Customer Reviews

The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

George Lakoff, cognitive scientist and political commentator, returns in The Political Mind to themes already made familiar in earlier books such as Moral Politics (2002), Don't Think of an Elephant (2004) and Whose Freedom? (2007). He argues that political discourse arises from a process of conceptual and metaphorical framing which ultimately is grounded in the way the brain works, and that an understanding of this process is essential for successful political campaigns.

I don't know that there's really anything in The Political Mind that Lakoff hasn't already said in one form or another elsewhere (the primary reason for the three-star rating). But he does stress here what he sees as the errors of the theory of mind he argues was formed by the Enlightenment and which political progressives still assume today. Lakoff characterizes that theory as stressing the transparency of mind, drawing a sharp division between reason and emotion, and assuming that reason is a universal human capacity that accurately describes the world. But nothing in this model, asserts Lakoff, is correct. Much of what we call the mind is unconscious; what we think, because of our tendency to operate through largely unconscious metaphorical frames, is largely constitutive rather than straightforwardly conceptual; and reason is rarely dispassionately reflective.

So what's the connection between all this and politics? Simply, claims Lakoff, that progressive politicians still buy into the Enlightenment model of mind, and operate accordingly in trying to influence voters and win elections. "Rational" arguments in the Enlightenment mode are ineffective because they rest on a false understanding of how the mind works--the assumption that our decisions are made consciously, abstractly, and dispassionately. What grabs attention is the effective use of metaphors and stories that tap into unconscious frame networks. Progressives need to reframe the conversation to get across their values more effectively--and it just so happens that those values (for example, empathy rather than the Enlightenment ideal of self-interest) are hardwired in the brain.

Lakoff's book is interesting, and certainly deserves its day in court. But ultimately I find his argument here (as in his previous books) problematic. First, his characterization of the Enlightenment understanding of mind runs the risk of being a caricature. Enlightenment philosophers weren't monolithic in their thinking. Anyone who's read Rousseau or Hume appreciates that the Enlightenment understanding of reason is much more complex than the way in which Lakoff describes it. Ditto with self interest, which Lakoff claims is the key to Enlightenment values. Adam Smith and other Enlightenment ethicists stressed the fundamental moral importance of "sympathy" (closely akin to what Lakoff calls "empathy") just as much as self-interest. Second, it's not clear to me why Lakoff thinks that brain science clinches his political advice. Can't similar conclusions be arrived at through psychological analysis? How does neurological reductionism make his arguments any stronger? Third, and more importantly, one sometimes gets the impression that Lakoff is innocent of the last 150 years of philosophy. That humans think in frames, that reason is constitutive rather than merely descriptive, that mind isn't transparently conscious, and that there isn't a hard-and-fast divide between cognition and emotions, has been defended by (for example) Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and most postmodern thinkers. Does anyone, except the few hardcore positivists left around, think otherwise today? How is it, then, that the cognitive sciences have suddenly made this discovery? Finally, it's not entirely clear to me what Lakoff thinks the advantage of adopting a 21st century theory of mind when it comes to politics is other than its effectiveness in influencing people and winning elections. Ought progressives to do so because it will make them better manipulators of public opinion? Or ought progressives to do so because it's more promotive of truth? And is it really the case that the brain is hardwired for all the values that Lakoff associates with progressivism? Which, of course, invites the question of what the status of truth itself is in a model of mind which reduces ideas to brain processes and reason to enframing.

While building on his previous books, Lakoff also gets into a new area: the use of narratives in poltics.The DWIs and purorted drug use of President Bush ,standing alone, never mattered because people saw him through the narrative of Redemption, the overcoming of adversity and the possibility of salvation. The opening section on Anna Nicole Smith and the narratives used to view her contain some of the book's best writing. it also helps explain the power of Senator Clinton---women who have it rough(sex discrimination, faithless husband etc) don't just identify with her, they are her and she is them as she struggled for the nomination. He hammers away ,as before on frames and the building of them. As a trial attorney I see this all the time---if the other side responds to my framing, I will usually win because in telling their "story" they just end up repeating mine. Instead, to be persuasive you must create a different story. The Dems are still having a hard time grasping this fundamental truth.Some good stuff on how we are wired for empathy. He coins a new word "privateering" for what happens when a government function is abandoned by government and handed over to corporations; ie a wealth transfer, think no bid contracts a la Iraq and Katrina.The book is like chocolate cake---almost too rich, and it loses focus as it goes along. Still , it deserves a 5 star rating because it is a book of ideas, which is always welcome, no matter party affliation.

