Skip to main content

I heart George Lakoff



With Elyzabethe over at YellowIsTheColor writing all about The Political Brain so much lately, I thought it might be a good time to blog about the Rockridge Institute, which I've recently re-discovered. Anyone who talks to me for more than two minutes about communications or policy knows my affection for George Lakoff. Rockridge is a think thank founded on his work on cognitive linguistics and progressive policy. It's goal is the same as Drew Westen's: reframe the public debate.

The Rockridge Fellows put out some great essays on all sorts of topics, but what really got me drooling was their interactive Rockridge Nation. Framing examples galore! What I especially liked, because it's an issue near and dear to my heart, is the ongoing dicussion about the fallacy of a left/right linear political spectrum, and why moving towards the "center" isn't a good political strategy:

In reality, there are basic progressive and conservative worldviews, and many people have both but apply them to different issue areas. The people "in the middle" actually have many different combinations of progressive and conservative thought. There is no ideology of the middle, no unified worldview that everyone in the "center" agrees on, and no linear ordering of the issues. Something much more interesting is going on.


Another post that might be of interest to those of you throwing around sterotypes about right wing nutjobs and leftist radicals is this one, Too Far Left to be Progressive?"

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

This post was a whole long longer and more emotional an hour ago...

First off: It's sad that I get better wireless reception in my backyard than in my apartment, right? Sigh. I normally try to stay out of the quagmire that is the abortion debate, but as usually, elyzabethe wrote something insightful about feminist issues that I had to comment on. Actually, I had to comment on the framing war that was going on in the comments section between elyzabethe and another friend. Then I ended up emailing back and forth with her for awhile. Then someone at work mentioned how the "choice" frame is starting to lose ground, even though advocates don't want to admit it. I started scribbling notes, sighed, and thought, "well, I'm gonna have to blog about this." Elyzabeth rants often against anti-choice organizations and legislation, as is her wont as a libertarian feminist. She’s particularly good at teasing out how anti-choice (A, if you’re reading this, bear with me, I’m referring to ‘anti-choice’ as more than just the abortion issu...

Obligatory OWS Post

I'll try and expand on this later, but a few links looking at the protest from marketing and demographic standpoints: OWS Demographics  or, "Duh, it's not just unemployed college dropouts" Protest, Music and #OWS Opportunism  or, "Hey, this thing ain't going away. Can we market it?" OWS Billboard?  or, "Really, you think Clear Channel will put this up?" and the Frameworks Institute analyzes the "We are the 99%" meme.
First off, this isn't a post about abortion. It's about how the personhood movement is dangerous even if you take abortion out of the debate. According to my friend Liz, More than 55% of voters in Mississippi yesterday   rejected the state’s  ‘personhood’ initiative —a development that certainly bodes well for reproductive rights in this country, and gives me a little more hope about our collective sanity, as well. What interested me about this issue (aside from the fact that I possess a uterus), was the way some of the groups fighting the Mississippi amendment were approaching the issue. The group  Parents against MS 26  pointed out that the personhood movement , "has far-reaching effects on infertility treatment, contraception, and women's physical health." Jessica Valenti cites several examples in her column in the Washington Post , including this one: In 1996, when Laura Pemberton in Florida refused a recommended C-section because she did not want su...