-
5 out of 5
by
Natalie
from
The United States | Jan 28, 2008
Have you ever pondered why people driving old hoopdee mobiles plaster George W stickers on their bumpers? Or...Why do people struggling to pay their rent vote for Republican candidates?
Personally, I've always wondered how any teacher in a public school could ever support any conservative nut. It undermines everything we work for!
How? Why? We'll as an educator, I should have known, because I studied the way people learn in college. The basic research reveals that people learn from stories. Give a list of words tied to a story and any child or adult will remember it. If a seven-word sound bite proves catchy enough, a person will be hooked. People learn, remember, and base their personal, political, and moral decisions on frames.
This book points out that when Democrats talk, they talk. Look at my long commentary here:) They express relevant points, but consume so much time getting to them, that the average person flips to American Idol. Democrats believe the facts will set them free. However, as Ted Kennedy said, "Facts are stubborn things."
Republicans know better. They possess a knack for words. In two to five words, their half can conjure up an image, and evoke an emotion. Repeat these few words enough, and a falsehood becomes a truth regardless of it's original origin. The book asks, What do you think of when you hear the words "tax relief" "Blue Skies Initiative" "Children and families" "Liberal Media" "Family Values" "Gay Marriage" "No Child Left Behind" "Spotted Owl" "UnAmerican" "For us or Against Us" "Accountability"
Republicans own the language, the media, and currently our country until the Democrats learn how to frame their positions. Their money proved well spent studying and discussing in think tanks. Republicans present a cohesive ideology that makes many feel immoral for rallying against. People feel compelled to vote against their own self-interests and Democrats support the cause and reinforce THEIR frames by adopting their language.
Every Democrat should read this book and do something fast, before the strict father kills the nurturing parent off for good!
2 people found this review helpful
-
2 out of 5
by
Lboylan
from
The United States | Mar 1, 2008
I had heard the book discussed a fair amount prior to reading it and do not feel that actually reading it added much to my understanding. This must have been a collection of essay because some ideas are just repeated over and over. The concept is actually not very hard to grasp, so even this very short book seemed too long! Frankly, practical tips rather than just the concept would have made it more useful. I found the model of the "strict father" versus "nurturant parent" a bit insipid. The PC gender neutralization of the "nurturing" role was precious, self-congratulatory, and no more warranted than would be gender neutralization of the "father role".
1 people found this review helpful
-
3 out of 5
by
Dj
from
The United States | Nov 26, 2008
I just finished reading George Lakoff’s don’t think of an elephant: know your values and frame the debate. Published in 2004, it appears to be a collection of essays and thoughts he has pulled together over the years. Frankly, it could have been reduced to about a 30-40 page primer that might get a wider audience. However, at 119 pages, it’s a quick read.
The book is about frames, i.e. how we understand the world, how we know what we know. Frames control how we deal with new facts that are presented to us. If a fact agrees with the frame, it’s accepted. If a fact disagrees with the frame, in more cases than not, the fact will be discarded, regardless of whether it is true or not. According to Lakoff, frames rule our world.
His book is for progressives and goes a long way to de-vilefying conservatives and “red-state voters”. He notes that progressives can’t call people who voted for Bush as stupid or moronic. The frames they have developed, and that have been reinforced by 40 years of conservative communications, simply won’t allow these facts to overwhelm their worldview. Lakoff urges progressives to think in terms of ideas, frames, and moral values. Everyone has these and it’s a matter of framing progressive values and repeating them often to get our message across. It can’t be done overnight, and as he repeats often, “the truth will not set you free”. Facts by themselves are not sufficient. One of his best examples is the frame of “tax relief”. It just sounds good, doesn’t it? Relief. Relief is a good thing. Relief from what? Taxes. If it’s relief, then taxes must be bad. If progressives talk about tax relief and say that it isn’t any good or helps the wrong people, they’re still using the tax relief frame and are simply reinforcing the idea of relief. We need to talk about it differently. We need to talk about how government built the interstate system, how it created the internet, how cures and vaccines have been developed by the national health institutes. Paraphrasing Lakoff, your tax refund can’t pay to build a highway to drive to work.
