“Challenging the popular notions of what this buzzword is all about: investigating why some progressives are resistant to the concept of framing in general.
Reframing pokes at a number of sore spots for people on the Left. Some of those spots include:
1. Our insistence that the Facts Alone Will Set Us Free.
2. Our resistance to ideas that feel like marketing and “selling.”
3. The challenge that we might be fundamentally mistaken about how things operate.
4. The idea that framing is some kind of “magic bullet” to fix our problems. (Though no one is suggesting that it is.”
-from Deanna Zandt’s post on AlterNet, where she also discusses Peter Teague’s earlier comments in “Suitable for Framing?” Teague says:
“Genuine re-framing is the hard work that progressives will have to do if we are to have any hope of offering a serious challenge to right-wing domination of American politics. It is the work that must precede message framing: Message framing without deep conceptual reframes is like hanging pictures in a house in New Orleans’ Lower Ninth Ward right now. Without exposing the mold and the rot, taking things down to the foundations where necessary, and then framing new walls, windows and doors, we’re not going to build a home that will last.”
Zandt says it a little differently, arguing we need to connect with our audiences on a deeper, emotional level by starting with our shared values: “we have to dig deeper and examine closely just what those values are, and how we tap into them. Her advice:
“Reframing is the difficult, and often scary, prospect of admitting what doesn’t work and rediscovering our fundamental core. We’ve pointed fingers at those who give in to their fears, but maybe it’s time for us to stop being afraid as well.”
Cross-posted at www.seattlefordean.com and www.howieinseattle.com.
Even a single issue, such as the contradiction of facts against accepted story of 9/11, illustrates the avoidance of facts when they challenge traditional thinking.
Does framing take these issues into consideration?
Framing is needed in the modern world where few have much time and the sad reality is that many view facts as long and boring and hard to digest. This 1-is the world of “tell” me what you mean. Give me a point of view to use as my own.
Sad reality. If you doubt it, try to explain how Bush and the boys have lied about everything and yet gotten away with the lot. the facts are not enough. they need to be distilled down to a manageable size. Put into a sound bite and marketed with everyone espousing the same message. The last point is probably why the Dems cannot do it.
done it. So have Evo Morales, Harold Pinter, and Arundhati Roy, and forgive me for those I leave out.
Maybe the reason the “Dems” cannot do it is because they do not, in their hearts believe it, because “bipartisan unity” is a force stronger than the desire for legitimate statehood, stronger than the desire that their children have a future, stronger than the instinct of self-preservation.
I guess you could say that “bipartisan unity” is just another one of the many faces of greed, the only known substance stronger than any of that, but you would surely be reviled and vilified and accused of underestimating Americans’ Resolve.
They did achieve the framing and it was effective in getting the message across. It didn’t work too well for them when the media twisted the frame. That’s where the left needs to step up to or refine define the discussion. We need to support our own framework.
Even if they were not subject to certain constraints from Washington, it is unlikely that they would consider “telling it like it is” to be a very good business decision.
People do not want to hear “bad things” about those in whom they have placed their trust, their admiration, especially him through whom, they believe, God speaks.
If you understand that torture, like a woman’s right to ownership of her own body, not to mention equal protection under the law, have become “wedge issues” in the Democratic furk of the American political chattering voting elite, then you automatically understand that while window for a political solution has closed, other windows stand open, inviting breezes wave aloft white lace curtains, waiting in vain for leapers…
There’s a great parable in here somewhere 😀
I agree with what you’re saying but I think the framing issue is misunderstood by the left. If a woman’s right to choose, which I fully support, is expressed as a part of overall freedom of choice, a better connection cn be made. If sanctity of life is connected to the death penalty and ‘acceptable collateral loss’, the pro-life people waver.
I think an effective strategy is to find as much support in broad terms that would include acceptance of specific divisive issues.
I agree that the left misunderstands the framing issue. Every discussion I read about framing ends up talking about “truth” and “lies”. I read Lakoff’s book (and I’ve watched the Republicans) and as far as I can tell truth and lies don’t matter when thinking about framing. You can frame a lie as easily as you can frame a truth. But you have to identify your frame. A frame is not a motto, a frame is not a belief. A frame is a way of looking at the world into which you can slot all the information that is bombarding you. Or, more clearly, a framework on which to hang all the information coming at you, whether that information be truth or lies. If the information doesn’t fit into the frame, well …. its just to haaaaaard and its discarded.
People have multiple frames that they work off of, hanging information like laundry from a clothesline. It’s just that their conservative frame is full of laundry (I’m mixing metaphors) and their progressive frame is empty because they keep receiving stuff that they don’t know belongs on the progressive clothesline. That’s the problem. If we could break through and figure out how our mail (to mix metaphors again) doesn’t get labelled as spam and get’s into the right inbox — we’d have it made. And it wouldn’t matter if the mail contained lies or truth — although being good progressives, OURS would be true.
You have summed it up perfectly. A frame is the container that is created to highlight specific information chosen to be presented or displayed. A painting of a single rose is different from that of the same one in a rose garden or one of many roses in an ornamental landscape. It’s still the same rose.
Maybe the term we’re looking for is similar to focus?
Thanks. Although I think it’s important to remember that WE don’t create the container. We figure out what containers Mr. John Q. Public already has sitting around the house and give him a plant to put into it. In making our plant selection we must always assume that Mr. John Q. Public is lazy and won’t go out and buy a new container for OUR plant. And if its not in a container he doesn’t water it and it dies. We must also assume that Mr. John Q. Public is very picky about his decor and our chances of designing a container that will suit his needs is slim. Much better to peruse his existing container collection and pick our plant appropriately, still sending the message on the little card attached.
I think that’s where custom framing comes in and that is especially important for nonconservatives because of the vast diversity.
It’s much easier to create frames around lies than around truths because one can always change the “facts” to fit the frame when you’re willing to lie.
This is a big reason why the Repub machine has such a huge advantage. they’ll invent any lie they need to in order to advance their agenda.
misunderstand it. All they need to do is go take an entry level advertising class.
If I reduce the size of my company’s TV dinner by 50%, I raise the price and advertise it as being “lighter, with fewer calories – because we care about your health too!”
That is framing, and I am as against it as BooMan is, it is one of the few things on which we agree. 😉
There is a significant difference between framing and misrepresentation.
The TV dinner ad is not misrepresented. It is indeed lighter because it contains half the food the old version did.
You could argue that the reason it is lighter is not because I share your concern about your health, and it does not explain why the price has been raised, but it does not contain a material misrepresentation of the product.
Now to someone who has put on a few extra pounds and is in the market for a TV dinner with a familiar taste and fewer calories, the ad does its job. It provides them with basic information about the product – it is lighter – and it reminds them of a reason they might want it – concern about health. If they really liked the old version, and they are concerned enough about their health, they will pay the increased price without complaint. They will see the ad as good news.
However to someone who is just hungry, and has a large appetite and is not concerned about their weight, they will see the ad as bad news.
But neither viewer can say that the ad has misrepresented anything. All it does is frame less food for more money in a way that will resonate with most consumers.
If I reduce the size of my company’s TV dinner by 50%, I raise the price and advertise it as being “lighter, with fewer calories – because we care about your health too!”
My comment was based on what information was presented. I don’t see evidence that the company cares about health. Actually, if the company has to reduce the portion size to make it healthy it shows their lack of concern for previously selling an unhealthy product. It could be both.
Or become better educated about nutrition, and the increased price is only because of higher packaging costs, since one unit of packaging now packages a smaller amount of product.
But that doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter whether the consumer really believes the company cares about their health. All they care about is a TV dinner that has fewer calories. And that is the main thrust of the ad, and it is a true statement about the product.
While the ad does not misrepresent, it does not frame its message in terms of product costs.
Now a frame CAN misrepresent as well.
When Mr. Danger and ilk frame the “war on terror,” they do misrepresent some things. But they are also truthful about some things.
“America must have Resolve to make sacrifices in order to Prevail over the evil enemy that lurks.”
Part of that is quite true. America would need the resolve to make sacrifices even if it were fighting a defensive war against an invading Belgian army.
Whether America’s enemies are evil or not is a matter of opinion and perspective. At the moment, many of America’s enemies are Iraqis and Afghanis fighting to defend their families from an invading horde of US torturers and sexual predators. Most Americans see that as evil, so the message resonates with them.
And most see anyone who opposes US policies to be an evil enemy.
The lurking question is more complicated, because once you get off the internets, where the term is very common, fewer in the mainstream will be quite sure what is meant by lurk, but very certain that America’s evil enemies do it, and that to Prevail against them will require the Resolve to make sacrifices.
Now just as the TV dinner could say, less food for more money, Mr. Danger could say, I’m going to turn this country into post-Aristide Port au Prince because me and me friends want more money.
But neither of those would be likely to resonate with the respective target audiences.
Without going back through all of that, I don’t remember the ad mentioning calorie value or calorie content to portion ratio. Simply having a smaller postion doesn’t ensure lower calories if other compromises are involved.