We think in metaphors, and words describe metaphors. A metaphor is a description like "He's cold as ice." He's not cold, he's unfriendly, but we know what it means. Metaphors form neural pathways, or connections, between neurons. The more we activate the pathways, the stronger they become, and the more we accept them as true. Metaphors, words, thoughts, and language therefore have a neurological basis that result from physical transformation of brains (actual physiological change to brain cells similar to increased muscle mass that results from weight lifting).

Republicans have intuitively known this and have used language to create metaphors and neural pathways that have become dogmatic in America--example: tax relief, page 234. Relief is not normally connected to taxes (road building, social security, and armed forces result from taxes, not relief). However, tax relief has become a metaphor in the US that is identified as generally good, and puts anyone who criticizes the concept on the defensive.

The conservative Republican model society is based on Old Testament concepts: right and wrong are absolute. It is based on a strict father model (page 78) that relies on discipline. The father tells the children how to behave and punishes them if they do not heed the father. Children learn discipline so they will do the right thing without question (think of Marines who obey commands in the heat of war as described in the book Flags of Our Fathers, James Bradley and Ron Powers, 2001). Obeying authority without questioning it is paramount. That's why Republicans supported President Bush's pardon of Scooter Libby for lying to Congress - Libby was merely obeying orders. Once discipline is learned, there is no need for government since disciplined individuals don't need any outside help. Discipline leads to self-reliance, and government aid like social security is not only unnecessary, it leads to weakness because it causes citizens to lose their self reliance. Authority is absolute, and so is the requirement to obey it. That is why conservatives are so threatened when their position is criticized--it is tantamount to questioning authority, and absolute authority is fundamental to their view of the world.

Liberals, or progressives as George Lakoff prefers to call them, start from a nurturing concept. Children do not need discipline, they need nurturance. Government stands for the proposition that it permits people to flourish. Roads permit commerce, medicine protects our health, police and firemen protect us from catastrophe, the FDA protects us from corporations whose zeal for profit would lead them to sell drugs with harmful side effects, and the SEC protects us from unscrupulous traders that would manipulate markets for private gain.

People think by emotion, and progressives try to reason according to rational, Old Enlightenment, factual-based logic. Progressives need to appeal to people's emotions more. Emotions, like metaphors, are established neural pathways in mature brains, and progressives need to adopt frames that tap into voters' nurturing neural pathways.

Progressives should not permit conservatives to force them into responding (and therefore adopting) conservative frames (see page 153 regarding Obama's response to Wolf Blitzer's question on mandatory English in the US). The technique is to 1) describe the frame that the questioner has just used; 2) describe what's wrong with the frame; and 3) come up with an alternate frame.

People have natural tendencies that can be politically manipulated. See "Why Hawks Win," page 223, for an example of why it is easier to convince citizens to go to war than it is to object going to war. Again, the solution is to reframe the debate; to point out the errors in going to war. Would we have invaded Iraq if it was a prelude to endless war, rather than a war on terrorists that would soon be "Mission Accomplished?"

The book's strengths are 1) describing conservative and progressive thought processes, and 2) describing neurological and psychological research that support the biological bases for thought and linguistics.

The book's shortcomings are 1) failing to provide concrete examples of conservative frames and how to specifically counter them, and 2) failing to theorize how people become conservative or progressive over time, and whether they can be manipulated to become conservative or progressive as they mature.

This is one of those books that sets off conflicting emotions and thoughts. The application of knowledge of the brain sciences to political debate is absolutely fascinating, and much good information is presented. Another part of the thesis--that "progressives" or liberals use an "Enlightenment" model of discourse (emphasizing the use of logic and reason to advance their points) whereas conservatives use a more powerful approach, wedding emotion to thought. Hence, conservatives have an advantage over liberals, because their view of "human nature" is more accurate.

