Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This is Lakoff's latest and most fascinating elaboration of mind/metaphor theory since its appearance in "Women, Fire and Dangerous Things" (1987). It is arguably the most important, too, as his discussion makes sense of the reasons behind stark differences we may notice in disparate attitudes about pressing things that matter to us here and now - public policies, policy makers, and the institutions of power that touch our lives.

Drawing on the latest brain science and a very nice range of examples to support his case, Lakoff develops logically persuasive and easily understood models for the cognitive cause-and-effect relationships that emerge as political differences. So straightforward are these approaches to discerning and understanding political differences voiced in public discourse that they prove again the case he has been building for what's really going on beneath the surface.

Students/readers of linguistics, communication theory, sociology, political science, cultural studies, philosophy/epistemology would find this book illuminating and invaluable.

Lackoff is perhaps the foremost linguist and cognitive scientist working in the realm of political speech and this iteration of "The Political Mind" follows on the heels of his 2008 book "The Political Mind: You Can't Understand 21st Century American Politics with an 18th Century Brain" as well as "Framing the Debate" (2007), "Thinking Points" (2006) and "Don't Think of an Elephant" (2004), all of which focus on how politicians employ language to frame their arguments. For a layperson the idea of reading a book on linguistics and cognitive science sounds daunting, but Lakoff is a master at making the material easy to understand while not dumbing things down. The main idea Lakoff puts forward is that reason is mostly unconscious and challenges the conventional wisdom of many political scientists, political theorists, policy makers and other scholars regarding how to frame issues for the electorate. The key problem for those parties, to Lakoff's theory, is that they fail to grasp the biological explanations that drive the electorate's thought processes. Lakoff frequently points to the successes Republicans have had in framing issues through narratives when presenting ideas to the electorate rather than presenting raw facts, statistics and data which largely leave voters to frame the issue in their own minds. The net result is voters understand the narratives presented by Republicans to frame the argument. Failure to frame the information presented results in widely varying degrees of comprehension and mixed messages or in some cases the "paralysis of analysis." This is perhaps the argument that is of most value to political scientists, theorists, and policy makers but potentially the hardest for some to embrace as it runs counter to long-held beliefs.

"The Political Mind" is indeed a thought provoking book and it abounds with ideas and concepts relating to political theory. Lakoff's arguments are relatively simple, straightforward, and easy to grasp, but written in a prose that will certainly appeal to the reader and their intellect. The decidedly retro cover may be a bit offputting with its 1970s graphic, but don't let that fool you; "The Political Mind" is a must read for anyone in the political world!

For the better part of forty years less than a quarter of the electorate dominated American politics.

The second Amendment was honored and sanctified. Our American wildnerness was cut down as fast as could be. The military machine was fed along with corporate America while sub poverty line mothers and children were starved. The execution of criminals proceeded apace and abortion rights were frozen all to the chagrin of most electors who if categorically given the choice would have chosen otherwise.

How? Why?

In the academic arena these questions plagued George Lakoff. Since his 1977 masterwork Metaphors We Live By, Lakoff has been at the forefront of neuroscience. Neuroscience is a field which examines the morphology of the brain.

Neuroscience says that just as evolution has effected the way our bodies look, it has also effected the way our minds work too.

In applying neuroscientific principles to political question of why right wing politics was so strong Lakoff discovered that it benefited from the strength a cohesive, emotionally appealing vision.

According to Lakoff for over forty years right wingers dominated by selling the dream of a Leave it to Beaver America with a strong disciplinarian father who could protect us from the mean world "out there." In this way, like the Nazis who were able to alternatively harken their people back to a Germany that never was, the American right proselytized for an America which never should be.

That the left finally got the message and responded with its own cohesive vision is now history but this book is nevertheless sober reading of what can happen and just how easily it can happen.

This book has 2 key purposes: 1) "to give ther reader a deeper understanding of political life", and 2) "to make progressive political advocacy more effective." It is certainly geared towards progressives and liberals but not malicious towards conservatives.

This book is a thoughtful guide to help every American understand what Democrats are trying to do. If you are wondering why people vote against their own self interest and seem to behave irrationally in light of "facts" this book is for you.

It is not going to be news that Right Wing Media has been effective at crafting a narrative and deliberately shaping minds. Even when Republican strategies prove to be disasterous to the economy and the stability of the world many people continue to reinforce the concepts that made those decisions possible. That shows that communication can be used for mind control and manipulation; this book shows what progressives are up against.

A conservative reading this book might see where they have been manipulated to thinking in particular ways by the Right Wing Media. It highlights how terms for general concepts are up for grabs; common words like "liberty", "freedom", and "justice" mean different things to different people. For instance, when Conservatives and Progressives talk about "Responsibility" they are talking about different things. A Progressive sees responsibility to do what's right for himself and his neighbor - we're all in the same boat. A conservative thinks it means responsibility for himself, you're on your own buddy. If you understand this then you can see why the 2 sides can use the same words and mean different things.

The moral mission of government is to protect and empower the people. The person who thinks they get by with no government help doesn't remember he drives on government roads to go to works, doesn't like potholes, trusts that his savings will not disappear if he puts them in a bank, expects his home and his business won't be robbed or looted, etc. When you understand that you get a lot for a small tax you have a hard time understanding "tax relief". In fact, the GOP gave me so much "tax relief" we apparently are going broke... I am getting some serious daily stress over all this "relief" they've give me.

Until every Democrat has read this book we will still fall for conservative framings like "War on Terror", "soft on crime", "soft on terror", "tax and spend..." etc. The first step is to recongnize the metaphoric framing, reject it, and then highlight a more appropriate framing.

