What do you think?
Rate this book
Whose Freedom?: The Battle over America's Most Important Idea
Since September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has relentlessly invoked the word "freedom." Al-Qaeda attacked us because "they hate our freedom." The U.S. can strike preemptively because "freedom is on the march." Social security should be privatized in order to protect individual freedoms. The 2005 presidential inaugural speech was a kind of the words "freedom," "free," and "liberty," were used forty-nine times in President Bush's twenty-minute speech.
In Whose Freedom?, Lakoff surveys the political landscape and offers an essential map of the Republican battle plan that has captured the hearts and minds of Americans--and shows how progressives can fight to reinvigorate this most beloved of American political ideas.
In Whose Freedom?, Lakoff surveys the political landscape and offers an essential map of the Republican battle plan that has captured the hearts and minds of Americans--and shows how progressives can fight to reinvigorate this most beloved of American political ideas.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
37 people are currently reading
913 people want to read
About the author
George Lakoff
51 books856 followersGeorge Lakoff is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at UC Berkeley and is one of the founders of the field of cognitive science.
He is author of The New York Times bestseller Don't Think of an Elephant!, as well as Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Whose Freedom?, and many other books and articles on cognitive science and linguistics.
He is author of The New York Times bestseller Don't Think of an Elephant!, as well as Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Whose Freedom?, and many other books and articles on cognitive science and linguistics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
September 4, 2007
That's right, I'm recommending reading this book if you are an AMERICAN. A book about the concept of freedom written by a professor of cognitive psychology?
Lakoff asserts in this piece that American freedom has ALWAYS been progressive freedom, and that it's about time to take it back. Quite possibly my number 1 read of 2007.
Lakoff asserts in this piece that American freedom has ALWAYS been progressive freedom, and that it's about time to take it back. Quite possibly my number 1 read of 2007.
May 23, 2016
I enjoyed this primarily as a work of linguistics for a popular audience, analyzing the treatment given words/concepts like, of course, "freedom," "liberty," etc. by progressive and conservative citizens and, what's more (and more dangerously), by government & corporate forces. In terms of linguistics, I'm fascinated by the malleability of language; in terms of sociology and politics, I'm discomfited by the manipulation of such weighty terms by the moneyed elite and the frequency they're used in the media and by people whom I consider, frankly, uninformed.
The author's bias is clear-- this is a progressive's polemic against conservative thinking. Naturally, there are going to be, and there were, overreaches. But this is definitely food for liberal thought, or anyone who wants to more carefully consider the power of language in shaping our thinking. I think it's especially important in this latest election period, in which a demagogue has captured far too many hearts and "minds" with empty but dangerous words.
The author's bias is clear-- this is a progressive's polemic against conservative thinking. Naturally, there are going to be, and there were, overreaches. But this is definitely food for liberal thought, or anyone who wants to more carefully consider the power of language in shaping our thinking. I think it's especially important in this latest election period, in which a demagogue has captured far too many hearts and "minds" with empty but dangerous words.
October 11, 2022
Personally I didn't learn almost anything, but I guess it's a good introduction to American politics. Although reducing everything to freedom seems... Well, reductionist?
March 7, 2008
Americans need to wake up to the real danger facing the liberties we have always taken for granted. In this book, Lakoff explains how the groups who call themselves conservatives on the one hand, and progressives or liberals on the other, often have totally different meanings for the same words.
The fundamental question boils down to whether we want a paternalistic, intrusive government enforcing a regressive, authoritarian, and conformist values system, or a society in which government respects the right and ability of adults to make their own decisions and allows for a variety of subcultures and values systems to coexist.
This book presents cogent arguments in favor of the latter, and shows how these ideas have been steadily eroded for decades by forces that would like to enforce the former on the rest of us.
The fundamental question boils down to whether we want a paternalistic, intrusive government enforcing a regressive, authoritarian, and conformist values system, or a society in which government respects the right and ability of adults to make their own decisions and allows for a variety of subcultures and values systems to coexist.
This book presents cogent arguments in favor of the latter, and shows how these ideas have been steadily eroded for decades by forces that would like to enforce the former on the rest of us.
February 15, 2016
As much as I admire Lakoff and think his contributions to media studies, contemporary linguistics, and social criticism have great value, I found this book a replication of his earlier (and later) books. I don't want to diminish its value, but since I have already read other books by him, this did not have the same urgency as his previous work.
The best readings came as bookends in the opening and closing chapters. Especially valuable, however, remains the ending; his criticism of journalists for adapting the frameworks and minimalist jargon from the Right into mainstream usage without scrutiny or reflection damages freethinking readers everywhere.