One thing I’d like to mention is his differentiation of framing from spinning. He sees spin as manipulative use of a frame. However, I would argue that it’s spin, regardless of whether it’s for good or for manipulation. Speaking in frames is an attempt to manipulate, or change, an individual’s world view and how they process facts. We frame it one way in order to counter another frame. He says framing is good if we articulate frames we believe in and that we see as morally good. But, isn’t that what conservatives, and all groups, do? They believe in what they’re saying and use a frame that articulates that belief system. Propaganda, as Lakoff rightly points out, is something entirely different and bad. He defines it well by calling it the use of a frame that is known to be wrong and selling that frame for political or economic benefit of the purveyor.
To end on a high note, his last chapter on how to respond to conservatives is a must read. That chapter along with the introduction of frames and a few examples make this book worth a look, but it really should have been edited down to a few dozen pages.
-
4 out of 5
by
Adam
from
The United States | Nov 24, 2008
"Don't Think of an Elephant" offers political progressives and aspiring politicians a helpful guideline in shaping language for the benefit of their intended argument.
Lakoff argues, and demonstrates with numerous examples that conservatives have been very sucessful in shaping the course of public discourse, which, in turn plays out to their candidates favor come election time. Exploring the idea of political soundbites as issues of mental framing, Lakoff suggests that reshaping the public's framing of issues can in fact bring about much desired, and possibly needed, social change.
In the first half of this roadmap to reframing, Lakoff delineates a number of political agendas that conservatives have managed to control through the use of calculated framing. . .for example the idea of 'tax relief' or the intentional avoidance of 'gay marriage,' which, to conservatives is oxymoronic and thus not worth mentioning.
After presenting the linguistic forces that progressives are up against, the second half of the book provides some basic guidelines for helping to not only render current frames meaningless but proactively introduce those that support more idealized politics.
Perhaps the most pertinent example is in Lakoff's discussion of the the "Ten-word philosophies."
In response to conservative cries for "Strong Defense, Free Markets, Lower Taxes, Smaller Goverment [and] Famiy Values," Lakoff recommends adopting, and promoting a philosophy that expresses progressive ideas through more constructive framing, rather than simply arguing soundbites that automatically conjour up conservative idea.
I believe George Lakoff has a lot to offer those that wish to change what they do not like about the way that our country is run. . .and if you believe in a "Stronger America, Broad Prosperity, Better Future, Effective Government, [and] Mutual Responsibility," then you'll probably enjoy this book too!
-
4 out of 5
by
Todd
from
Phoenix, AZ | May 7, 2010
In “Don’t Think of an Elephant” cognitive scientist and linguist George Lakoff urges progressives to frame debates about political issues in terms of their priorities and values. The right wing has been very successful at this technique and has been able to use language to reshape the way the public thinks of issues. Examples include:
inheritance tax = death tax
tax cuts for the wealthy = tax relief
dilation and extraction = partial birth abortion (a term coined by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in 1995)
public healthcare option = government takeover, death panels, and rationing
clear cutting = healthy forests
.... and on and on.
In addition to providing a cognitive shortcut (an important feature in an era of soundbites) framing has the ability to link specific issues to broader social values and place them in context of our own lives.
At its best, this use of language helps the public better relate to an issue by putting into a broader context of personal values. At its worst, it degenerates into an Orwellian misuse of language which is intended to deceive and provide cover for policies the public does not support.
Lakoff also does a good job explaining how political ideologies can be explained through the iconic image of the strict father or nurturing parent. There is no doubt that right wing ideology reflects the authoritarian mindset and the icon of a strict father does a pretty good job as an analogy for authoritarianism. I think Lakoff takes this analogy a bit far though when he tries to use it to explain the quasi-religious devotion conservatives have to free market economic policies. The poor fit does, however, reflect the odd alliance between right wing moneyed business interests and the evangelicals who support conservative policies despite the fact that they are against their own best interests.
Though a bit late to the game, progressives appear to be catching on to these framing techniques and are using them to successfully compete against the right wing echo chamber. The downside is that, because it’s so successful, we’ll hear less in the way of nuanced discussions of issues and more in the way of simpleminded frames as the sides continue to compete for attention.