I believe progressives should have book clubs with this book and try to understand a path forward; in fact we are organizing a book club as I write this.

We're at a crossroads in American Politics; we can go down a potholed road where it's every man for himself, or we can empower and protect our citizens and move forward into a better future.


Happy reading,
Ed

EdKaine@CorrectAngle.com
[...]

George Lakoff really changes the way we view the world by challenging our belief in the existence of "sheer facts". He shows scientifically that this is not how our brain works, but that every new "fact" entering our mind is sorted and gauged by our already existing beliefs about the world, our emotions, or experiences. There is no such thing as a neutral fact as little as there is a perception of an "objective reality".
Another mind-blowing book by him is "Metaphors we live by", where he proves how the way we speak about the world, the images we choose, the metaphors, reflect how we think and feel about the world.

I was disappointed with this book.

I was hoping for a book full of solid cognitive science, offering readers insights in order to make their own judgements and to better understand politics. Instead, the book felt like a rant about politics; a rant which just happens to be written by a cognitive scientist. Many studies are mentioned, but little detail is provided (though, the author does include references), and the discussion feels very much like hand-waving. I don't doubt the author's own credentials, but he leaves little opportunity for the reader to reach their own conclusions.

I therefore found the political discussion unconvincing and cheesy (this may have also have been in part because I am not an American and the book is very US-centric).

However, the book was not a complete waste of my time -- I did enjoy reading it as it offered a way of thinking about discourse in terms of framing and metaphors.

Two quick thoughts on George Lakoff's The Political Mind that offer another interpretation of a book that otherwise appears to have received a good reception from Amazon users.

First, Lakoff repeatedly reiterates how the repeated usage of a certain discourse has the affect of empowering that discourse in the community, culture, or society in which it is used. However, one of the central arguments he is trying to make is that "bioconceptualism" exists, and that pigeonholing people into one camp or another is not accurate because nearly everyone has elements of both cognitive frames. This is interesting because his book uses, without question, the two categories that he is urging people to move beyond: "conservative" (or its cousin, "neoliberal") and "progressive" (or its cousin, "liberal"). Seen in this way, Lakoff is urging people to understand the power of repetition of words, frames, and metaphors while also calling for a biconceptual understanding of our cognitive capabilities--yet he literally assaults the reader with the terms "conservative" and "progressive" throughout the course of the book. This brings up the related issue of whether or not "biconceptual" is in fact that best term for what he is arguing for. The prefix "bi," of course, means two (2). So Lakoff argues that our mind has two, and only two, different ways of conceptualizing a given input. Might a term such as "multiconceptual" be a more accurate way of expressing the notion that we are not limited in our ability to make supposedly conflicting decisions in different contexts? The root of this issue is again his use of "conservative" and "progressive." It seems patently absurd that one would argue that we need to break down our traditional understanding of contemporary politics (and expounds upon the power of discourse), only to use those exact same terms in which to "frame" his entire argument.

Second, his presentation (indeed, its own discourse), also forces the reader from the very first page to identify which of the two categorizations they fall into. If you identify as a "conservative," the likelihood of you making it past page seven is extremely low because Lakoff's makes no secret of his affinity for progressives (Does anyone else get the feeling that Lakoff really wants to share an intimate moment with Barak Obama?) and the apparent backwardness of conservatives. It might be argued that Lakoff intends this book as a strategy guide for progressives, and thus it was his intention to turn away conservatives, so as not to share any of his "secrets" with them. Yet this argument is undermined by his call to expand the national dialogue and to move beyond fixed political identities. It doesn't take graduate school training in conflict mediation to realize that it is impossible to bring people together by castigating one group while putting the other on a pedestal. On the other hand, if you identify as a "progressive," Lakoff's argument is incredibly affirming and could be argued to border on self-indulgent flattery. If we temporally situate this publication of this book at the end of a decade of (overt) neoliberal control of the United States, then this book appears to be strategically positioned as a political celebration. Even if this assessment is wide of the mark, can it realistically be argued that this book encourages progressives to have empathy (the key tenet of the book) for conservatives and to reach out to them to help to mend a divided country? In one instance, Lakoff shares his "research findings" that "conservatives showed less ability to respond to complex and potentially conflicting situations." Using this example (of which it is literally the minnow of callous critique in the ocean that is his book), are self identified "progressives" more likely to read this and be moved toward compassion, or to develop a holier-than-thou attitude?

One way or the other, it seems uncontroversial to state that Lakoff, while encouraging a return to empathy, finds himself deeply lacking in said attribute. If Lakoff is accurately portraying neurosciences potential contribution to the issue of bridging political divides (a field that I am not claiming to have any prior knowledge of), then maybe we would all be better served to stick with more traditional methods of conflict resolution such as dueling, roshampo, and bloody knuckles--at least these options have the potential for being accessible to everyone, regardless of political affiliation.

George Lakoff is a educated Progressive. He believes people who do not follow his Progressive view need to be protected and empowered. Only the Government can protect and empower People. Government run by people like George Lakoff. He means this in the most kind and beneficent way possible. The Other People are not evil or bad. Progressives need to explain the New Enlightenment View. He suggests framing, definitions, and metaphors to enlighten People stuck in the 18th Century. I'm sure other means will be used when these fail. This is the path Enlightenment to Tyranny.

George Lakoff has only one problem. This Country is populated by Individuals for Individuals. Our strength comes from individual success. We have no need for a Government to protect or empower us. We are the Power to Protect ourselves, and George has to live with that because we can live without him and his Progressives.