As to the issue of framing, let me ask your opinion on how this issue could be overcome to join forces together on a common goal.
The gap is too wide, both economically and ideologically.
I’m sorry to return to the TV Dinner (which did say fewer calories, by the way) the guy with a big appetite who is hungry is not going to buy anything in a small box that tells him it is lighter.It doesn’t matter how you present it, or “frame it,” if what you are offering is a small portion of food when he wants and needs a big plate ful, you and he are just not going to be a match.
No imperialist is going to be interested in anything I have to say about cessation of aggression and disarmament, and nobody on what would be the “left” if the US had one is interested in anything the imperialists have to say about continuing to bomb this or that country, or even outsourcing the wetwork to the US Department of International Approval Stamps, or as they like to call it, the UN.
There are many things in the world on which compromises can be reached, agreements hammered out, but there are a few that cannot. Rape is one, child abuse is one, and imperialism is another.
The best that can be hoped for is that believers confine their practice to the world of theory and fantasy, and refrain from real world practice on other humans.
i talked to this wingnut last night who wanted to know why I thought the Saudi government was the worst in known history. He was utterly convinced that Saddam was the worst in history, and he threw out the 100,000 civilians that Saddam killed.
I made several points in response to this, and would have made more if this wingnut were not so ill-informed about the basic history of the region.
But the last straw for the wingnut was when I compared Saddam Hussein to Abraham Lincoln. “How many people did Abe Lincoln kill, how many of his own people, Americans, did Abe Lincoln kill, when he decided not to let the south secede?”
The guy’s mind shut down It was too much. I had already pointed out that we were no more successful at ruling Iraq w/o violence than Saddam had been (and that we were on a pace to eclispse Saddam’s deathcount in a mere 8 years).
No, this man thought, the Saudis aren’t so bad and we should be able to base our troops there if we want to and live in peace.
“Yes, I said, we “should” be able to do that. But we have to accept a level of risk.
He had been totally brainwashed.
You think the Saudi Government is the worst in history? Why?
No, they are not the worst in history. If we limit history to modern history, I’d say the are the most corrupt and by far the most hypocritical. But they are by no means the cruelest.
Just wondering.
In my opinion, that was an excellent example of framing the information and the issues. I’ll bet that guy was a complete meltdown.
was not framing. That was rhetoric. Rhetoric and framing must be distinguished or framing loses all meaning.
It was actually an incredibly poor effort at framing because it caused his mind to shut down and stop considering the merits of my argument. But that was my intent, as I was fucking with him.
He basically labelled you as spam and deleted you.
Which was OK since you intended to simply piss him off. There are people I know that I do that to all the time.
But you’re right — people shouldn’t think that you were actually attempting framing.
I didn’t want to claim that you were a piss poor framer but if you hadn’t responded I might have been forced to 🙂
but, my point reached right down into his most sacred beliefs and like a tuning fork reverberated to his core.
The logic of my rhetoric had been built up in several set pieces, and he was led along by the nose to the coup de grace.
Iraq is not a country that be governed easily, if at all, without violence. Neither was America in 1860. In both cases, the leader resorted to incredible violence to hold the country together.
To him, it was a sin to compare the two situation because Lincoln was fighting on the correct side, and Saddam was not. However, he had no idea who Saddam was fighting against and what their relative merits might have been.
He had never considered that Saddam was a violent brute, at least in large part, because he had no viable alternative.
I asked him if he thought Abe Lincoln has wanted 100,000 Americans to die. No, he responded.
Do you think Saddam wanted 100,000 Iraqis to die? Yes, he said.
Why?
Because he is a sick, murderous bastard.
But wouldn’t he prefer not to be threatened by his own people and to be able to rule in peace?
It was here that the point sunk home and I was accused of blaspheming Abe Lincoln.
He rejected my argument only when its strength overwhelmed him. This is effective rhetoric, but it only sinks in later, and in subtle ways. And it sure as hell ain’t framing.
I have a theory that rhetoric works best in speeches and in papers but doesn’t work so well in personal encounters. Once the person has the ability to interrupt you, you’ve lost the rhetorical edge.
Clearly you knew this person and can best judge whether rhetoric is the best way to win him over.
Personally, I’ve had most of my success converting people by making sure that I never win an argument with them. Once they think I’ve won, they become entrenched in their wingnut position. Their little brains can’t take in the fact that someone could win an argument so they just reject the idea and label me a liberal crank.
I find that if I let them think that they came to the conclusion on their own they are more likely to accept it.
very true. If I had not been repeatedly interrupted with factually inaccurate assertions and Rush Limbaugh talking points, I would not have resorted to mental assault.
Exactly
I could be wrong but I thought framing was not exclusive to either good or bad intentions. I thought framing was a technical issue.
True, framing is not exclusive to good or bad intentions. But you cannot achieve either good or bad intentions until you get the other person to listen to you and consider your point of view. So you have to figure out what frames the person has to work with and try to fit your argument into those frames. The fact that this guy ended up melting down meant that Booman didn’t figure out what frame was there in his reptilian brain that he could use to make the guy see reason. So eventually, he gave up, compared Sadaam to Lincoln knowing the guy would melt down.
…or it was exceptionally great framing if the meltdown was the intended effect.
True — if the ultimate goal was meltdown, Booman found the perfect way to do it.
Framing is an offshoot of cognitive science. It plays on people’s pre-cognitive biases.
Here is the most famous intro to framing:
In other words, framing focuses on the careful selection of words within an argument, while rhetoric focuses on the logical construction of an argument.
By evoking Abe Lincoln, my victim’s frame of an honest, decent, courageous, and morally upright man was place beside his frame of a murderous, ruthless, merciless tyrant.
This was too much for him. The framing was so bad that I lost the argument immediately. But the logic was flawless. And it was effective. Someday down the road we may find that I actually won the argument.
I think framing is choosing information to be presented in order to cause a reaction, either positive or negative. In this understanding of the term, the choices, intent and end result are all variable. Framing, by itself, doen’t carry a moral value until we give it one.
The reason I often say that I hate framing is not because I think Lakoff is wrong, or a crank, or that framing is not important. I hate framing because no one seems to understand what it is, and what it is not. And I also do not agree that the anemic state of the left in this country is a result of bad framing or that it can be cured by good framing alone.
Framing is a discipline, and an activity. Here is what it is not.
Framing is not synomous with talking. You can’t take a sentence uttered by a person who is not self-consciously framing, and pick it apart for the frames that were used, and call that framing. Or wait…you CAN DO THAT, and that is what about 98% of internet framing chatter amounts to.
I don’t know if you have ever taken a symbolic logic class. But, in those classes you learn to take any argument and break it down into logical symbols so you can test the validity of the argument in a mathematical looking equation.
An argument can be very convincing, while at the same time being invalid. Skillful rhetoricians learn to make breathtaking invalid arguments. But they are always made in a logical construct. Points are built up in sequence, each relying on the last, until at some point, a logical leap takes place and pulls the unwitting suspect along for the ride. This is not framing. Nor is it demagoguery, that merely relies on prejudices or bias.
Framing is closer to demagoguery, in that it pays no attention to the logic, or seeming logic of an argument. A framed argument and a non-framed argument will look the same when expressed in symbolic logic. It can valid or invalid.
All that changes are the words. Good is replaced with great. Pro is replaced with anti. But the argument itself remains the same.
My Abe Lincoln argument was based on a valid logical argument. A=B B=C A=C.
Framing had no part in it. You can find frames, but the frames were not used by me to make my point. They were jettisoned by me, for shock value.
I think framing and rhetoric can work hand in hand. Especially in formal settings like speeches or articles. Rhetoric relies on a logical construct. Framing is more about what is the best way to communicate the different parts of the logical construct so that your audience doesn’t tune you out and miss an essential step in the logical construct. You can have both.
Absolutely. And we all do this anyway, especially when we have to convey unpleasant information, like the fact that we crashed the car, had an affair, spent too much money on clothes, forgot to pick up the kids…or went to war without a plan, and without any valid intelligence to justify it.
Framing is more than natural coloring of communication. It is a science of examining the reactions to words in a controlled experiment.
But, from all the diaries dedicated to framing, you would think framing was something done by the denizens of political websites in their living rooms.
Oh I completely agree with you that most discussion about framing is ridiculous “how do we frame this” crap that really means let’s just come up with a good jingoistic expression. I don’t even read it most of the time.
One way I think of framing in the everyday world is to imagine yourself going in to ask for a raise. You want to put a logical argument on the table for why you deserve more money. You also want to phrase it in a way that will get a sympathetic response. So you try to figure out, based on your boss, what is most likely to make her feel good about at least considering your request. Saying something like, you stupid idiot, this business would be NOTHING without me, might be true, but is unlikely to work. But talking about things that are important to HER, so that she, in a sense, is nodding her head through your whole presentation, is more likely to work.
I was just reading my last response and noticed something.
I said that an argument can be a framed argument or a non-framed argument.
Think about that.
Here is where I encounter the most frustrating discussion of framing. What does it mean to say that an argument is framed?
