The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist's Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics [Formato Kindle]

George Lakoff, cognitive scientist and political commentator, returns in The Political Mind to themes already made familiar in earlier books such as Moral Politics (2002), Don't Think of an Elephant (2004) and Whose Freedom? (2007). He argues that political discourse arises from a process of conceptual and metaphorical framing which ultimately is grounded in the way the brain works, and that an understanding of this process is essential for successful political campaigns.

I don't know that there's really anything in The Political Mind that Lakoff hasn't already said in one form or another elsewhere (the primary reason for the three-star rating). But he does stress here what he sees as the errors of the theory of mind he argues was formed by the Enlightenment and which political progressives still assume today. Lakoff characterizes that theory as stressing the transparency of mind, drawing a sharp division between reason and emotion, and assuming that reason is a universal human capacity that accurately describes the world. But nothing in this model, asserts Lakoff, is correct. Much of what we call the mind is unconscious; what we think, because of our tendency to operate through largely unconscious metaphorical frames, is largely constitutive rather than straightforwardly conceptual; and reason is rarely dispassionately reflective.

So what's the connection between all this and politics? Simply, claims Lakoff, that progressive politicians still buy into the Enlightenment model of mind, and operate accordingly in trying to influence voters and win elections. "Rational" arguments in the Enlightenment mode are ineffective because they rest on a false understanding of how the mind works--the assumption that our decisions are made consciously, abstractly, and dispassionately. What grabs attention is the effective use of metaphors and stories that tap into unconscious frame networks. Progressives need to reframe the conversation to get across their values more effectively--and it just so happens that those values (for example, empathy rather than the Enlightenment ideal of self-interest) are hardwired in the brain.

Lakoff's book is interesting, and certainly deserves its day in court. But ultimately I find his argument here (as in his previous books) problematic. First, his characterization of the Enlightenment understanding of mind runs the risk of being a caricature. Enlightenment philosophers weren't monolithic in their thinking. Anyone who's read Rousseau or Hume appreciates that the Enlightenment understanding of reason is much more complex than the way in which Lakoff describes it. Ditto with self interest, which Lakoff claims is the key to Enlightenment values. Adam Smith and other Enlightenment ethicists stressed the fundamental moral importance of "sympathy" (closely akin to what Lakoff calls "empathy") just as much as self-interest. Second, it's not clear to me why Lakoff thinks that brain science clinches his political advice. Can't similar conclusions be arrived at through psychological analysis? How does neurological reductionism make his arguments any stronger? Third, and more importantly, one sometimes gets the impression that Lakoff is innocent of the last 150 years of philosophy. That humans think in frames, that reason is constitutive rather than merely descriptive, that mind isn't transparently conscious, and that there isn't a hard-and-fast divide between cognition and emotions, has been defended by (for example) Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and most postmodern thinkers. Does anyone, except the few hardcore positivists left around, think otherwise today? How is it, then, that the cognitive sciences have suddenly made this discovery? Finally, it's not entirely clear to me what Lakoff thinks the advantage of adopting a 21st century theory of mind when it comes to politics is other than its effectiveness in influencing people and winning elections. Ought progressives to do so because it will make them better manipulators of public opinion? Or ought progressives to do so because it's more promotive of truth? And is it really the case that the brain is hardwired for all the values that Lakoff associates with progressivism? Which, of course, invites the question of what the status of truth itself is in a model of mind which reduces ideas to brain processes and reason to enframing.

We think in metaphors, and words describe metaphors. A metaphor is a description like "He's cold as ice." He's not cold, he's unfriendly, but we know what it means. Metaphors form neural pathways, or connections, between neurons. The more we activate the pathways, the stronger they become, and the more we accept them as true. Metaphors, words, thoughts, and language therefore have a neurological basis that result from physical transformation of brains (actual physiological change to brain cells similar to increased muscle mass that results from weight lifting).

