In many capacities, Lakoff seems to believe in his own progressive morality as a foundational and unquestionably good system. He seems unquestioningly to accept the vision of “community—of America as a caring and responsible family” (p. 90). He even paints language as a distorting mechanism in the hands of the political right. For instance, in chapter 2, he argues that the frames adopted by the news media distorted people’s understanding of all the nefarious things done by politicians on the political right to sabotage Grey Davis’s administration. He also advocates a crusader’s zeal in pursuing the progressive good. Rhetoric becomes a weapon in this battle. For instance, he sez, “[i]f the administration’s discourse offends us, we have a moral obligation to change that public discourse” (p. 66). Though Lakoff continually reminds us that language shapes our perceptions, he also tells us to use language as a tool to further a moral agenda fixated before progressives develop rhetorical strategies to advocate that agenda. If Lakoff does indeed position the progressive morality prior to any rhetorical artifice, and if he advocates our use of language to promote that agenda, then public argument becomes, for Lakoff, a way of spreading the good, just as Socrates imagined rhetoric as a way to disseminate a truth determined dialectically. Can we argue that Lakoff is really a foundationalist no different from Socrates? Using specific references to the _Phaedrus_, argue that Lakoff is or is not such a foundationalist.
Submitted by longaker on Tue, 04/18/2006 - 9:58am
Login or register to post comments
Longaker RHE 330D
truth
I guess you could on some level consider Lakoff a foundationalist. He is seeking the "truth" through dialectical means. It seems to me that Lakoff thinks he already has the truth in is possesion though, and that at this point its just really his duty to spread the word. Although I felt like Socrates did this sometimes (the whole messing with people because you can thing), but he at least advocated the pursuit of truth, and then provided a means to get there, elenchus.
It feels more like Lakoff is just trying to rally the troops with the right pep talk, --and then maybe if you learn the art of the pep talk from me, you can rally some troops too.
For Socrates it seemed that the pursuit was purer at times- let us find the truth together through good dialogue (even though he never really deomonstrated). With Lakoff, i feel like he was more or less just manipulating people with words- let me tell you how it is in a "frame" that is pleasing to you.
sorry for babbling, I'm runnin on no sleep.
amy_lee
foundationalist acting in bad faith
To me, Lakoff clearly has an agenda that takes precedent over the language. But what I have a hard time with is the fact that Lakoff believes that the effect of language will win out over good policy, a.k.a. Truth. And also, the fact that he paints the conservatives as evil for their use of language is confusing if he advocates its use against them. Kindof like jmaddox was saying. I think it sounds kind of dishonest, and therefore unlike Socrates, who believed in capital T Truth, but who also felt that it would somehow rise to the top despite the tactics.
I still think he's a jerk
That said.... he definately has an absolute agenda. he uses the rhetoric or framing to manipulate his audience into thinking that an undiciplined life where we all just 'get along' really is best. Socrates at least stuck with a reasonable truth -- he believed that the orator must lead a disaplined life too.
i still think he's an idiot. (and i think i'll stick to the funny papers for my comedic reading)
I think that if Lakoff is
I think that if Lakoff is acting in bad faith then it is only as much as Socrates does. When Dr. Longaker was explaining Lakoff's idea that a word can have several meanings and its impact on framing it immediately reminded me of my first paper. I tried to take an issue and use Socrates methods to come up with different conclusions. I was able to because the words I defined had several layers of definition. Lakoff does this with responsibility several times in the last part of the book.
It's like Lakoff has taken Socrates, admitted the weakness of the methods, but kept the significant parts to produce an end that delivers Truth. I think he believes the principles behind the definition, so I think he's acting in good faith, albeit manipulative.
I guess I would have to
I guess I would have to consider Lakoff a foundationalist because he does believe that there is a truth out there. However, I agree with some of the other posts that i would not neccessarily put him in the same boat as Socrates. I also don't have the book anymore but I would consider Lakoff to be a Panderer, which Socrates would not have agreed with at all. Can you be a panderer and still be a foundationalist? I'm not sure. The way that Lakoff thinks you should use rhetoric to spread the good seems like he is twisting the truth sometimes to get his point across, which also is not in line with Socrates.