It implies that an argument can be non-framed.
But, too often people will say that all arguments are framed.
No. All arguments involve frames. But to frame an argument is to consciously choose the frames that are contained within it.
A non-framed argument still contains frames. It’s just that the frames were expressed unconciously, and therefore they do not constitute the tool of persuasion.
If I make an argument for the legality of abortion and I use the term anti-choice to try to subtly persuade my audience, then I am framing.
Logically, I could have used pro-life. I could have used paternalitic authoritarian bastard. All the same. But only when I choose my words for their pre-cognitive, non-rational, or purely emotional effects, am I engaged in framing.
Framing is distinct from frames.
I agree. Framing is choosing your words in a way that you hope provokes the person to whom you are speaking to view what you are saying through a frame that YOU have selected. Of course you may fail because they don’t possess that frame through which to look. So you try again, using words to evoke a different frame.
This is what I said over half an hour ago.
Yes, you did.
Right. You did say that. But, I hope, you can see framing as a much narrower subset of argumentation than merely “choosing information to be presented in order to cause a reaction, either positive or negative.”
It is not information that is chosen. Not really. Is is not finding some statistic, or article, or speech, or police report, or factoid to persuade.
It is not merely advocating a point. It is advocating a point in a certain self-conscious way, and advocating that point without respect to the facts. That is framing.
Framing is manipulative. It is still necessary to engage in framing, as well as in polling, in order to be an effective politician or political party. I am not saying framing is bad or stupid. I am saying that people talk about framing without understanding what it is. And it is a form of demagogery. You can be a demagogue for good.
A demagogue for truth.
I like it.
Thanks for the stimulation on a boring Sunday morning. Now its time for a little frivolity.
oops, you said good. Well, that too.
Ok, let’s try this. I’ll agree to accept what you’re saying about misconceptions of framing as true. Let me ask again a question from earlier.
How does your view of framing work into the mix of others that disagree in achieving a common goal?
I don’t understand the question.
Let’s say we’re at opposite ends of the issue and I support what I consider the effective use of honest framing to further our common goal. I still accept the differences you point out but I believe we can use the framing with integrity, as I understand framing. How does that effect your support for our common goal?
Framing is like polling. To do it right, you hook people’s brains up to electrodes and monitor their brain waves while you say certain words to them or show them certain pictures.
By doing this, you can find the most effective ways to manipulate them into supporting your party. And you can avoid the common pitfalls that cause people not to support your party.
If you believe in your party’s goals, then you are doing this in good faith and with integrity. The Dems should do the experiments and use the resulting data.
They should NOT listen to armachair scientists that scream at them to stop using Republican frames based on nothing more than their intuition.
Anyway, just remember, if you say anti-choice instead of pro-life, a huge number of people will get hung up on an unfamiliar term and stop listening. Another group will not notice the strange term ‘anti-choice’ and will be subtly persuaded to your point of view. Just don’t let armchair bullies tell you which is more effective in which setting.
Sounds like you deconstructed his frames with your rhetoric! Frames & framing do differ, but not in the way you suggest. Framing is closely akin to categorizing, i.e. it is how we begin to organize the world.
My first exposure to Lakoff’s “frames” came in a 1982 article, “Continuous Reframing,” in the Poetics Journal No. 1 that analyzed the art of performance artist George Coates & SF poet Michael Palmer.
Lakoff contends that all meangingful discourse uses frames. There is no such thing as a non-framed argument in his view, nor an unframed experience (as you awkwardly put it, “A non-framed argument still contains frames”). What you are calling “framing” would be the explicit making conscious of the frames in play, as well as consciously trying to redirect them. Lakoff would say that you are framing everytime you open your mouth to speak or bend an ear to another speaker. Reducing the notion of framing to emotional effect is, like much of the talk around the subject by the left, to miss the point & turn it into a pop metaphor.
From the article:
My favorite phrase from the article is one which seems most apt to characterize our struggle to cope in and make sense of the world: “partial local coherences.”
are falling into the exact trap that I find so annoying whenever framing is discussed.
It amounts to a confusion of when ‘frame’ is a noun and when it is a verb and when it is an adjective.
While Lakoff would assert that all communication is received within frames, and also is sent using frames, that is not what ‘framing’ is about.
Framing (a verb…to frame) is not a synonym for communicating. If you use the word this way, it becomes impossible to distinguish talking from a more unique subset of communication.
Therefore, you have framed arguments, and you have non-framed arguments, not just arguments.
If you consider all arguments as framed (as in, they are all sent and received through frames) then you are reduced to considering whether or not the arguments contain good or bad frames.
This is the type of level that too much conversation about framing operates on.
Here is the point: we are always using frames, but should we attempt to do this consciously based on experimental cognitive science? Should we just do it based on what some poli sci major that has read Lakoff thinks are effective frames? Should we always use alternate language to counter disadvantageous frames? Or should we pick our battles and moments?
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with picking a policy, and then doing a brainmap of several hundred people to see how that policy can be presented in the optimal way. The ethics of doing that depends not on the experiment, but on the policy.
If your goal is to enact universal health care, okay. If your goal is to arouse hatred of Jews and Muslims, not okay.
What I can’t stand are armchair dogmatic framing police.
Sorry, but I’m using “framing” in the way Lakoff does; you are using it with a specificity that changes it into something different. Read his words again.
THAT is what annoys me in these discussions; part of it is Lakoff’s fault, part the difficulty of applying complex cognitive processes to political discourse. I actually have grave doubts as to the efficacy of trying, given how poorly misunderstoof the concept is.
I’d also reject that a frame can be “good” or “bad” per se; those evaluations can only be achieved through an ideological lens.
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with picking a policy, and then doing a brainmap of several hundred people to see how that policy can be presented in the optimal way. The ethics of doing that depends not on the experiment, but on the policy.
Agreed, but that has to do with marketing messages, not framing (though it can & Lakoff argues should involve consideration of the frames being used).
What I can’t stand are armchair dogmatic framing police.
Is there some reason you need to make derogatory remarks about people who disagree with you, or does ‘don’t be an asshole’ only apply to everyone else? I don’t recall calling you names here.
I am not directing my impatience with armchair framers to you. Unless you are in the habit of nagging people about their frames. I have no idea.
The fault does lie with Lakoff, because he has failed to make the distinctions that are necessary to make political framing a coherent concept, let alone a winning strategy.
At its simplest, it is useful. Be aware of your own speech, and do not use your opponent’s frames.
The problem is that there is now a cottage industry in bullying people to use certain frames and avoid others. And I hate getting these comments in my threads. I’ve lost all patience for it.
Lakoff’s a top-notch, exciting linguist; I’m not so convinced about him political science theorist. He’s actually best with specific examples; some of the best dissection of Bush I’s war discourse was circualted on the net. In trying to forge political discourse principles from his cognitive theories he’s tried to dumb down his stuff & a lot of nonsense has since spwed forth.
I still think you’re mis-using — or at least changing his meaning — of “framing.”
Don’t know if you’d call it a habit, but I have in the past noted here when both you & Pat Lang were using language that perpetutated the ‘mad men of Tehran’ frame of the war hawks.
At its most complex (to turn your phrase) framing is useful — no, essential — when examined introspectively to discover, as in the Lakoff quote above, the hidden assumptions that shape our own individual perception of the world & our language (at all levels, not merely vocabulary) unconsciously re-inforces & itself shapes that world view.
First & foremost it is a tool of personal empowerment; it’s a partisan tool for argumentation at a much more superficial level.
Be sure to report back to us when that happens. And feel free to gloat.
the time that girls’ school in Saudi-Occupied Arabia caught on fire and the little girls who tried to escape the flames were driven back into the inferno to burn alive in order to spare the school the shame of having them appear outside the building in their night clothes.
I believe US has already slaughtered more Iraqis than Saddam ever did, even at his bloodiest, back when he was one of Amrika’s most valued native overseers.
And you are correct, imperialism is not without risk, or without cost.
“I believe US has already slaughtered more Iraqis than Saddam ever did, even at his bloodiest, back when he was one of Amrika’s most valued native overseers.”
I think you’re right. There was that article in Lancet that put the number of dead Iraqi civilians around 100,000, and that was over a year ago, IIRC.
Many believe the US responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis well before Bush took office – through the mechanism of sanctions. Human rights observers & activists have been pushing this frame of “responsibility” for a decade now; most liberal democrats are not yet prepeared to accept that framing.
Well, at the risk of getting into another “framing” discussion with you . . .
(The reason we have such trouble with this one, imo, is that you and I mean very different things by the term, but attempts on agreeing on a definition haven’t gotten very far – we both seem to end up at “Framing means X!” “No it doesn’t, framing means Y!” “You’re wrong, it means X!” I really don’t know how to get past that one.)
