The Problem With Systems
Against Hope (Video)
The Admission of Necessary Ignorance
Several Short Sentences About Jellyfish
A Synopsis of 'Finding the Sweet Spot'
Learning from Indigenous Cultures
The Gift Economy
The Job of the Media
The Wal-Mart Dilemma
The Illusion of the Separate Self:
Did Early Humans Have Selves?
Nothing On Offer Here
Even Simpler and More Hopeless Than That
What Happens in Vagus
We Have No Choice
Never Comfortable in the Skin of Self
Letting Go of the Story of Me
All There Is, Is This
A Theory of No Mind
The Ever-Stranger (Poem)
The Fortune Teller (Short Story)
Non-Duality Dude (Play)
Your Self: An Owner's Manual (Satire)
All the Things I Thought I Knew (Short Story)
On the Shoulders of Giants (Short Story)
Calling the Cage Freedom (Short Story)
Only This (Poem)
The Other Extinction (Short Story)
Disruption (Short Story)
A Thought-Less Experiment (Poem)
Speaking Grosbeak (Short Story)
The Only Way There (Short Story)
The Wild Man (Short Story)
Flywheel (Short Story)
The Opposite of Presence (Satire)
How to Make Love Last (Poem)
The Horses' Bodies (Poem)
Distracted (Short Story)
Worse, Still (Poem)
A Conversation (Short Story)
Farewell to Albion (Poem)
My Other Sites
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.