I would consider Lakoff a
I would consider Lakoff a foundationalist, but I would not put him in the same camp as Socrates in regards to rhetorical approaches. He does advocate a capital T truth and does believe that the agenda conservatives are pushing is definitely not that truth. However, I would not put him directly in line with Socrates because Socrates does not believe that others should agree with what you say because of tricky rhetoric. Lakoff puts value in tricks of language to advocate one’s beliefs, which makes him a foundationalist who is willing to promote said truth through deception.
I had an issue with the fact that he criticizes the Bush administration for using clever language to make people think a certain way but then turns around and encourages those in his camp to do the same thing. It seems a bit weak to me. However, it does provide further proof for his foundationalist beliefs to criticize those who he deems to be ‘wrong’ for using certain techniques but then encouraging those who he believes to be ‘right’ to turn around and use the very same techniques.
But Lakoff thinks he's just
But Lakoff thinks he's just making a good person out of conservatives by reforming their frames.
Good point about the hypocrisy, though. I definitely see that. I think ultimately it makes progressives who use frames less virtuous. This does challenge the idea of Lakoff as a foundationalist.
It's that "Where's My Elephant?" song. Reminds me of elephants.
Excuse me for not drawing from the assigned part of the reading, but I think we get the best reading of Lakoff's views of pandering on page 100, in the FAQ:
"Framing is normal...However, framing can also be used manipulatively...Spin is the manipulative use of a frame...Propaganda is another manipulative use of framing...The reframing I am suggesting is neither." So there you have it. I'm ready to retract my having labelled Lakoff a panderer: he honestly believes in what he's saying, and he operates on the assumption that liberal/progressives honestly believe in liberal/progressive ideals. These last chapters also solidify the notion that he doesn't see the parties as equal entities, one of which having a better strategy. He is thoroughly convinced that the conservatives are evil, which comes through very plainly when he talks about the strict-father model being used to justify war atrocities, poverty, pollution, and basically all things reprehensible.
He makes an appeal to ethics when discussing framing at the end: "I strongly recommend against deceptive framing. I think it is not just morally reprehensible, but also impractical, because deceptive framing usually backfires sooner or later" (101). There's also that appeal to utility, for the John Stuart Mills in the bunch.
To believe Lakoff (now having granted that he truly believes all this), we have to grant him what he tells us from the get-go: EVERYBODY FRAMES (that's an REM song). It's a natural process that one party manipulates and another party is completely oblivious to. That's pretty much why I was loath to call him an antifoundationalist in my discussion leader post last time--I don't think Lakoff is a moral relativist. I just thought he was a panderer. But now, seeing as he honestly believes in a specific ideology, seeing as he has a conception of 'Truth,' his confronting the "Truth will set you free" doctrine doesn't seem to be an affront to foundationalism or a license to pander; it's an observation of human cognition. We need to be able to communicate in a way our audience will understand.
So if Lakoff is pandering, so is every rhetoric and writing professor at UT. I'm looking at you, Mark.
Lakoff: foundationalist
When I first started reading the book, I wasn’t sure if I could call Lakoff a foundationalist or an anti-foundationalist. Now I do consider him a foundationalist, because he does believe that there is some truth (left/progressive/democratic platform). I would say that yes, Lakoff is like Socrates in some ways. I had checked out Phaedrus, so I will prove how Lakoff is a foundationalist through the definitions of foundationalism, anti-founationalism, and Gorgias.