Anyway, my definition of “frames” is maryb’s – it has nothing to do with truth or lies, it’s a way of looking at the world. I think that your wingnut’s “frame” is one that has been carefully built by the radical right, mainly through the media propaganda machine. It is a (deliberately) defective, distorting frame that causes him to see information (facts, truth) in a way that we on the left are astounded by. And as mary (and Lakoff) point out – when we receive information that does not fit into our frames, our initial response is simply to reject it. Does not compute. Disappears without a trace somewhere in the neurons.
Interestingly, recent research shows
We’re dealing with some very hard-wired stuff here.
But the good news is that frames are not set in concrete. Humans are constantly remodeling them, based on experience and new information. But s-l-o-w-l-y, and in tiny increments. Conservatives’ frames can be remodeled. One of the things Lakoff is saying is that progressives need to acknowledge the existence of frames (ours too!) and get to work on communicating in ways that contributes to this remodeling in those who have bought into the distorting frames created by propaganda – the brainwashed ones.
IMO, it doesn’t require disguising or watering down what we are trying to say to make it “palatable” the the unwashed masses. It doesn’t even require “simple sound bites” though some realism about how much time and attention average person pays to issues we think are screamingly important is probably in order.
It does not require any lying – on the contrary – truth is a powerful frame remodeler, but it requires communicating the truth effectively and repeatedly. Wishy washy hedging and waffling is not effective. Repetition is necessary because changing a frame is a difficult and gradual process – in all of us – because we are dealing with the nature of how our brains work, hard-wired stuff.
Great points. The only part where we MAY differ is that I don’t think that frames are built by us. I think they are hardwired into people and some are used and others aren’t. The conservatives have looked at their target audience, figured out what frames these people have in their possession, analyzed which of those frames is best suited for conveying their message and then proceeded to staple as many messages and posters to it as they can fit. Once you see the frame, its easy to figure out where to put the messages.
Our problem is that we’ve targeted our audience and we know what our message is — but we just can’t locate the right frame amongst all the debris of the last 50 years or so lying in the attic of the american psyche. So we keep trying to make formats for our message not really knowing how they are going to fit on the frame because we don’t have a picture of the frame. It’s very frustrating.
Well, I guess this is a disagreement. I don’t see the frames themselves as hardwired – I see the necessity for viewing the world through frames as hardwired. It’s in the actual architecture of the neurons, necessary in order to make sense of the world and function in it. Similar to how we don’t actually process all sensory input in our cerebral cortex – the info (visual for example) is preprocessed, sorted, correlated, and much discarded in the thalamus, a non-conscious part of the brain, before it’s sent onward to the cortex.
While there is obvious value and necessity in identifying and working with the frames people already have – just because changing a frame is so difficult – I do think that they can change over time. Some people remodel their frames more easily than others. Good scientists have to be able to do it, for example, because new information is constantly changing our understanding of the natural world, and thus the frame through which we view it.
And I think we can participate in our own frame remodeling, by really challenging our preconceptions and doing our best to think critically – forcing ourselves to look at and think about information that seems uncomfortable. But of course, many people for many reasons don’t do much of that. I do think that even some of their frames are being remodeled, slowly and imperceptibly to them, by outside forces.
oops, I forgot your were in healthcare and I should be very careful with terms like hardwire! I agree that the necessity for viewing frames through the world is what is hardwired. And I suppose I agree that frames therefore must be constructed. I agree that we each can participate in OUR OWN frame remodeling.
But I still don’t think that I can construct a frame for you. I can make you realize that, somewhere, you have possession of a frame that you may have forgotten about. A frame based on experience and the moral and civic values instilled in you through the years. But I think the message only gets through if its YOUR frame.
However, examining and refurbishing my own frames might give me insight into YOUR frames.
I like how you’ve expressed this. The activity of framing is anecessary one (harwired if you will in cocnitive processes); the frames tehmselves are subjective, often partial, & subject to revison.
The films of Leni Riefenstahl were used as propoganda by the Germans; the same films with identical events depicted, language used, were shown in the US to stir up anti-nazi sentiments. The difference? The frames each audience brought to the theater & through which they viewed the film.
Bushie-boy meant it when he said that you have to repeat something many times over, to “catapult the propaganda.” That may be a paraphrase, but his double meaning is not lost on me.
Progressive Blog PAC could place ads on buses, in bus stops, in bathroom stalls, etc. in order to catapult the lies of the right.
Just read this oped on opednews, thought it interesting and pretty much spot-on on a lot of points.
Drinking the Sand (or How to Sell without Selling Out)
Ok, so it’s wrong wrong wrong that people are too busy, too distracted, too apathetic, whatever, to pay attention to anything that doesn’t show up packaged in slick three second soundbite decorated with attractive graphics, but dammit, that’s how it is today, period.
If the Dems don’t catch on that this is what they also have to do, and damned quick, they’re finished. This is going to mean giving up things they love more than winning, like the sound of thier own oratory every time the cameras are rolling, instead of making USE of the chance to grill the opposition and hold it accountable. I can hardly bear to watch hearings anymore..I want to slap them all upside the head and say “GET OVER YOURSELF, WILL YA?”
Give UP on what “should work” (ie the truth with full documation) and embrace what DOES work, (truth in sound bites endlessly repeated by as many people as you can buy off in every venue you can get your hands on.) …as the Republicans have so skillfully done so far.
Decide on the your basic message. Get your damned egos amd “ideals” out of the way so you can distill it down to where it will fit into the format of slick TV commercials. Have them made by top marketing pros, then stick to this messages with a united front.
As it is now, the Dems look like like a high school football team taking on the pros.
This is supposedly what ruined Kerry’s chance during public speaking. Our issues are complicated and progressives pay attention to those details. We need to run the message through the stills and just give the people the ‘shine’
Yes.
I agree completely.
Concentrating on the goal, also, doesn’t mean that any means are acceptable (it’s not “end justifies the means”). It’s simply a desire to be effective, not simply to be right.
Also, “framing” doesn’t insist that it is the only thing. It should never be thought to exclude careful and full consideration.
Again, I agree (mostly) but I don’t think the problem is coming up with a slick message. The problem is that everyone in the country is being bombarded with information. It’s like a big fed ex truck pulls up every day and dumps all kinds of “important” messages on the front door step. The citizen then has to quickly sort the messages and deal with them. So far, the way the left has delivered its message has not led the receiver to put the message in the right pile. Instead he looks briefly at it, thinks “junk mail” and throws it away without really thinking about it. We have to find a way that our messages are not discarded as “junk mail” and are at least sorted into the right pile where they may eventually be considered.
Agreed.
Short and sweet.
Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
Hell, Bush gave us the magic formula when he famously said that you’ve got to repeat something over and over to get the “truth” out. Then he forgot himself and owned up that it was pure propaganda.
you can frame it anyway you want , it won’t help. it’s not about winning . its about getting the prize. we already won, what good did it do?? we are dealing with lying cheatinf evil people who will do whatever it takes to control us and move forward w/their agenda. until we start treating them like the fascist, ruthless , theives that they are we aon’t get anywahere. we need our own version of karl rove. we need fighters. we have the majority. what are we going to do about another ohio? or florida?
we need teams in every state, in every precinct monitoring the elections, making sure before hand we have enough voting booths. every vote., filming it.
we need to start calling them what they are, lying theives.
we need a team that sets an agenda other than just responding to the republicans. throwing them curve balls. slapping down every lie immediately, loudly, where are our noisy leaders,
if someone calls us angry say , dam right, we’ve a reason to be angry. no more dead children, jobs overseas, hospitals we don’t have access to because we’re broke.
then we need politicains w/plans, agendas,
republicans are lying theives. we want our country back, we earned it, we won, get your hand out of the cookie jar
i’m mad as hell and i’m not gonna take it anymore.
This is where I thought the recent reform talk was taking us. Teams of special interests banding together on a consistent message to get our government back.
Is this an unrealistic goal?
it’s unrealistic if we keep on keepin on. look @ alito, we were ready and waiting, gore, kennedy, a few other dems were awesome, but we came on the scene too late. they should have been screaming months before, 06 is around the corner and i have no idea what the hecks happening, besides watching the thugs drowned themselves, but that hardly matters, cuz when you cheat, even a sinking ship can be kept afloat. even their 37%solid base is illusion enough.
remember when clinton /monica was the news, these guys were screaming, every friggin day in the paper, ahhhh he lied!!
so why don’t i hear the screams? did the ‘dean’s angry’ mob win out? one of the reasons it works to call us the far left, because we obviously aren’t, is because the middle is so afraid to put their foot in the water, what’s with that? why did kerry/kennedy wait so long to rally against alito?
we need slogans and we need them now. our best and the brightest should not be afraid, they lie, you loose. the steal , it comes out of the mouth of babes. while they’re are scurrying around fidgeting w/casinos, we have a horrendous health care crisis.
i want more gore. i could listen to one of his speeches every week. every day. we need a forum to speak to the masses. now. so can we do it? who’s leading the blind???????
It might already be too late but we can’t stop trying. It has to be now, new and relentless in delivering a message of demanding accountability. It’s past the time for asking nicely to be represented.
