This blog has made the point that people are wired to think
in terms of fairness (see for example “Fair Is Fair,” June 21, 2016). But, according to George Lakoff,[1] this
thinking plays some sort of shell game.
That is, since fairness is a purely human construct – there is no
structural object, in reality, that constitutes fairness – the mind has to
symbolically represent the notion of fairness.
To do this, it deals in metaphors.
The metaphor
of a ledger is more than likely to be the one employed to give this totally
made-up[2] notion
some concreteness. If one person does an
unjust harm to another, the metaphor visualizes this as the person owing the
victim some pay-back to balance the ledger.
But the utilization of metaphors does not end there.
Lakoff goes on the provide two other powerful
metaphors that further conceptualizes how fairness or rightness is cognitively
and emotionally handled by most people. The
great divide in our politics can be understood, in part, by analyzing these two
opposing metaphors. That would be the
“strict father morality” metaphor and the “nurturant parent morality”
metaphor.
This posting will briefly describe
the strict father metaphor and, in a later posting, will look at the nurturant
parent metaphor. But first a word on how
another metaphor has been used in this blog.
That would be the metaphor of a partnership.
As the title of this blog’s promoted
construct indicates, federation theory calls on citizens to be federated with
each other. What does that mean? A simple, but useful, way to conceptualize
this notion is to use the metaphor of a partnership. In this view, the US Constitution is a grand agreement – agreed upon in perpetuity –
in which the citizens of this nation have entered into a partnership.
Concretely, that means that each
citizen defines fellow citizens as sharing their interests. Yes, they can compete against each other,
they can set themselves as opponents to each other, but in the long-run, their
interests are in common. What is good
for one, in the long-run, is good for all and what is good for all, in the long-run,
is good for each. Can one hear the Three
Musketeers? In the long-run, they cannot
be enemies.
But in common parlance, one seldom
hears people use this metaphor. Instead,
one is much more likely to hear in public venues – TV or newspapers – the
metaphor of a family. We are told we are
the “American family.” Sorry, this
writer does not feel that metaphor. He
has a family, he loves his family, he even likes most members of his extended
family. But the guy who lives down the
street is not a member of that family either in fact or metaphorically.
The problem with the family metaphor
is that it naturally leads to this notion of authority being based on some
natural plan. People are born into a
family – not much choice there – and is subject to authority not of his/her
making. Voila, there is father and mother and they are in charge. There is no voting them in nor voting them
out.
Fine, in the grand scheme of things
all this makes sense, but when such an arrangement is used to define a more
encompassing arrangement, a not so good idea is promulgated. That is, the nation’s leaders are imbued with
a basis of authority beyond a citizen’s control. That is an undemocratic, unrepublican idea.
It is difficult enough to maintain authority
under reasonable restraints. And yet,
the metaphor of a family – a homey type of image – makes this even more
difficult. After reviewing the first of
the prevailing metaphors, the strict father metaphor, one can further sense how
using the family metaphor is counterproductive.
What follows is Lakoff’s take on this
strict father metaphor. And it is an
involved one; one with a sort of narrative behind it. The story begins with setting the stage; that
is, people live in a dangerous world. It
has always been dangerous and it will always be dangerous. To meet this danger, individuals must be
disciplined to survive. They must count
on themselves to keep the wolf from the door.
And that door is both metaphorically
out there, but can also be inside the person.
As a matter of fact, the most basic threats emanate from weaknesses in
people’s makeups. The answer to those
weaknesses is discipline and no agent can instill that discipline more
effectively than a strict parent – usually visualized as the strict father. Of course, in some families, it is the strict
mother that fits the bill.
And the chief tool in this process is
punishment when the child falls short in exhibiting the necessary discipline
and what he/she should do. Oh, there’s
room for nurturing – visualized as the mother’s role – but, under two
provisions that place meaningful parameters around such parenting.
One, nurturing is never coddling and,
two, never trumps punishment when an offense is detected. And whether the punishment or nurturing is
being administered, the aim is to instill self-reliance. Progress is defined as the development of a
person who does not have to count on anyone for survival – in reality, an
impossible aim. But the parenting
encourages one to opt for this fantasy.
It further encourages a view that failure
reflects some personality or otherwise character flaw. It means that the person did not, in his/her
formative years, receive appropriate and sufficient punishment – usually of the
corporal variety – and now the real world should administer what was missed in
an earlier time.
It is in this light that one can view
two recent quotes by prominent politicians.
One was by Senator Chuck Grassley when he commented on the tax bill
provision that does away with the estate tax (a tax that is charged against
estates of over $5.45 million and levied on the inheritors of the estate). He said, “I think having the estate tax
recognizes the people that are investing as opposed to those that are just
spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”
The other telling quote is by Senator
Orrin Hatch, who quite honestly was speaking about the discontinuance of a
program – CHIP which helps provide health care for children in low income
households – he helped get enacted, but now is willing to vote it out of
existence. He said, “I have a rough time
wanting to spend billions and billions of dollars to help people who won’t help
themselves, won’t lift a finger and expect the federal government to do
everything.” Both of these quotes reek
of a strict father mentality.
The metaphor relies on a view, Lakoff
calls, “folk behaviorism.” That is, it
is based on a simple version of the behavioral principles that people will
pursue those things that offer rewards and avoid those thing that accrue
punishments. The idea for success is
simply to become programed to doing the good, moral thing and programed to avoid
those that are bad, evil. The process
entails overcoming inherent drives – like the seven deadly sins: greed, lust, gluttony, envy, sloth, pride,
and anger – by having the fortitude, the discipline to do so.
So, the metaphor is made up of
various attributes. They include, but
not limited to, individual responsibility, self-discipline, essentialist
morality (lacking any nuance), self-denial, and willingness to face hardships
head-on. Excuses for shortfalls are not
well tolerated and people are to accept their fates as a reflection of their
own strengths or shortcomings, at least in the main.
One can associate such a moral view with
the Calvinist tradition without the aid of that tradition’s reliance on the
community. The view provides a lot of
what right-wing politics assumes in their rhetoric. It might have become impolite – poor politics
– to be so forthright and blunt in espousing such a harsh set of ideas, but
that should not be taken as them – strict parent biases – being tossed out with
modern language. The biases are still
alive and influential.
[1] George Lakoff, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press,
2002).
[2] By using the term “made-up,” the writer is not
diminishing the importance of fairness or justice. The point is that nothing in nature can be
pointed at and be identified as fairness or justice. Fairness is an important mental construct.