Republicans have intuitively known this and have used language to create metaphors and neural pathways that have become dogmatic in America--example: tax relief, page 234. Relief is not normally connected to taxes (road building, social security, and armed forces result from taxes, not relief). However, tax relief has become a metaphor in the US that is identified as generally good, and puts anyone who criticizes the concept on the defensive.

The conservative Republican model society is based on Old Testament concepts: right and wrong are absolute. It is based on a strict father model (page 78) that relies on discipline. The father tells the children how to behave and punishes them if they do not heed the father. Children learn discipline so they will do the right thing without question (think of Marines who obey commands in the heat of war as described in the book Flags of Our Fathers, James Bradley and Ron Powers, 2001). Obeying authority without questioning it is paramount. That's why Republicans supported President Bush's pardon of Scooter Libby for lying to Congress - Libby was merely obeying orders. Once discipline is learned, there is no need for government since disciplined individuals don't need any outside help. Discipline leads to self-reliance, and government aid like social security is not only unnecessary, it leads to weakness because it causes citizens to lose their self reliance. Authority is absolute, and so is the requirement to obey it. That is why conservatives are so threatened when their position is criticized--it is tantamount to questioning authority, and absolute authority is fundamental to their view of the world.

Liberals, or progressives as George Lakoff prefers to call them, start from a nurturing concept. Children do not need discipline, they need nurturance. Government stands for the proposition that it permits people to flourish. Roads permit commerce, medicine protects our health, police and firemen protect us from catastrophe, the FDA protects us from corporations whose zeal for profit would lead them to sell drugs with harmful side effects, and the SEC protects us from unscrupulous traders that would manipulate markets for private gain.

People think by emotion, and progressives try to reason according to rational, Old Enlightenment, factual-based logic. Progressives need to appeal to people's emotions more. Emotions, like metaphors, are established neural pathways in mature brains, and progressives need to adopt frames that tap into voters' nurturing neural pathways.

Progressives should not permit conservatives to force them into responding (and therefore adopting) conservative frames (see page 153 regarding Obama's response to Wolf Blitzer's question on mandatory English in the US). The technique is to 1) describe the frame that the questioner has just used; 2) describe what's wrong with the frame; and 3) come up with an alternate frame.

People have natural tendencies that can be politically manipulated. See "Why Hawks Win," page 223, for an example of why it is easier to convince citizens to go to war than it is to object going to war. Again, the solution is to reframe the debate; to point out the errors in going to war. Would we have invaded Iraq if it was a prelude to endless war, rather than a war on terrorists that would soon be "Mission Accomplished?"

The book's strengths are 1) describing conservative and progressive thought processes, and 2) describing neurological and psychological research that support the biological bases for thought and linguistics.

The book's shortcomings are 1) failing to provide concrete examples of conservative frames and how to specifically counter them, and 2) failing to theorize how people become conservative or progressive over time, and whether they can be manipulated to become conservative or progressive as they mature.

While building on his previous books, Lakoff also gets into a new area: the use of narratives in poltics.The DWIs and purorted drug use of President Bush ,standing alone, never mattered because people saw him through the narrative of Redemption, the overcoming of adversity and the possibility of salvation. The opening section on Anna Nicole Smith and the narratives used to view her contain some of the book's best writing. it also helps explain the power of Senator Clinton---women who have it rough(sex discrimination, faithless husband etc) don't just identify with her, they are her and she is them as she struggled for the nomination. He hammers away ,as before on frames and the building of them. As a trial attorney I see this all the time---if the other side responds to my framing, I will usually win because in telling their "story" they just end up repeating mine. Instead, to be persuasive you must create a different story. The Dems are still having a hard time grasping this fundamental truth.Some good stuff on how we are wired for empathy. He coins a new word "privateering" for what happens when a government function is abandoned by government and handed over to corporations; ie a wealth transfer, think no bid contracts a la Iraq and Katrina.The book is like chocolate cake---almost too rich, and it loses focus as it goes along. Still , it deserves a 5 star rating because it is a book of ideas, which is always welcome, no matter party affliation.