The book shows that Lakoff is fully able to wed the study of cognition with our knowledge of the brain. This part of his analysis is very readable and provides lots of information.

I must say, though, that the liberal versus conservative thesis is improbable. There are plenty of liberals who use emotional appeals (Teddy Kennedy when given a script could raise goose bumps); there are Republicans who are professorial and more Enlightenment oriented, speaking to logic and reason (e.g., Jack Kemp). Enlightenment thinkers were not abstract thinkers devoid of passion. The attack on Enlightenment thinking has been ongoing over a long period of time, and much of this debate is missing from Lakoff's discussion (read Derrida, for example, who engaged in a one person Postmodern assault on Enlightenment thought).

Still the book is useful by providing entree to a fascinating literature on human cognition and the brain.

If you're not already familiar with George Lakoff's political theories (which are based on his theories of cognitive linguistics and metaphorical thought), then I'm afraid I can't really recommend this book. Though this book does provide a cursory overview of Lakoff's earlier findings, I'm not convinced that he provides enough information to bring the novice reader up to speed. Before you read this book, I'd strongly recommend that you read some of Lakoff's earlier books. I'd especially recommend reading "Moral Politics"; but you might also want to read "Whose Freedom?" before tackling this. (And, if you're really ambitious, and want to fully understand what Lakoff is talking about, I'd also recommend "Philosophy in the Flesh", which Lakoff co-wrote with Mark Johnson.) I'd also recommend that you read Drew Westen's "The Political Brain" before reading this. (Lakoff cites Westen repeatedly in this book.)

However, once you've read "Philosophy in the Flesh", "Moral Politics", "Whose Freedom?", and (Westen's) "The Political Brain", then reading this book won't really add all that much to your understanding of the subject. In my opinion, this book represents only a marginal contribution to Lakoff's theory of politics. There are some worthwhile insights here; but they are really just refinements of Lakoff's earlier work -- there are no groundbreaking new discoveries here. I'd recommend this book for anyone who has a very strong interest in political psychology, and who is already familiar with the previous books by Lakoff and by Westen mentioned above. For everyone else, I'd recommend that you try Westen's "The Political Brain" and Lakoff's "Whose Freedom?" first. If you really like both of those books, then you might also like this book (though I'd still recommend that you read Lakoff's "Moral Politics" first).

Those reading George Lakoff's latest work, THE POLITICAL MIND, might find some benefit in perusing his earlier work PHILOSOPHY IN THE FLESH in which he explains the embodied mind. Whereas, Plato imagines human values as pure concepts held in some heavenly sky beyond our reach, Lakoff sees human values as being a product of human development. While Descartes said, "I think; therefore, I am," Lakoff would say, "I am; therefore, my existence structures my thinking." Concepts are supported by metaphors, which are based on experience. Trust follows from an investment metaphor. Love is consistent with the metaphor of a journey. The importance of this difference is that it is inappropriate to measure people against a standard of a disembodied concept and find them wanting. Values are defined by our experience, both personal and vicarious, and, while wearing the label by which they are named, are more like glasses being filled with meaning over our lifetime than like a set standard defined as a goal to be achieved.

Lakoff says that the metaphors, associated with values, structure our thinking. Further, he claims that Democrats, seeing how Republicans use metaphors to capture votes, often decry their appeal to emotions. Lakoff reminds Democrats that rationality is not separate from emotion and that it is not only legitimate, but necessary, to use emotion to get across our moral thinking. By examining how the brain operates and highlighting the mirror neurons with their empathic quality, he shows how we are structured to want to protect and empower others, as we would like others to protect and empower us. This is what America is all about. It should be what all governments are about. When we operate through this moral imperative, we galvanize the thinking of others, forming coalitions that allow us to accomplish our goals.

In this way, George Lakoff is both a realist and an idealist. He may well be the most important philosopher of the 21st century. As such, he deserves our attention.