You want to read honest? Click this link to a newspaper article about a Federal Bankruptcy Judge who just lambasts congress over the Bankruptcy Act in an opinion. But don’t even bother reading the article. There’s a link on the left of the page where you can click on the actual Order in which the judge calls the Act inane, absurd and incomprehensible.
link
You may have to freely register (or not, it doesn’t seem to be consistent)
As the article says,
But you really have to read the order, it’s great. And don’t worry, it’s short.
Credit to Dyspeptexas over at DKos for bringing providing a diary on this.
Seems like this fits right into our frame.
Damn. That is flat out BEAUTIFUL.
Anyone know the judge? Me I wanna buy him a drink or seven, just for some absolutely WORLD-CLASS snark.
On the record.
Wasn’t reading that a cathartic experience? I felt so good after — even though the poor debtors were basically screwed.
Judge isn’t far from here, and I just sent the link to a lawyer friend of mine. Maybe he knows this judge. If so, I’ll see about buying that drink or seven for you . . . 🙂
The truth frames itself.
Above someone mention Hugo Chavez, Arundhati Roy, etc, as examples of “framing”.
This framing thing is ass backwards.
These people…as well as Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Gandhi, Howard Dean, FDR, Winston Churchill and any number of OTHER great political and moral leaders…did not “frame” things.
Framing (as the word is used today) has more to do with advertising, packaging and brand management than it does with any faith in the power of the truth or objective morality. It is a symptom of just how cynical Hologram America has become.
Framing ins the attempt to add a semblance of structure to a holographic image, to an idea the content of which makes absolutely no difference at all.
You “frame” Wonder Bread.
Not democracy or freedom.
The truth frames itself.
Was it a lack of “framing” that stopped the Democratic Party from effectively attacking the vote frauds of 2000 and 2004?
HELL no!!!
It was fear. (Coupled with a sort of stupid…and stupefied…innocence in some circles. “That can’t happen HERE!!!” Bullshit. It can and did.) Fear of losing.
“I like a man who fights with a grin on his face.” Winston Churchill.
That’s not framing, it’s courage. The kind of courage that knows it is right, that it CANNOT be beaten. (Well…it’s sometimes insanity too, of course. But we could use some of THAT right about now as well.)
Is it lack of framing that is preventing the Democratic Party from connecting with the mainstream working classes…white, black and hispanic…in this country. A connection which would win back both houses of the legislature AND the presidency within 2 years if made correctly and made soon?
No.
It is too MUCH framing.
“I been FRAMED” says the perp.
Yup.
We (And I say “we” under serious advisement, because I do not really feel myself to be part of the Democratic Party anymore, and have not felt so since it passively and almost gratefully allowed Howard Dean’s media assassination to occur and then replaced him with Small K kerry.) “we” ignore the real truth-tellers and workers in this party and promote people who make a better digital image…fit better into the TV FRAME, goddammit…of what a “Democrat” should be as that image is imagined by the spinmeisters and hustlers who are really running the show.
Kerry for Dean.
Edwards…that prettyboy, John fucking Ritter lookalike, bad haircut, pasted on smile and all…for Kucinich.
Barack Obama…and I told y’all a year ago that he was a hustler, not the real deal (Did you see his politician’s pas de deux act with the Alito thing? Masterful. Masterfully FALSE.)…for John Conyers.
Etc.. etc. etc., etc. etc.
So go ahead and blah blah blah about the lack of framing, etc.
Lose again.
And again and again and again until one day every son of a bitch at the Democratic Convention will be required by law to wear a Washington Generals jersey (The hapless basketball team that ALWAYS lost to the Harlem Globetrotters.) Or maybe (better yet) …they will simply change the name of that team to”The Washington Democrats”.
OR…stand the fuck up and say:
“The 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen and here’s the proof. What are we going to do about it?”
“The administration lied through its teeth about the reasons for the Iraq War, and here’s the proof. What are we going to do about it?”
“The Republican Party is corrupt straight through, up and down the line, from Texas right through taxes. Here’s the proof. What are we going to do about it?”
The truth don’t NEED no steenking framing.
It stands up quite well on its own, thank you.
I got yer “framing”, right HERE!!!
Wake the fuck up.
AG
OK this is totally off topic but I’ve wondered this for a while.
In real life do you take up as much space as you do on line? I’m picturing you walking into a meeting, spreading out all your stuff all over the table and just being …. BIG.
Or maybe that’s just your online persona?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I don’t TAKE “meetings”.
I’m a musician.
And I function very well within the ensemble.
Until it’s my turn to blow.
And then…yes, I get MUCH bigger.
That’s my job.
AG
Heh,
No, I was really talking about physical space. Now that I know you are a musician, I picture you showing up for rehearsal and within seconds you’ve spread out all your stuff everywhere!
Sorry, it’s totally off topic, and I only am asking in fun. But I always think it when I see the formats of your posts.
Depends on the circumstances.
In my own private workspace…yes. All flat surfaces soon get covered.
Out in the world…hell, maryb, I live in the Bronx!!!
In NYC!!
AIN’T no room.
Spread out on the subway and someone is liable to light you UP.
AG
P.S. I just posted this…slightly expanded (Yes, I tend to size at times.)…under the title I got yer framing, right HERE!!!
Check it out, if you’ve a mind to.
AG
Seriously. And these truths are so fucking OBVIOUS . But they are also so mind-bogglingly out of synch w our “national self-image” that John and Jane Q. are generally afraid to so much as admit this is true, even though they KNOW.
If the Dems would come out repeating the truth, over and over and over and over….(along the lines scribe is suggesting upthread)…this would serve to validate/substantiate what the public knows to be true but keeps framing in its own mind as “opinion.” The public basically needs “permission”–substantiation and validation from “leaders” and public figures. Yes, Virginia, it did happen here. No, Virginia, you are not imagining it. It walks like a duck, talks like a duck, indeed, it is a duck. You have permission to believe your lying eyes and get your undies all up in a bundle over it.
These are not opinions, they are facts. The mountains and mountains of evidence in each of these cases should speak for themselves.
Think about the evidence we have on all three of these points. It is overwhelming. Esp on the lies leading to the war: this evidence is out there and actually gets quite a bit of media coverage. And yet, it’s still “framed” as a matter of “opinion.” How is this “opinion”?
They lied us into war. The evidence is everywhere.
They stole the elections. The evidence is everywhere.
The GOP is not just corrupt, it’s CRIMINAL. And the evidence is everywhere.
How the hell do they manage to frame these issues in terms of having an “opinion” one way or the other? It’s not a matter of opinion: look at the gd EVIDENCE. It’s there.
I’m thinking back on discussions with other liberals and the way they sit there going on and on about how “no way in hell the rethugs would have tried to pull off election fraud on that scale” and presenting one argument after another for why it simply cannot have happened.
But.
Have you looked at the evidence?
Have you read the Conyers Report?
How about the GAO report?
Crispin Miller?
Freeman?
No. Of course not.
Well, go out there and look at the evidence, dammit, then maybe we can talk. I’m not going to sit here hashing over “opinions” with you until we are on the same page concerning the available evidence.
Soundbites Work. They are effective messages. Period.
Thug soundbites, messages, are lies divorced from truth. BFD.
Since before RayGun they’ve worked.
It so wears me out that lefties won’t accept that marketing and message matters, and it REALLY wears me out when they can’t see that since before RayGun someone has been writing tomes of truth, and now there are terabytes of truth, and neither works.
In Seattle the thug against CantDoShit for u.s. senate is running t.v. ads saying we gotta be responsible about the deficeit and health care access !!
ha ha ha – a big fucking lie! right?
SO WHAT !
no soundbites to counter it, and CantDoShit is gonna be blamed for the deficiet and the healthcare mess.
IF people can create great effective soundbites and messages outta lies,
WHEN why can’t we make them outta truth?
put a URL to the terabyte of truth for those who are interested.
rmm.
In reading Lies My Teachers Told Me, it becomes obvious that American high school history classes are one big frame shop for the right wing. The only bits of information allowed within the frame are those that impart: America is always good, Americans are always the good guys, things may go a little wrong sometimes, but it’s not our fault and our leaders always have the best intentions; Americans are the most generous people on earth; as Americans, being smarter, braver, more honest, bold, and ethical than anybody else, we hold the responsibility for the well-being of the entire world and we always have everybody’s best interests in mind; this is the land of opportunity, and if you don’t succeed it is your own fault, because it cannot possibly be the fault of this glorious system; when good things happen, it is never because of the efforts of brave individual citizens standing up against the lying and oppressive power of the government, it is the goodness of the government showering blessing on its citizens.
Any fact that doesn’t fit inside that frame comes as a shock to people who grew up looking at and coming to believe the picture in the frame. Any messenger who refutes the picture in that frame is to be denied, mocked, silenced, starting with textbook authors who might want to deviate from it by telling the truth.
It is a big, heavy, ornate frame, and it has been firmly in place for a long, long time.
I haven’t finished it yet but I would agree with you. I hadn’t thought about it before in terms of framing though. I’m going to keep that in the back of my mind as I finish it.
