Language Frame and Democracy:
Senge, Lakoff, Emanuel/Reed, Denning and Moyers
By Mario deSantis, November 3, 2006

“So I have a practical suggestion for those of you who are principals, superintendents, school board members, and teachers: Go home from here and revise your core curriculum. Yes, teach the three Rs; teach the ABCs; make sure your kids learn algebra, biology, and calculus. But teach them about the American Revolution – that it isn’t just about white men in powdered wigs carrying muskets in a time long gone. It’s about slaves who rose up and women who wouldn’t be denied and unwelcome immigrants and exploited workers who against great odds claimed the revolution as their own and breathed life into it.” Bill Moyers, remarks in San Diego on October 27, 2006 to the Council of Great City Schools

Whenever in 1995 I read the book “The Fifth Discipline” by Peter Senge[1], I felt how classical and ever lasting the concept of the Learning Organization was. Today, I find out that 'The Fifth Discipline” has been published again as a new 2006 edition and will provide, I believe, an essential managerial understanding of the social challenges facing our interdependent globalized world.

I have been always partial to the philosophy of the Learning Organization and in 1996, as my son James was entering his undergraduate business administration program, I gave him a copy of “The Fifth Discipline.” The reason I gave him this book was that I thought he needed some social framework to embrace the many academic courses he was going to study. At that time I was fed up with the ubiquitous business philosophy “money talks” and I wanted James to have a better social meaning of business beyond money. Later, we both learnt that quite often as “money talks, b.s. walks[2].”

Some weeks ago I ventured to say that the 'mental models' as defined by Senge reminded me of the 'frame' as defined by linguist George Lakoff[3]. Senge defines “mental models” as the way we perceive our world, and therefore our mental models are shaped by our individual experiences and cultural environment.

Lakoff says that “every word is defined relative to a conceptual frame[4],” that is, frames provide cues of stories. So, for example, Bush's “tax relief” cues the story that taxes are bad things from which people need relief, Bush's “tort reform” cues the story that tort common laws are bad things from which people need reform, Bush's “Clear Sky Act” cues the story that our air is polluted from which people need the Clear Sky Act, Bush's “I am a uniter” cues the story that Bush is non partisan and that people should trust him, Bush's “war on terror” cues the story that terrorism is the new enemy and that Bush is strong on terror; and Lakoff[5] and myself can go on in naming other frames. In a few words, Lakoff implies that Bush&Co have designed a duplicitous language Frame[6] made up of slogan reminiscent of George Orwell's Newspeak.

Lakoff is working very hard in helping American democrats to win this coming election and he has been proposing that democrats find their collective voice by developing their own language Frame to oppose the duplicitous Bush&Co's Frame. However, Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Reed argue that the secret to winning a political argument is having better ideas[7], not in engaging in a Frame Game, as George Lakoff has been arguing. And in this respect Steve Denning gives credit to both Lakoff's need for a new democratic Frame (as a means of effective communication) and to Emannuel and Reed's need for better political ideas. Denning writes “The real question is not whether to get out of the frame game, but whether to frame intelligently or unintelligently, authentically or cynically, honestly or dishonestly. One would hope that both political parties would frame the issues intelligently, authentically and honestly. But it would be naive to believe that in doing so, they are not framing.[8]”

It is my perception that in encouraging democrats to develop their own Frame, Lakoff has temporarily neglected his deep understanding that Bush&Co's frame is not intelligent, it is not authentic and it is not honest. And in fact, the authentic Lakoff[9] is adamant in asserting that we require empathy[10] and responsibility[11] from our politicians. I agree with Denning's understanding that both parties should frame their issues intelligently, authentically and honestly. And I agree with Lakoff's understanding that Bush&Co 's values are void of either empathy or responsibility. Therefore, in striving for a better political American climate, both parties would ultimately have the same kind of issues and differ therefore in the different prioritization and related different intelligent solutions of these issues. But there is a major barrier, and it is what Bill Moyers[12] calls “a culture of corruption[13].” Moyers also asserts that this culture of corruption can be overcome with clean elections[14] and with a democratic revolution[15].

References

[1] deSantis, Mario “Systems Dynamics in Education: Systems Thinking and Systems Dynamics”; February 28, 1999 Ensign http://www.desantis.hypermart.net/EnsignStories_001-100/Ensign_story037/story037.htm

[2] deSantis, Mario “Money Talks, Mandatory Voting and our Democracy”; December 26, 2000 Ensign http://www.desantis.hypermart.net/EnsignStories_201-300/Ensign_story280/story280.htm

[3] deSantis, Mario “Is Bush in a State of Denial?” October 4, 2006 Ensign http://www.ftlcomm.com/ensign/desantisArticles/2006_934/desantis939/denial.html

[4] University of California, San Diego “Linguist George Lakoff Speaks About Moral Politics”; October 17, 2006 http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/general/jlakoff.asp

[5] The Rockridge Institute. The Rockridge Institute uses research in human cognition to help progressives make arguments that make sense to their audience. http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/aboutus

[6] Powell, Bonnie Azab “Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics”; 27 October 2003 UCBerkleyNews http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

[7] Emanuel, Rahm and Bruce Reed “Breaking Out of the Frame Game”; October 23, 2006 Real Clear Politics http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/10/breaking_out_of_the_frame_game.html

[8] Denning, Steve “Should We Break Out Of The Frame Game?” October 21, 2006 OpEdNews http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steveden_061021_should_we_break_out_.htm

[9] Lakoff, George “Metaphors of Terror”; September 16, 2001 University of Chicago Press http://www.press.uchicago.edu/News/911lakoff.html

[10] A definition of empathy: Empathy is commonly defined as one's ability to recognize, perceive and directly experientially feel the emotion of another... Empathy is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Definitions_of_empathy

[11] A definition of responsibility: In ethics, moral responsibility is primarily the responsibility related to actions and their consequences in social relations. It generally concerns the harm caused to an individual, a group or the entire society by the actions or inactions of another individual, group or entire society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_responsibility

[12] Moyers, Bill “U.S. Broadcast Journalist” The Museum of Broadcast Communications http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/M/htmlM/moyesrbill/moyersbill.htm

[13] Moyers, Bill “Let's Save Our Democracy by Getting Money Out of Politics”; April 6, 2006 Washington Spectator http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0406-29.htm

[14] Moyers, Bill “Lincoln Weeps”; October 03, 2006 TomPaine.com http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/10/03/lincoln_weeps.php

[15] Moyers, Bill “America 101”; November 01, 2006 TomPaine.com http://www.tompaine.com/print/america_101.php