Politics and Metaphors

I’ve been on a reading binge. A friend of mine, Tom Isbell, gave me a book written by George Lakoff called Whose Freedom?: The Battle over America’s Most Important Idea, written in 2006. It’s a good read for my old brain.

I’m wondering about one of his notions in particular. We use a lot of family metaphors to talk about our country (e.g., Founding Fathers, Daughters of the American Revolution, Homeland Security, Family Values). Dr. Lakoff thinks this is not accidental, but reflects a fundamental view of the country-as-family that in turn points to a way of understanding, metaphorically, how the “right wing” conservatives view the country as opposed to how the “left wing” progressives see it.

One way of providing the context for this, according to Lakoff, is to define:

The nation as family,

Its citizens as children (not pejoratively but in terms of relationship in the family), and

Its national leaders as parents (again, not pejoratively but in terms of relationship in the family).

In U.S. culture, according to Lakoff, there are two polar opposites in terms of defining parenting:

The strict father model as exemplified more generally by conservatives, and

The nurturing parent model, exemplified more generally by progressives.

Lakoff believes that neither is better, and effective parenting (and nation governing) may include both approaches, each used for different situations.

But he thinks that, if I sit down in my easy chair on a Sunday evening and think about which of these approaches to parenting (strict father/nurturing parent) I might prefer in general as a model, I would probably choose one over the other as my ideal approach.

Similarly, if I were to sit in that same chair and think about which of these approaches I would prefer as a governing principle and ideal approach in this homeland I call the U.S. of A., I would probably choose one over the other—strict father or nurturing parent—which would put me, theoretically, more into either the conservative or progressive political camp.

I’m wondering if this metaphor works as Lakoff thinks it does as a means of explaining the current “right wing” conservative and “left wing” progressive approaches to politics.

If the metaphor did work, wouldn’t the alternative views (recognizing they don’t exist purely in the world) be that either:

1.     The nation demands strict adherence to a set of codified rules for its citizens, enforced by strong father figure leaders, or

2.     The nation provides guidelines for rules of behaviors of its citizens, loosely enforced by nurturing leaders

I wonder which of these choices reflects conservative thinking and which reflects progressives.

Makes me swimmy headed. Maybe my example was not put together well.

I know! How about Transactional Analysis, with its Parent/Adult/Child metaphors. Remember that? Maybe, using the same language as Lakoff, I could explain politics with TA like this:

We progressives communicate, always, as responsible adults; conservatives communicate, inappropriately, as children; and our leaders are those always-critical parents who need to be kept in line by responsible adult progressives.

That metaphor is more fun, and certainly ought to start some fights with my conservative friends (says my child).

Lakoff’s book is good and I recommend it. But not for light summer reading.

Thank you Tom.