Exactly and when…
…is the treatment nonconservatives-liberals-greens-ind-dems receive from the left and democrats, then change is impossible.
my hand over my heart and say the pledge! So what if my family was miserable in general. There was Zeus and Hercules and Titans and the Americans! Everything else could suck but so long as I was an American I was born great and special and the best of the best and uniquely insanely delusional! Oh how I miss the good ole days! They were so wonderful and numb.
And that RIGHT THERE is why we get no traction.
Because that’s a good feeling, an addicting one.
And the only way you can sustain that feeling once you become an adult is to remain ignorant or live in denial.. and a significant number of USians would much rather have that feeling than have reality.
Excellent summary of the root problem, and pointing out that this narrative is indeed the big clunky ol’ frame we should just auction off on ebay! 😉
This is the grand meta-narrative (or meta-frame) whose boundaries are not to be crossed–and yet it’s all one big lie: as Loewen so aptly titles it. It is the proverbial “biggest lie”.
(Ha. Maybe we should collectively put together a “Lies My President Told Me” , better: “Lies Your President Told Me.)
But this narrative is not just the frame of the right wing. It is the frame for ALL Americans. It is what your teacher serves up as truth, and, regardless of who you are, your job is to fit the facts of your life into that frame.
I think this is the most important frame we have to shatter b/c this is the one that makes our present reality so hard to even conceive of.
BushCo is a walking contradiction of just about every element of the narrative/frame you’ve outlined there. Living proof that if BushCo “represents” America, then: Americans are the bad guys, their leaders have the worst intentions; Americans are the greediest motherfuckers on the planet; they are stupider, more cowardly, more mendacious, audacious and unethical than anybody else; they are responsible for the rapid demise of the entire world and always have only their own personal best interests in mind. This is the land of opportunism and cronyism, if you don’t succeed it’s because you aren’t enough of an asshole or because you don’t know the right people; etc.
That is what BushCo says to the rest of the world, and has said to the American people as well (let me count the ways they are killing us). And it confounds every element of the national mythology of greatness.
Which is what makes it so hard to swallow for the public.
For those of us who, for whatever reason, never did believe the lies, or who have long since unraveled them, BushCo is just the crowning insult in decades, but for those people who’ve never questioned any of the elements of that myth, it’s like having your whole world come crashing down all at once. I think that’s a lot of what’s behind continued denial and apathy in this country.
The travesty is just too enormous to take. The people who are “getting it” and “waking up” are the ones who’ve been systematically dismantling that frame of American greatness all along.
Focussing on just the three points that AG outlined upthread.
Your president lied you into illegal war.
elections 2000/2004 were stolen.
Gop is criminally corrupt.
And doing it according to scribe’s proscription (repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat)
would be one way to begin chipping away at the frame without forcing John/Jane Q to swallow the whole truth all at once.
Actually, a frame needs 4 sides, maybe, so let’s add
GOP can not keep you safe (see: Katrina).
How is this so scary? I just don’t get how it is so scary but I know in my heart that what Howey has posted is one of my deepest truths right now about the State of Our Union and our powerlessness to remedy its terminal illness. It seems that Booman Tribune has discovered it fundamental core and has gone into layers of fundamental core. Perhaps your Tribune needs to lead the reframing Booman…….how did our elected Dems lose their connections to our fundamental core or did they ever really have it and just had a good haircut and could read the lines?
I often get the impression that in many areas of discussion, ideas or realizations must come from accepted people, groups or institutions. This factor also falls into the association of different aspects of framing.
I don’t think there will ever be enough acceptance of others (differing opinions) for the nonconservatives to form an effective movement. I hope I’m wrong on this but I don’t see much potential for compromise.
All communication involves “framing” in one way or another, to one degree or another, and with varying degrees of deliberateness. It’s developing and coordinating the framing systems required to effectively transmit one’s messages that is difficult. This is where most of the trouble comes from, most of the resistance comes from.
One big reason the Dems are having a much harder time crafting effecting framing systems is because it’s so much easier to create and exploit frames for communicating lies than it is for comunicating truth. with lies, you can always craft a strategy around the vulnerabilities or expectations of your intended audience and simply make up the “facts” to support your message. (If you want people to vote a certain way, you scare them, make up a story about who or what is threatening them, and then propose yourown solution. none of what you say needs to be true. You calibrate your frames on the emotional level, adjusting the content for maximum effect on your victims’ psyches. When you’re attempting to deliver the truth, you don’t have the luxury of inventing your own facts to support that truth, so one has to work a lot harder at convincing people that what you’re saying is true and important.
This is where the Repub propaganda machine has a huge advantage. they know that people prefer to believe what they want to believe. They know that if they can instill fear that they then have a much easier task at weaponizing the ignorance of their audience, because fear subverts reason, it takes common sense and evaluative thinking right out of the equation. And they know it’s more difficult to remove that fear once it’s been “set” in the minds of the public. Hitler knew this, Pol Pot knew it, Pinochet, Mao, the Argentine generals, and Cheney’s neocons all know these simple fundamentals.
IMHO, these are the areas where the considered approach to framing gets bollixed up. (Well, of course there’s also political cowardice, but that’s another story).)
The other simple thing is that there is a strong tendency now in our severly damaged society to conflate and confuse the style and structure of our dialog with the substance of that dialog. Whenever we praise the clever liar over the less clever truth-teller we’re in trouble. engineering communication can be a really good thing but we shouldn’t look to it to replace either truth or sincerity or good faith.
Do you see the irony here? Let’s keep it simple. I think one aspect of framing is that a message can be conveyed that is true, honest, genuine and effective. Substitute words like hope and optimism in your comment above.
I don’t have to agree 100% with anything to find the positive elements and others who share a similar vision.
I’m making my stand right here. I can accept differing specifics on the issue of framing but I think it can be used in a positive, honest manner. Where does that put the support of greater common goals of those who disagree with me on the issue of framing?
I don’t think I grasp what it is you’re saying in this comment.
This was the original comment I replied to with this…
I was responding to a few different ideas of yours, one of which was the danger of losing support by concentrating too hard on the lesser known intracicies behind the politics. I agree it should be kept simple. We can achieve more in common goals by focusing more on the few issues of agreement.
Another example would be the subject of the GWoT that I think is completely misrepresented. I can set aside differences I have with others on that long enough to work together on other issues.
In simple terms, I may not agree with everything you say about framing and I think some aspects of framing can be used in a positive manner. Can you support that idea?
I don’t see that I’ve said or implied in any way that there’s something wrong with or negative or disagreeable about framing. Framing is a tactic that can be effectively or ineffectively utilized as part of a strategy to propagate lies or truth. It’s a tactical mechanism, not a philosophical or ideological construct, despite the fact that many people interpret it as such.
I’m in favor of propagating the truth and framing that does that has my complete support. I’m opposed to propagating lies and do not support framing that contributes to that.
I’m not sure what “ideas of mine” you’re referring to when you say this;
I have a subtle feeling that you may be thiking I’m saying things that i’m not saying at all, and this is why i’mk asking for clarification. I really want to know because I’d like to correct any misimpressions if they exist.
Your other comments seem to stress the GOP use and general of lies in framing. It’s just the impression I was getting, so I asked. No problem.
The other comment, and irony, was directed at your long, complicated description of framing intricacies and then the warning that communication can be lost if we don’t keep it simple.
😀
I think I understand now what you were getting at.
Just to clarify; I wasn’t particularly advocating a need to keep the message “simple”; rather I was trying to make the point that when the style or cleverness of delivery of said message was seen as more important than, (or seen as a replacement for), the substance of a message, then that becomes a problem.
Or, put another way, we shouldn’t confuse the packaging (of a message) with the content (of that message).
The problem comes from the ‘framing police’.
And the framilng police were deputized by Lakoff when he gave them their prime directive “This gives us a basic principle of framing, for when you are arguing against the other side: Do not use their language.”
Therefore, if I write an article that uses the term “pro-life” I am constantly reprimanded and reminded that I am forgetting the prime directive not to use my opponent’s frames.
However, my choice of whether to use anti-choice or pro-life depends on the context and audience for my argument. The term ‘pro-life’ is as accepted as the default masculine ‘he’. If I always use ‘she’ to indicate a genderless everyperson, it will be distracting and my use of this word choice will become the focus of my communication, rather than the point of what I was trying to convey.
Therefore, if I am going to use anti-choice, I want to use it over and over again until my audience accepts it, understands it, and begins listening again.
Anti-choice is great for a speech. It is much less effective for a brief comment, or a brief article.
Lakoff’s minions will insist that pro-life only became the default because of laborious efforts of our opponents and that we must fight back or the term will remain the default.
While I agree that pro-life is not as entreched as ‘he’, I do not choose to fight that battle in a dogmatic way. I will use pro-life when I want to, and all the ‘framing police’ can kiss my ass.
Nice attempt to reframe the discussion through mockery & dismissal (‘framing police’ & “Lakoff’s minions”).