First off, Lakoff is involved in the progressive movement, and clearly believes that what he advocates is the capital T-Truth. Furthermore, just like Socrates, he believes that what should be used in order to convince others is truth, and it should not be some trick of rhetoric. In Gorgias, Socrates criticizes Gorgias in their debate as he says that any good rhetor can beat anyone in any debate; a good rhetor can even convince an audience that his approach to medicine is better than that of a doctors. Lakoff has similar beliefs, as he criticizes the Bush administration for their use of metaphors to “frame the event” of war. Lakoff criticizes Powell because he “had always argued that no troops should be committed without specific objectives, a clear and achievable definition of victory, and a clear exit strategy,” yet “[Powell] has pointed out that none of these is present in this war.” (56) To convince America that the war is needed, they speak of the terrorists “as if they are rodents…snakes or lowly swamp creatures.” (57) This approach is one that neither Lakoff nor Socrates would approve of.
These two are very similar in their beliefs. Lakoff’s use of language to promote his “Truth” agenda is very similar to that of Socrates. Lakoff, on one hand, believes in Truth and using Truth as the main way to get your point and views across. He, however, believes that there is an importance in language, and that we should use it as a tool to further advocate our agenda. As much as he criticizes the Bush administration for their use of metaphors to convince Americans that we are just in this war, he sees why these metaphors are used and acknowledges their success. Lakoff keeps emphasizing the importance of the facts and not just the “frames” though, and this helps add to my statement that he is a foundationalist and is very, very similar to Socrates.
Socrates uses this same approach as he constantly uses metaphors in Gorgias when making his arguments. These metaphors and arguments are of course, backed up with his beliefs of truth, and he uses them quite successfully. Socrates makes comparisons that at first seem absurd, but when they are applied and the metaphors are explained, they make a lot of sense.
Lakoff is very Similar to Socrates in regards to the way he gets his point across. He is a foundationalist, who believes in advocating capital T- truth with truth, along with the proper use of language to appeal to your audience and make them understand.
bow wow wow
Lakoff primarily seems interested in how language has been used against progressives--how it has been manipulated to further the conservative agenda without any concern for accountability, honesty, or consistency. (This isn't what I think, mind you. I'm just summarizing what I gathered.) Since the conservative machine has placed language ahead of morality and the effectiveness of the message seems more important than the actions behind it, Lakoff says progessives should use their own weapons against them and learn to use language and "frame the debate" so that the progressive message is as popular as the conservative one. On p. 73, he says that "people think in terms of frames and metaphors--conceptual structures." So, he argues, "when the facts don't fit the frames, the frames are kept and the facts are ignored." To a certain degree, he is emphasizing the importance of the facts themselves, not only their frames. The progressive moral agenda is more important than the vehicle used to communicate it, but the agenda won't get far without the vehicle. The way this book reads, it seems like the vehicle is the more important element in that relationship. Lakoff puts the emphasis on the packaging, not the item being packaged. But I'll assume that the moral agenda is more important than the rhetorical artifice in Lakoff's view.
If the “framing” of the debate is just the way Lakoff thinks we should pursue the truth, is Lakoff a foundationalist a la Socrates? On p. 55 of Phaedrus, Socrates says that “there is no genuine art of speaking without a grasp of truth, and there never will be.” It seems to me that since the truth is a necessary prerequisite for the “genuine art of speaking,” the truth is more important than the way a message is delivered. If Lakoff believes that one must have a grasp of progressive morality—a pursuit of truth according to liberal mores—before he can use language to frame the message, then his behavior is consistent with the foundationalist behavior of Socrates.
But on on p. 71, Socrates says: “[W]e need to determine the nature of something—of the body in medicine, of the soul in rhetoric. Otherwise, all we’ll have will be an empirical and artless practice.” He seems to emphasize the importance of the rhetorical artifice in this passage. Phaedrus thinks persuasion is more important than truth: “It is not necessary for the intending orator to learn what is really just, but only what will seem just to the crowd who will act as judges” (53). Couldn’t we interpret Lakoff’s argument as being in line with that passage? Isn’t Lakoff’s ultimate goal to win elections? This is a “guide,” after all (according to the cover), not a manifesto of progressive philosophy. There is a clear objective in mind, and Lakoff is—at least in part—shooting for efficacy. He wants results. He wants to shove progressive ideology into effective language. He wants people to master the tricks so they can achieve an end result. He wants to please “the crowd who will act as judges.” Did I just go off on a tangent? I hope not. But my point is this: I think Lakoff and Socrates inhabit two completely different spheres. Lakoff’s approach is more Phaedrus-esque to me. As much as he “paints language as a distorting mechanism in the hands of the political right,” he wants to hijack that mechanism and use it to further the progressive agenda.
