Introduction
Framing is a crucial concept for people engaged in social change to understand. George Lakoff describes frames as “mental structures that shape the way we see the world.” Framing is the art of communicating such that one’s language activates particular unspoken ideas and associations. Being intentional about framing as part of progressive campaigns means activating relevant values and encouraging more people to think in terms of our worldview.Cognitive linguist George Lakoff knows a lot about framing. In 2004, he authored “Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate”. This was a seminal popular work on framing. (Arguably, Lakoff framed “framing” for the general public, which is quite an achievement.) In this synopsis, I’ll follow the path that Lakoff himself takes through the book, emphasising a few concepts I found particular useful. We’ll start with framing and metaphor, learn about the different worldviews, and also learn about the important idea of biconceptualism.
Frames are neural lenses that determine how we see the world
Framing is the art of communicating such that one’s language activates particular unspoken ideas and associations. “We think”, writes George Lakoff, “with our brains.” Each brain is unique, and the brain’s physical circuitry determines which ideas are easier to activate for that brain. This neural layer aligns with cognitive associations that are stronger (or weaker) in the thinking (both conscious and unconscious) of the person whose brain it is. I think of a frame as ‘a bundle of different associations activated in the brain by a cue’. That is, a frame links together different ideas such that speaking about one part of this idea activates – at an unconscious level – other implicit associations. The linkage may initially be done explicitly, or it may tap into pre-existing linkages that are implicit by now (just think about the associations with the idea of a “Karen”). The power of a frame then is how it communicates so much with so little. Not only that, framing enables communication that says more than it lets on. (“Dog-whistling” is itself a frame that could describe this phenomenon.)Frames exist in the brain
Lakoff describes frames a bit differently as “mental structures that shape the way we see the world.” This definition emphasises the powerful way that frames shape perception. Framing modifies your very brain, making it easier for it to understand some things and making other things virtually incomprehensible. Frames literally exist at the neural level of the brain. Particular language activates distinct circuits in the brain, making their synapses stronger and strengthening them over time: ‘synapses that fire together, wire together’. As this occurs, it becomes more likely that this circuit will spring into action in the future: a changed brain means changed thinking. It becomes easier and more automatic to think in terms of a particular worldview. An important implication of this is that “to be accepted, the truth must fit people’s frames”. A brain simply cannot accept facts that don’t map to its existing neural architecture. This is a challenge for campaigners, especially progressives who are very caught up in facts. The challenge is to counter frames and strengthen our own frames without perversely strengthening opposition frames. Further, activating a frame – even when rejecting it – strengthens the frame. This is why it is so important to avoid our opponent’s language. For example, nobody, ever, should argue that “seeking asylum is not illegal” as this activates exactly the frame of illegal asylum seekers: it creates a physical link in the brain between the idea of “asylum seeker” and the idea of “illegal”. This neural dimension is the most interesting and the most fundamental insight of the book for me. To create political change, we aren’t trying to change minds. We are trying to change brains. We are trying to activate the values that the public already has, strengthen the brain circuits that engage with our moral worldview, and encourage more people to think in terms of our worldview. This can feel strange to talk about, but I think it is the right thing to do. Most people share our values! Most people think that responsibility and empathy matter. It is desirable then that we talk about the importance of responsibility and empathy, remind people that caring matters, and encourage them to apply this sort of lens to political decision-making. In this 5 minute video, George Lakoff describes the original analysis of frames, their physical existence in the brain, and how metaphors are developed in human cognition.Framing and metaphor
There is a relationship between framing and metaphor. Metaphor is so much more than just a poetic technique you learnt about in high school. At the cognitive level, metaphor recasts an abstraction in terms of concrete, simpler ideas. For example, an important metaphor is that the nation is a family, with government as the parent and citizens as the children. Like framing, metaphor establishes an association between different ideas. This association goes both ways: once it is established, we can apply ideas from the nation onto a family, and vice-versa. This metaphor – of the nation as a family – is essential to understanding conservative and progressive thinking. According to Lakoff, conservatives have a fundamentally different worldview from progressives because they have a fundamentally different view of the sort of family that the nation should be like. This different view underpins all effective framing. These different worldviews are “strict father morality” (conservative) and “nurturant parent morality” (progressive).Two different worldviews
Politics is fundamentally moral. It is a contest between different values, between opposing views of what is right. These views are underpinned by two contrasting models for how the nation should function. As Lakoff describes it, he began by trying to understand how conservative politics was linked: why does the same party oppose welfare, support militarism, and want to control women’s bodies? He then turned the question on himself: why do I, as a progressive, have an opposite view on all these issues?Strict father morality
Strict father morality underpins the conservative worldview and is built around some key assumptions:- There will always be winners and losers.
- Children are born pleasure-seeking and without a sense of right and have to be made good. This is done through punishment.
- Good children will work hard and become prosperous. (“Thus,” points out Lakoff, this model “links morality with prosperity”.) As such it is immoral to give things to people that they haven’t earned because it discourages moral behaviour.
- Doing good is about following authority and following self-interest and becoming self-reliant.