This book was very useful in its explanation of how we think about things in terms of frames, unconsious scenarios that our minds use to help us make sense of life. That aspect of the book is something we would all benefit from understanding - a mental tool to help us properly evaluate the assorted messages thrown at us from various media and the language of the marketplace.

My problem with this volume is that there is so much technical information, I was often at risk of losing the book's messages. Despite giving it the metaphorical old college try, I found much of it too technical and of little use to me.

It's definitely a book worth reading, just don't expect it to be an easy read.

I like George Lakoff but this book is mostly a rehash of some very good theories presented in previous works.

I think "Moral Politics" was definitive. Don't Think of an Elephant a condensed version of "Moral Politics".

The latest work doesn't really add much to the previous work.

I you want to read Lakoff just read Moral Politics

Few people know enough about neuroscience to agree or disagree with Lakoff's description of its discoveries, but nearly everyone can use what this book teaches as a recipe for dealing with people who, to us, seem irrational in their political choices.

I think it is very likely that Lakoff has his science right, or at least right enough. Can anyone reasonably say that the centuries-old concepts of how mind and language work are not as obsolete as their contemporaries, the theories of phlogiston and of the Great Flood? Whether Lakoff's brain science is exactly right matters little; it is sufficient to give a scientific foundation to think more effectively about how people think. Science continually evolves, and for today it suffices to take today's preliminary results to develop a useful technology of persuasion; waiting for a perfect knowledge that may never come is a recipe for failure.

More important than the precise rightness of Lakoff's formulation is its utility. Who has not found it frustrating to lay out fact after fact, logical argument after logical argument, and still to lose in the matter of persuasion? How many times I have drawn the conclusion that the listener was insincere, deluded or stupid! And never have those conclusions been especially helpful; no-one has ever been persuaded by being called "Stupid!"

Lakoff's explanations are much more useful than simply blaming the listener. It is very likely that people who brush aside my logic are almost never being stupid; they simply have a very different frame of reference and way of thinking. And since all thinking is based in biology, there is a biological basis for that thinking. (Lakoff's description of the biology is interesting for those who like that sort of thing, and can be skipped by those who don't.)

As Lakoff notes, whether "they" are being "rational" or not is completely irrelevant. They think the way they do, and I can't magically expect them to change by mere logical argument. I can fail to respect their frame of reference, their way of thinking, the way they are built; and with that choice, I will fail. And (going beyond Lakoff) may I add that I would deserve to fail, for being disrespectful.

Or ... I can accept our differences, and work with them, gradually changing the way they think over time.

There is no magic formula for persuading people to agree with me (...and it would be frightening if there were. Think about it!) But Lakoff's recipe for action offers hope: offer alternative frames, non-authoritarian ways of thinking about the problems that matter, thus gradually getting people used to non-authoritarian conduct.

We often do this without knowing it. It's the heart of every potluck supper, neighborhood watch or other volunteer community organizing event. Really, "all" Lakoff does is give us a metaphor for thinking about what works, so we can implement the methodology effectively. But since thinking is fundamentally the use of apt metaphors, perhaps that's all Lakoff needs to do.

Putting the metaphor to use is up to us.

George Lakoff provides not only an exquisite understanding into why liberals consistently fail to convince the public to pursue progressive value on a national level, but provides recipes on how to change the "old enlightenment" thinking of liberals to stand up to the cultural narrative of the father-figure and authoritative conservative mind. This should be the textbook for liberals who are trying to change the system. Democrats for example, consistently compromise their position by getting trapped by conservative framing. Even if you skip the parts about brain circuitry and neuronal synapses, you'll get the message. My personal take - Democrats, and liberals/progressives in general, are falling further behind societies need for positive change, even as we speak. Wasteful wars, tragic declines in America's health due to a greedy and fragmented healthcare system, and joblessness, all of these cannot be turned around by those who stubbornly cling to old, ineffective approaches. In trying to understand the current mess of American society and how Republicans literally get away with murder, this is the best insight I've had in years. I just wish I had discovered it when it was published in 2008. However, it's never too late to learn how to focus and strengthen the liberal message for change. Btw - I'm not a typical book reviewer - this one just hit me hard.