How is “anti-choice” less effective in a short comment or article? The power of any phrase lies in repetition & metonymic association. It needne’t be fully explained & contextualized in a brief remark to hold power.
Is “anti-choice” effective in your mind in a short speech?
Now you’re just getting silly.
It’s like this:
If I give a speech about the history of Calvinism in America and its effect on the social mores of today, for example, I will want to make point related to those themes.
If I, during the speech, constantly refer to God as ‘her’ and ‘she’, I will be distracting my audience by assaulting their GOD frame. If I do it for long enough they will stop being distracted by it and begin to follow my argument on Calvinism’s legacy. But it will take a while.
If I want to highlight the absurdity of One God which is male and not female, then I will use ‘she’, otherwise not.
The same is true, to a lesser degree, with pro-life and anti-choice.
Maybe I’m being dense, but the only point I get out of that is that you either use the dominant frame or an alternative one.
Just to clarify, I come at this from an interest in linguistics. His work on categories, metaphor & metonymy are to my mind as apt when talking about social/political discourse. Lakoff’s promotion of cognitive frames, like any theory, was developed in reaction to other models, specifically to account for subjectivity & semantic variation which were lacking in what he characterizes as “objective semantics.”
What I hoped you would get out if it is different.
I am objecting, not to framing, but to people that take it upon themselves to stamp out dominant frames like ‘He’ for God.
Essentially, they are hyper vigilant to any GOP-friendly term like: pro-life, death tax, etc.
If they encounter a Democrat using such terms they stop whatever they are doing and post a reprimand to the author.
It’s annoying.
But, what they fail to realize is that when we use alternative terms instead of the dominant term, we are distracting the audience.
Here we reach an impasse where the only way to get rid of a pro-GOP frame like ‘pro-life’ is to do about a billion iterations of ‘anti-choice’ until the public no longer is distracted, and the frame can do all the nasty sub-cognitive work that ‘pro-life’ has been doing all these years.
Okay. Granted. But I will choose when I want to distract, when I want to annoy, and which point I want to emphasize, and to which audience.
It is not a sin for me to use ‘he’ for God. And it is not a sin for me to use ‘pro-life’. But for many people, they think that everytime I use the dominant frame I have set them back 10 years in their crusade to win the political framing war.
This is more a personal peeve than any philosophical position.
This is more a personal peeve than any philosophical position.
Yea, I get that 🙂
& you’re both (sides, that is) right in that partial local coherence kinda way. One could even put together a piece on abortion using only “pro-life” that totally exposes the frame & never once uses the phrase “pro-choice.” Again, this is just the marketing level of the concept.
Can you understand how you’re using “framing” (the verb)in a fundamnetally different way than Lakoff does in his writings?
Yes and no.
When Lakoff first advocated framing in a political context it was a new concept. He gave inadequate attention to the fact that once people started doing it that the word ‘framing’ would go from an abstract concept to an actual political activity.
He also gave inadequate attention to the fact that true framing is done in controlled experiments, not by laymen playing at science using their intuition.
So, framing has become an activity, and an often annoying one.
A framed argument is an argument that has been prepared with the word usage calibrated consciously. How informed that calibration is by cognitive science or polling varies.
Lakoff doesn’t talk about framing in this context much, because it didn’t occur until he recommended it.
So, it is left to me to make these distinctions. People then say, ‘well, Lakoff didn’t use it that way.’
Yes. But now it needs to be done.
How often am I told that I have framed something brilliantly, or conversely that I have used a GOP frame? All the time.
And yet, I almost never engage in framing. I engage in rhetoric.
Oh, but you cannot avoid framing, they say.
Can you not see how tiresome this is?
We need to distinguish between rhetoric, demagogery, and framing because they are distinct tools in the political persuasion box.
If we fail to note which tool we are using then we fall into meaningless and garbled conversations.
As I said elsewhere, framing does not concern itself with the logic of an argument, but it concentrates on the presentation of an argument.
So, if I make a well constructed argument, and throw in a little demagogery for effect, I don’t want to be told that I have framed things well.
To give a logical example.
Murder is bad.
Charlie Manson committed murder.
Charlie Manson is bad.
That is not a framed argument. It is a logical argument.
But I can make that argument more compelling by framing (yes, a verb, not a noun) it differently:
Slaughtering innocent civilians is bad.
Charlie Manson slaughtered innocent civilians.
Charlie Manson is bad.
Good. We are now more convincing. But it still remains that the construction is:
A: Murder = C: bad
B: Charlie Mansion = A
therefore:
B=C
Until we can distinguish between the types of arguments that involve conscious deliberare framing from arguments that do not, and before we can distinguish arguments that rely on rhetorical appeal and arguments that rely on framing appeal, we cannot have an intelligent discussion about the merits of framing as a political weapon.
If framing is everything, it is also nothing.
We keep talking past each other, partly because I won’t narrow “framing” to mean the activity of making explicit & attempting to change the frame(s) operative in any given discourse. That seems to be the only aspect of the concept that the poli types have picked up on. It’s not all that Lakoff advocated & if I recall an interview (in the NY Times last year?) he’s rather frustrated by it too (while the author noted how he had also contributed to it). The activity you’re reacting to is important & yes, easily trivialized into some sort of pc vocabulary. Demagoguery certainly doesn’t mean “framing things well.”
What’s tiresome for me is failing to use technical terms in the context they were originally intended. It’s rather out of control in the public sphere now.
Lakoff uses “framing” to describe the (largely unconscious) cognitive process needed to negotiate the world, one that utilizes multiple, partial, often shifting & frequently conflicted “frames.” It’s a verb there too, & far from meaningless “nothing,” but structural (in his model) to the creation of any meaning in the world whatsoever. Far from a trivial thing to even attempt to trifle with.
Until we can distinguish between the types of arguments that involve conscious deliberare framing from arguments that do not, and before we can distinguish arguments that rely on rhetorical appeal and arguments that rely on framing appeal, we cannot have an intelligent discussion about the merits of framing as a political weapon
Understanding how you’re using “framing,” I’d agree wholeheartedly.
Another way o getting at thi is that it seems to me that you are accepting a misreading of “framing,” & then re-acting to the silliness that can ensue. They are likely correct, through the frame of ‘culture war,’ that using “pro-life” usually will only re-enforce the conceptual framework, but it’s not a given.
& I can empathise . . . I went to school in Santa Cruz during the 70’s, where many were adamant about “herstory.” While the neologism had a valid point to make, turning it to dogma was an exercise in __.
But see, here’s where I see the “utility” of framing from a different perspective, one that doesn’t require judgments relating to assumptions about such things as “framing police”.
when I am in conversation about, or when I’m writing about, abortion and abortion-rights related issues, I eschew the use of the terms pro-choice and pro-life as much as I can, not because they might represent a violation of framing strategy, but because, to me, they misrepresent and mischaracterize the issues involved and because they are so overused that I feel it’s important to actively work against the automaticity with which those phrases trigger certain mind-sets in people generally.
So, if I were working at developing a language-framing strategy to deal with this, I start out by separating abortion from abortion-rights. I will talk about those who support abortion rights for women and those who would take away those rights. If I talk about abortion itself, I can support the idea that people may believe that abortion itself is a good thing or a bad thing, but that either way, it’s still possible for a person to be personally opposed to abortion on whatever grounds they feel and still support the right of a woman to have an abortion if she so chooses, and that there’s not necessarily a conflict in that position because they’re talking about two different issues.
This is one example of how I see the framing thing. I know many people seem to bridle at the thought of framing, interpreting it as being somehow too devious. Well, obviously it can facilitate deviousness when it
s used to propagtae lies and deceptions. con-men, swindlers, politicians, pedophile priests, all of these use framing for dark purposes routinely. But framing isalso used to propagate truth and to inspire. Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Lincoln, a few others, (the list of the good-use framers is, sadly shorter by several orders of magnitude than the list of the shit-bird, lie-propagating framers is), these guys framed their truths in language that resonated within people at their very deepestcores, and I, frankly see nothing wrong with that.
Sometimes framing is inadvertent. Great visionaries may sometimes speak extemporaneously and their words reach us powerfully because the intuitive frame of the speaker is in harmony with our own intuitive ability to receive. Some truths are so elemental and some speakers are so in tune that the message connects without planning. But, most of the time, we have to work at it. Lincoln worked at his speeches. Likely Ghandi and King did too to a certain extent. Even though their own wisdom may have been pure of spirit, they still may have wanted to find the most effective way to get their ideas across.
How in tune with self most of the people who contribute largely here are how most people who are part of this community have survived and prospered as people through some things that have just floored me. I suppose that this has contributed to the raw ability of framing Booman Tribune style that is here. It is very powerful when all these personal truths join in the frame and then begin to move in a direction. I know I’m biased but I really feel that this is a very powerful community of minds and people and though I feel tired sometimes in all of this, it is probably just the beginning of where we will all go taking our country back!
I’m with you Tracy. I’m constantly filled with appreciation for the spirit that permeates our community here and the insights that seem to spring forth and flourish in the BooTrib environment.
