Rethinking the Lakoff thesis after the events of the last three years

Are family systems or economics the basis of moral beliefs?

I. An(other) introduction to framing

As I’ve written before, I’m a huge fan of the work of George Lakoff. When I was doing speechwriting for my dad (the former highest-ranking elected official in the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.) I devoured Lakoff’s books Metaphors We Live By (with Mark Johnson), Moral Politics, and Don’t Think of an Elephant. Lakoff is the godfather of the art of framing which is defined as:

the process of choosing words and phrases to communicate an idea in a way that invokes certain metaphorical associations and rules out others. Frames set the vocabulary and metaphors through which an issue can be comprehended and discussed. By consistently invoking a resonant frame, the framing party sets the terms of the debate, shapes the perceptions of the issue, and provides a narrative for possible solutions.

Lakoff’s central argument across all of these books is that “understanding is inherently metaphorical” and that most of us think of the nation as a family. Lakoff writes that conservatives envision a “strict father” model of the nation and progressives envision a “nurturant parent” model of the nation.

The “first principles” that go into the strict father model include (these are all direct quotes from the 3 books listed above):

• The world is a dangerous place, and it always will be, because there is evil out there. 

• The world is difficult because it is competitive.

• There will always be winners and losers. 

• There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. 

• Children are born bad, in the sense that they just want to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore they have to be made good through rewards and punishments. 

The “first principles” that go into the nurturant parent model include:

• Children are born good and can be made better. 

• The world can be made a better place, and our job is to work on that. 

• The parents’ job is to nurture their children and to raise their children to be nurturers of others. 

• Children develop best through their positive relationships to others.

• The obedience of children comes out of their love and respect for their parents, not out of the fear of punishment.  

When addressing a conservative audience one is advised to choose words and phrases that evoke “strict father” morality and when addressing a progressive audience one is advised to choose words and phrases that evoke “nurturant parent” morality.

From experience I find that this just flat out works. Using this method, audiences feel seen and understood and that enables one to get one’s point across.

But after the events of the last three years I now think that Lakoff’s central claim is at best incomplete and it also could be completely wrong.

---

II. The shift from structuralism to Freudianism

On the surface, Lakoff’s thesis is appealing. Progressives and conservatives tend to have different views of the ideal family. But upon closer inspection, the theory begins to unravel.

Ask any parent and they will tell you that they toggle back and forth between being nurturing and being strict based on the circumstances. Trying to learn a new skill usually requires nurturing. If the child is playing in the street expect decisive commands and stern actions from the parent.

As many people have noted over the years, there is no empirical basis for Lakoff’s thesis. I think conservatives are correct when they argue that most of Lakoff’s advice on framing is just a sophisticated way for progressives to hurl insults at people they disagree with.

The larger problem is that progressives, these so-called “nurturant parents”, went fascist in an instant in March 2020. Lakoff is on record as supporting Pharma fascism. As I observed last year, there is nothing nurturing about injecting toxic substances made by felons into your kids in obedience to the fascist Pharma state. If these metaphors are so fundamental to how we interpret events, how did progressives suddenly lose all of their values as the result of a bit of fright?

Now I realize that Lakoff’s claim at its core is Freudian. “The nation is your parents” is as Freudian as it gets. However Freudianism has not held up well over the last one hundred years.

Yes, we are all shaped by our experiences growing up. Yes, people have a strong inclination to adopt their parents’ beliefs as their own. But the far better fit for the data is that what shapes our values (and how we see and interpret the world) are economic structures.

Think about the defining issues of our era:

• Vaccines, vaccine mandates, and vaccine passports;

• Global warming, carbon scores, and strategies for decarbonization;

• Central bank digital currency;

• Digital surveillance, censorship, and deplatforming/debanking; and

• 15 minute cities, smart cities, and smart meters.

If you or a member of your family works in an industry that will benefit economically from these policy prescriptions, you will likely believe that all of these things are good and right and true. So anyone with economic ties to academia, science & medicine, management consulting, government, etc. will generally believe the narratives that underlie these efforts to restructure society to serve these industries.

By contrast, if you or a family member work in an industry that will be hurt by these policy prescriptions, you will likely oppose them with everything you’ve got. So for example, if your family farm is likely to be seized by Bill Gates’ war on cows, or your job in an oil field is likely to be eliminated by state efforts to reduce carbon emissions, you will likely see the effort to decarbonize our economy as an existential threat (because for you it is).

I cannot emphasize this point strongly enough — people are not just pretending to believe what they believe. Economic structures are so powerful that people genuinely come to believe the narratives that support their primary source of income. That’s true for people across the political spectrum. This process of conversion usually happens pretty quickly (in a few days or weeks after starting a job).

The point is — what type of family one comes from and what type of family one aspires to create has almost nothing to do with how one sees these moral, economic, and political issues. Where one stands depends on where one sits and the base determines the superstructure (as I’ve written about repeatedly on my Substack).

---

III. Criticisms, rejoinders, and final thoughts

Some readers may object that I switched from discussing the foundations of morality (Lakoff’s wheelhouse) to discussing economic values (my wheelhouse). But I’m not sure that there is actually much difference between our moral and economic values. Lakoff’s writing uses moral and economic issues interchangeably — he discusses taxes one moment and abortion the next.

Furthermore, moral perspectives on issues such as abortion or sex change surgeries for trans kids do not seem to fit either the structural or Freudian lens and are probably better explained by the work of Jonathan Haidt.

I now see Lakoff’s work as an attempt to shift from the long-standing left structural conception of the basis of morality to a Freudian pop psychology understanding of the basis of morality. But since Lakoff’s theory completely fell apart when American society experienced a minor epidemiological challenge in 2020, it seems to me that it’s not much of a theory at all.

I believe that we would be much better off returning to our understanding that the base determines the superstructure. Then we must apply our energies to change our economic base from High Tech Pharma Feudalism to organic, common sense, actual science, classical economic liberalism.

Two final thoughts:

How do I reconcile my critique here with my statement above that using Lakoff’s methods seemed to work for me? I now think that any internally consistent message, whether it is focused on discipline (“strict father”) or caring (“nurturant parent”) will land better than a message that jumps around between different sets of values. But one could also build an internally consistent message around other systems of thought — Christ-consciousness, Gaia, etc. and be just as effective.

The more intriguing question is how do we explain, well, us — the iconoclasts who made the decision to suffer economically rather than comply during the last three years? While it is true that the majority of people allow their decisions and behavior to be dictated by their economic interests, a LOT of us were willing to fight back and defend our beliefs in spite of the enormous economic, emotional, and physical toll. What is different about those who buck systems and structures to do what is right regardless of the personal costs? THAT’S what we need to identify, harness, amplify, and share with others. It’s not self-evident though — if it were we would have already won. So in the comments, please share your thoughts on, “What produces the rebels who dedicate themselves to overthrowing corrupt systems rather than trying to fit in?”

---

Blessings to the warriors. 🙌

Prayers for everyone fighting to stop the iatrogenocide. 🙏

Huzzah for everyone building the alternative society our hearts know is possible. ✊

In the comments, please let me know your answer(s) to my question above (or anything else that is on your mind).

As always, I welcome any corrections.

---