I know I defended Lakoff in class, but I had reason for doing so. I don’t think what Lakoff champions in this book is necessarily good. I don’t think the public discourse that would result in a perfect Lakoff world would be good for us. I do, however, think he has a realistic view of the political machine and how it works; it needs to be greased with a little bullshit every so often. That’s just how it is. And to be efficient—to win elections, that is—you’ve gotta play the game. Maybe I'm being a little cynical, but hey. I'm an English major and I'm about to graduate. Can you blame me?
I started to get suspicious
I started to get suspicious that perhaps Lakoff was just a foundationalist acting in bad faith because of his reliance on the concept of "facts." Facts sound to me like irrefutable truth, and a good anti-foundationalist should frown on an overconfidence in facts. All facts come shrouded in variable interpretations.
Now I am not so sure that he is acting in bad faith. It seems to me that he takes great care to make sure that there is substance to the frames used. Eventually they will lead everyone to believe in progressive values, or he hopes this will play out. I just think that it not very virtuous because it is manipulative, but I felt Socrates was manipulative as well. He thought he was doing the right thing.
Practically I do think that this is perhaps easier than screaming about improving the education system so that it can teach more critical thinking and analysis. It's also easier than trying to reform the media so that it will stop reporting superficially. It's definitely easier than trying to get people to read books or inform themselves about history, science, and the like, or than getting people to actually talk about things other than America Idol in coffee shops or internet message boards.
I think it would be more fun if everyone was eager to talk about stuff and to consider different perspectives and find common ground. Frames are okay, but it never allows people to truly question or affirm their assumptions. It doesn't turn the sheep to goats. I don't exactly know what this last sentence means, but I couldn't come up with a proper object for sheeps to turn into right away. I am lacking in the metaphor way.
fire with fire
I think the Lakoff is a foundationalists who honestly believes in the purpose and mission of the progressive movement. When I look at how the Bush administration has been able to totally discredit the media and turn people's distrust towards an outlet that merely reports the news, I understand why Lakoff believes that this type of communication must be used if progressives ever desire to take back the conversation to get things done. I intake media everyday and it's amazing to watch the press secretary for the president or just conservative commentators or even some strongly right leaning writers who don't budge one bit on any issue that deviates from the conservative cause. As if the real issues don't matter. Both parties are caught in this political vye for who will have the power and have forgotten about the people.
I agree with Christien's utopian idea that it would be nice if we could have our different perspectives but be rational and fair enough to meet on a common ground and listen to one another. However that is not what is happening.
Lakoff has his truth and believes it; as I am sure Frank Luniz has his and believes it. This is why both are working to help their political parties best communicate their truth in order to get people to side with them. The question then is who best lines their frames with truth and honest portrayals of what they intend to do and why they have these intentions.
Beyond my own agreements and disagreements with Lakoff, I believe that he is being forthright with his views and why he holds these truths - for that reason I think he is an honest foundationalist looking for a way to help people see this truth and follow it.
I agree to an extent. I
I agree to an extent. I really think Lakoff just saw an empty spot in Washington, put on a mask and some credentials and boom we have a talking head. But I DO believe he IS acting in bad faith. And I would not go so far to label him a foundationalist. Well, I don't know actually. He makes such well-thought claims and arguments. They ARE easy to understand; I think he purposed this. I think I am having trouble because of my antifoundational ideology. He relies on his truth, and he makes good arguments to support his truth. But is his truth really truth. How did he arrive there. Is he so naive that he believes his own words? And believes he must inform/dictate the states on his views? need a discussion.