Good faith and mutual respect count for so much, and in these days of violent political upheaval and catastrophic events, such respect and sincerity assume an even greater importance in the public sphere.
I’ve been deeply affected, deeply moved, by many of the comments and stories of fellow BooTribbers. I was profoundly affected by your own recent story Tracy, about seeking care for your son, about the body cast and the titanium rib. I still can’t articulate in words how powerfully your words impacted me, so deeply have they struck into my spirit.
I frequently get exhausted by all that’s going on. Just being cognizant of the relentless and uninterrupted stream of lies emanating from our leaders and the media hacks and flacks who enable them is enough to wear anyone out. But I’m heartened by the simple realization that, here on the blogs,there are so many of us attuned to all the crap going on that when we as individuals sometimes need to takeabreak from it all that there are plenty of others picking up the slack, “still covering the beat” as it were, and I take some comfort from that, even though I do believe that we are long past the point where any of the solutions we might discover for the troubles we face are going to be pleasant ones.
Despite this somewhat dark view, I am heartened by the sense that there are more and more of us willing to relinquish our long-standing denial and accept that there are no easy solutions available to us and that we must be prepared to make hard decisions about how we live.
I’m pleased that my early morning post has kept you all busy. The one word I don’t see much in here is “values,” which is what I undertand to be the basis for successful framing: finding shared values with your audience to communicate your message. Growing up, I came from “a New York, Jewish, left-wing, liberal, intellectual, Central Park West, Brandeis University, the socialist summer camps and the father with the Ben Shahn drawings, right, and the really, y’know, strike-oriented kind of, red diaper” kind of environment. But in order to communicate effectively, I think I need to broaden my perspective to some deeper shared values. For example, “GO SEAHAWKS!!!” That was a joke.
Good thing that Seahawks line was a joke. So, what’s the final word on using framing for a positive change?
I don’t really see where “shared values” has a meaningful role to play in framing. I’d say understanding the beliefs and values of those you’d like to communicate with is important, and haviung sufficient depth of understanding of the message you want to convey is also quite important because both these sorts of knowledge go toward crafting effective language to deliver that message.
Isn’t the purpose of these discussions to narrow down a set of shared values all of us can cooperatively pursue to reform our government? Doesn’t framing come into the process one or another in persuading others to align with us?
Widening the sphere of people who do share our values is certainly the objective here for most of us, myself included. And effective use of framing can go a long way towards achieving that.
But I don’t think that
is necessarily”…the basis for successful framing.”
Certainly if one understands one’s target audience does share certain values it’s generally smart to appeal to and emphasize the shared nature of those values, but the dynamics of successful framing itself are not based on the sharing thing.
For instance, Cheney and his neocons,through the artful framing and relentlessness of their propaganda machine, have successfully convinced millions of people that they share with them the desire to protect America and preserve liberty and spread democracy and that all of this is noble and grand and such. Now for me, the idea that cheney or any of his minions give a flying shit about any of that stuff is simply ludicrous. they are powermad psychopaths wose only alleigance is to themselves and who’s only values involve supporting their own insane agenda and crushing anyone that stands in their way.
In short, they didn’t craft their framing based on finding people who shared their own true ideology, they crafted their framing specifically to gain support for their plans by exploiting millions of people who did have those values, first scaring them, then lying to them and convincing them that what they wanted to do was in support of those values, then weaponizing them by tricking them into supporting them.
Their framing has been enormously successful, (just like Goebbels’ was for Hitler), and their was no “shared values to it at all, just fear and deception and the exploitation of emotion.
If I’m campaigning, I hope I’ reaching people who may not share my views already but to whom I want to present my views in the hopes of getting them to share them and in doing sovote for me. If I’m only reaching those who already share my views I may be limiting my reach.
I like shared values. I seek shared values. But shared values are not the central pivot around which framing, or communication generally, works.
I really don’t give a shit if it’s effective framing or not. I don’t care what it’s called as long as it’s sincere and honest. I think it’s crucial for all nonconservatives to band together on any common platform to get control of our government back.
These discussions that get hung up on details that matter only to a few purists miss the chance to gain support for the present and near future.
Our town hall is on fire. Now is the time to gather the citizens to control the fire rather than debate the finer points and history of fire departments.
I don’t understand the ratioale behind this statement;
If you’re going to bother with the whole idea of framing don’t you want it to be effective? If you want and honest and sincere communication, well welcome to the club. that’s what we all want here.
Your seem to be hung up on some notion that I’m a purist interested in some arcane and obscure esoteric details about framing, where, in fact, I’m only trying to express the idea that framing’s effectiveness is not dependent on the existence of “shared values” between the “framers” and their target audience. And that I think that if we labor under that assumption that the “shared value” thing is the foundation of seuccessful framing that that asumption does us further harm because it misses the more essential fact that framing, whether for good or for ill, is about getting your audience to believe what you want them to believe.
I know the town hall is on fire, the entire planet is in the crosshairs of the most dangerous group of psychopaths to ever come down the pike since the dawn of mankind. and I’m just as enthusiastic as you are about gathering as many together as we can to stop these lunatics from destroying the planet. But we can’t stop them, we can’tput out the fires if we are laboring under false ideas and false assumptions. This isn’t a matter of debating the finer historical points of fire departments; it’s about understanding the dynamics of both the tools we seek to use and the weapons deployed by the opposition.
That’s all I’m saying. I’m making no judgments about anyone’s motives here or wise cracks about whether they’re purists or not and I’d appreciate it if you’d refrain from doing the same.
Sure, no problem. I do think the democrat party and/or it’s representation is missing out on gaining support.
I enjoy complicated discussions on the mechanics of ideas and concepts. I get frustrated when the discussion is not productive as it pertains to putting those ideas to use in practical, needed ways.
I’m not condemning anyone for being a purist. I’m trying to find ways to get people from different groups to agree on some common principles. I don’t care if it uses a method that is actually a misconception of the true intent of some author who made the whole thing up. If it works and it’s honest, I think it should be used. I don’t care what it’s called.
If I’ve given the impression I’m hung up on details than I have failed because I have tried to maintain the principle of keeping this simple. I appreciate the discussion of greater detail but I think it loses some people who would otherwise be supportive.
The shared values are going to be inherent and not be a matter of convincing others to believe them. My use of the term framing in this discussion, probably incorrectly, is to focus the discussion on shared values to form alliances in order to achieve greater goals.
I just realized that some of my intended original comment above didn’t make it into the post.
I had gone on to write that finding and resonating with values shared by one’s audience is a great and valuable thing, but sharing values is not necessary to effective framing. Framing’s utility is about crafting the message in a way that the audience will respond to in such a way as to give you what you want.
What’s the difference between “finding and resonating with values shared by one’s audience” and “sharing values”? I believe I used the words “shared values” not “sharing values.” The difference is that when communicating with people who you either “know” or “don’t know,” I think it helps to understand the values you share, as a basis for persuasive communication. And with that, I will have to say “good night”!
My point was and is that you don’t have to share values to make use of them, or exploit them for the purposes of framing.
If we see the basis of framing as resting upon the fact that we share values with our audience, then we are missing the point that inscrupulous framers, (the GOP propaganda machine wonks like Frank Luntz, etc, con-men and swindlers everywhere), use framing to take advantage of values and beliefs that their victims have and which they themselves do not share at all.
I’m in favor of framing, I’m supportive of and recognize the value and strength of people coming together with shared values and I’m dismayed that by and large the Dems don’t seem to grasp the utility of the concept, but it’s important to recognize, IMHO, that the GOP framing successes are not the result of sharing values, but rather of exploiting them. To me there’s a fundamental, operational difference there that we ignore to our own disadvantage.
Framing for exploitation to gain support does not require sharing the values of the victim but it makes it more effective. In most cases, they are shared values that the GOP used to their advantage. I’m sure we have wandered from the original intent of the diary in several cases and my mention of shared values was/is an element of how democrats could use (what is commonly now referred to as) framing to gain support.
Especially since Alito’s confirmation, I see most every discussion here through a filter of ‘how can we use this to produce positive change’. That may be wrong but I’m dedicated to getting our govt back and now is the time, if ever.
I’m all for pursuing the idea of, as you say ,*”…’how can we use this to produce positive change’.
And all I’m saying is that one important way we can use this for positive change is to understand that succesful framing is not dependent upon or centered upon ideals and values being shared by the “framers” and the “audience”.
People coming together in common cause based on shared values is a tremendously powerful thing, but framing, the mechanics of how it works, is not centered on the “sharing” or “shared” aspect. If we want positive results from framing, I think it’s important to understand this. That’s all. I’m not bashing framing, I’m not diminishing the value of shared values. I just want to understand the real dynamics of a concept inorder to be able to make better use of it.
I’m off fora long day in themedical arena now, so if you respond and then wonder why I’m not gettinbg back to you quickly, it’s because I’m out, not because I’m disinterested.
I think this diary is an important one, and that framing is an important conceptual tool we should be making better use of, and I look forward to more discussion about it.