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

~ (Author) "Radical conservatives have been fighting a culture war..." (more)
Key Phrases: new enlightenment, mirror neuron circuitry, neural binding, Old Enlightenment, United States, Sky Trust (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Lakoff (Don't Think of an Elephant) harnesses cognitive science to rally progressive politicians and voters by positing that conservatives have framed the debate on vital issues more effectively than liberals. According to his research, conservatives comprehend that most brain functioning is grounded not in logical reasoning but in emotionalism—as a result, huge portions of the citizenry accept the Republican framing of the war in Iraq and supporting the troops rather than liberal appeals and phrasing of the occupation in Iraq and squandering tax money. George W. Bush won the presidency by concocting a redemption narrative, persuading tens of millions of voters that his past moral and business shortcomings should be viewed as a prelude to pulling himself up, rather than as disqualifying behavior. While sections of the book employ technical scientific terminology, the author masterfully makes his research comprehensible to nonspecialists. His conclusion—that if citizens and policy-makers better understand brain functioning, hope exists to ameliorate global warming and other societal disasters in the making—will be of vital importance and interest to all readers. (June)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Product Description

In What’s the Matter with Kansas?, Thomas Frank pointed out that a great number of Americans actually vote against their own interests. In The Political Mind, George Lakoff explains why.

As it turns out, human beings are not the rational creatures we’ve so long imagined ourselves to be. Ideas, morals, and values do not exist somewhere outside the body, ready to be examined and put to use. Instead, they exist quite literally inside the brain—and they take physical shape there. For example, we form particular kinds of narratives in our minds just like we form specific muscle memories such as typing or dancing, and then we fit new information into those narratives. Getting that information out of one narrative type and into another—or building a whole new narrative altogether—can be as hard as learning to play the banjo. Changing your mind isn’t like changing your body—it’s the same thing.

But as long as progressive politicians and activists persist in believing that people use an objective system of reasoning to decide on their politics, the Democrats will continue to lose elections. They must wrest control of the terms of the debate from their opponents rather than accepting their frame and trying to argue within it.

This passionate, erudite, and groundbreaking book will appeal to readers of Steven Pinker and Thomas Frank. It is a fascinating read for anyone interested in how the mind works, how society works, and how they work together.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 304 pages
• Publisher: Viking Adult; First Printing edition (May 29, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0670019275
• ISBN-13: 978-0670019274
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.1 x 1.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 4.1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (27 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #27,549 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #1 in	Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Political Science > Psychology
  #15 in	Books > Nonfiction > Politics > Practical Politics
  #23 in	Books > Nonfiction > Government > Federal Government

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

52 of 56 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Rich, like chocolate cake, June 14, 2008

By	Michael P. Maslanka (dallas, texas United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.

112 of 127 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Brainy politics vs Enlightenment politics?, June 3, 2008

By	Kerry Walters (Lewisburg, PA USA) - See all my reviews (TOP 50 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

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.

20 of 23 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Lakoff Avoids Putting Descartes Before the Horse, June 15, 2008

By	Gregg Heacock "The Logical Connection" (Santa Monica, CA USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.