When one considers how much of one’s thinking occurs in the
application and manipulation of metaphors, one should be in awe or, at least,
wonderment. The force of metaphors is no
more strident and consequential than when they relate to politics. This blog has addressed this topic on
previous occasions. One writer this site
has counted on is George Lakoff.[1]
In a previous
posting, “A Non-Rod Sparing Zone” (December 12, 2017),[2]
it introduces Lakoff’s description of a powerful metaphor, the “strict-father”
image that promotes discipline, via the use of punishment. The political connection, Lakoff explains, is
how this image, in its more intense forms leads people to adopt conservative
dispositions in how they view various social conditions. This view is particularly extended in terms
of issues involving the poor or lower classes.
The direct target, of course, is
welfare programs. The metaphor begins
with a sense – an assumption – that the world is a dangerous and uncompromising
place. To be equipped to meet its
challenges, one is best armed with a discipline that promotes hard work, a
no-nonsense outlook toward social landscapes, and if necessary, any nurturing
of a young person should be within narrow parameters.
That earlier posting described those
parameters as:
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.
Yes, one can attribute
much of the prevalence of this perspective to religious-Calvinist origins.
Central to the metaphor is
strength. Strict upbringings promote
strength. Coddling promotes
weakness. And further, strength relates
to moral uprightness; weakness relates to immoral degradation. And when one introduces this sense of
morality/immorality, then such thinking ups the stakes. So, in politics, one’s support or antagonism according
to this view crosses over to what can be tolerated in terms of public policy.
Here are other related notions and
emotions as they relate to teaching a younger generation:
Courage: the self-defining quality that deems if one will
stand up to those debilitating realities that are alluring but will prove
self-destructive and of mortal danger.
Courage needs to be imparted with appropriate socializing to those one
cares for or is commissioned to protect.
Will: the internal fortitude to feign off evil or
immorality for the advancement of one’s charges for the sake of a supernatural
force (God) and/or for one’s long-term benefit.
Checked emotions
(particularly anger): the shunning of sentimentality
for those persons or conditions that gnaw at rectitude to maintain the good
and/or the faith.
Checked
self-indulgence: the ability to not succumb
to immediate gratification; one can list the seven deadly sins as being the
sources of such indulgences. Each has a
countervailing virtue. They are greed-charity,
lust-chastity, gluttony-temperance, sloth-industry, pride-modesty, envy-satisfaction
with one’s position, and anger-calmness.
All of this leads to a set of views
about the world and the nature of morality.
They include a non-nuanced view of the world as being good or evil. To win the battle over evil, a person needs
to be strong. Being strong calls on
being self-disciplined through self-denial.
Otherwise, if one is weak, he/she will surrender to evil and commit
immoral acts. Therefore, not engaging in
those practices that lead to strength (self-denial), in the face of a corrupt
world, is immoral.
It
stands to reason, public policy that in anyway rewards this path to evil, is
likewise evil. Evil is reified under
this strain of thought. It spills over
to pass judgement on a slew of social policies that in anyway reflects an
“understanding” of human frailties. That
would include counter-opioid protocols that provide medication-assisted
treatment, MAT. These MATs have proven
to have significantly higher rates of success than non-MAT treatments, such as
12-step programs, but, under the above notions of evil, they are compromises of
the good.
Language
that supports this strict perspective includes terms such as “upright,” “backbone,”
“stand up to” and on the other side “fall.”
Again, the prevailing sense of strength and anti-weakness runs through
the language of like-minded people. And
the natural disposition of people – due to some idea of an original sin – is to
sin, to be weak, to shirk responsibilities one associates with being moral. Therefore, one needs to be taught – through “strict
father” strategies – to be moral.
And
those who ascribe to this line of feeling and thinking harbor a strong sense of
moral authority – which will be addressed the next time this topic pops up in
this blog. But before leaving this
concern, a word about the implications for civics should be added. They are a bit complicated and not all
intuitively derived.
Schools
– especially public schools – pose an inherent danger to this outlook. After all, in public schools, unless the
communities they serve are homogeneous populations, expose impressionable young
ones to those kids not being socialized under the auspices of strict-father
morality. Afterall, with this view of
morality, one tends to already view fellow humans in “us-them” terms. If on no other basis, there is always the “us”
(the moral people) vs. the “them” (the immoral people).
As
already stated, though, this strict vision reflects conservative thinking. But politically, one attribute – in terms of
economic thinking – conservatives strongly support a natural rights
mentality. This leads to a meaningful contradiction
that a creative civics teacher can use to have his/her students investigate the
limits of this sort of thinking.
That
is, conservatives while promoting a laissez-faire economic doctrine – everyone
do his/her own thing – favor strong social restraints – e.g., anti-abortion
policies. Sometimes this leads to
inconsistent policy promotions – freedom to express one’s messaging on social
media (a laissez-faire stand relating to an economic enterprise) while
promoting anti-pornography policy that would police what shows up on social media
or online content in general.
This
writer sees this contradiction as reflecting the general conservative line of
thinking expressed by such writers as Jonah Goldberg.[3] They stress the educational factors that need
to take place in order to promote the discipline to overcome the natural
tendencies of humans to be bad – anti social – but they promote at the same
time a natural rights view. In all that,
there seems to be a deep inconsistency this writer cannot fully understand. Maybe if this writer had had that creative
civics teacher[4]
in his younger days, it would all be clear.
[2] Robert Gutierrez, “A Non-Rod Sparing Zone,” Gravitas: A
Voice for Civics, December 12, 2017, accessed August 15, 2019, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-non-rod-sparing-zone.html .
[3] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide
of the West: How the Rebirth of
Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American
Democracy (New York, NY: Crown Forum,
2018).
[4] Actually, this writer had in the twelfth grade – problems
of American democracy class – the very excellent teacher, Brother Austin,
F.S.C. Brother Austin passed way before
his time, but he is remembered fondly.
No comments:
Post a Comment