Orwell, you were right to state the new tyranny will appear when we discard precise meanings in our language for the dumbing-numbing down in our usage.
The best readings came as bookends in the opening and closing chapters. Especially valuable, however, remains the ending; his criticism of journalists for adapting the frameworks and minimalist jargon from the Right into mainstream usage without scrutiny or reflection damages freethinking readers everywhere.
Orwell, you were right to state the new tyranny will appear when we discard precise meanings in our language for the dumbing-numbing down in our usage.
July 4, 2007
This book is the first thing I've ever read that really delves into WHY our society is so divided and explains how conservatives can really believe all those things that seem so damn ludicrous. Lakoff uses cognitive theory and frameworks to explain the whys of liberal and conservative thinking around the concept of "freedom".
February 6, 2017
Quick PSA: This audiobook took ages to complete until I recognized that the author reads slowly enough to make listening at 2X speed preferable.
'Whose Freedom' is an incredible piece of work breaking down in minute details how language determines the success or failure of political agendas.
George Lakoff argues that nowadays, through deliberate application of cognitive linguistic principles, conservatives in America have gained an edge over democrats in public debates concerning highly contested political issues such as gun laws, abortion and health care.
A key tenet of the book is the concept of metaphorical thought as a means for humanity to associate an abstract concept with a visceral experience.
Quote:
"Most thought uses conceptual metaphors. Metaphorical thought is normal and used constantly and we act on these metaphors. In a phrase like tax relief for example, taxation is seen as an affliction to be eliminated. Moral and political reasoning are highly metaphorical, but we usually are unaware of the metaphors we think with and live by."
In the realm state, we regard government as family in the metaphorical sense, evidenced by figures of speech such as Founding Fathers, Uncle Sam, Big Brother, Fatherland and so forth.
One central thesis of 'Whose Freedom' is that a preference for government as family with nurturing parents defines the progressive left, conversely the conservative right prefers government to be led by a strict patriarch.
George Lakoff claims that the strict father vs nurturing parent metaphor is at the root of disagreement between all topics of interest for the progressive left and conservative right.
Hence, it's futile to attempt arguments based on logic in the political realm. Common sense and logic rest on the underlying frames and metaphors to which we apply them.
Quote:
"Most thought does not follow the laws of logic. Since metaphors and frames may vary from person to person, not all the forms of reason are universal. The metaphors and frames in our brain define common sense. Common sense reasoning is just the reasoning we do using the metaphors and frames in our brains.
Our common sense ideas may not fit the world. Frames and metaphors are mental constructs that we use to understand the world and to live our lives, but the world doesn't necessarily accommodate to our mental constructs."
This principle is illustrated best using a real life situation.
Quote:
"Stem Cell Research is an excellent example of the Fundamentalists use of language. The Conservative language technicians suggested that this scientific technique always be referred to as embryonic stem cell research since the word embryo evokes the conventional image of a little baby. Actually stem cell research is carried out on blastocysts, hollow spheres about 5 days old consisting only of stem cells.
Yet, former Republican leader of the house Tom Delay referred to stem cell research as "dismemberment of living distinct human beings."
The word embryonic sets the frame and if the word is allowed to stay, it doesn't matter to the public debate what the facts are.
That is an example of surface framing. A single word evoking an image that shifts the discussion in one direction.
When the facts don't fit the frame, the frame stays and the facts are ignored."
George Lakoff goes on to argue that in political discourse, the progressive left is at a disadvantage due to their belief in the world being made up of complex systems with multiple agents affecting each other. Conservatives on the contrary are much more likely to frame any outcome as the result of Direct Causation even if it requires oversimplification of the matter.
Quote:
"Two kinds of Causation:
Direct Causation is the simplest kind. There is a single agent who purposely exerts force on something and as a result that thing moves or changes. You throw a ball and the ball goes through the air. You flip a light switch, and the light turns on. The properties of direct causation are simple. One agent, one entity affected, one action performed freely using free will. No intermediate cause, no multiple agents.
What is at issue here is how the event is conceptualized, not the way it occurs in the world. Overthrowing a dictator may take millions of actions by hundreds of thousands of troops, but it can be conceptualized as a single action, carried out at the level of the army or the nation.
Bush overthrew Saddam Hussein is an example of a complex phenomenon in the world, being conceptualized as direct causation."
Below I have added a few additional quotes or passages from the book that resonated with me strongly:
Quote:
"What does justice have to do with freedom?
Deterrent from impositions on freedom. Injustice is an imposition on freedom."
Quote:
"Fairness is highly contested.
Here are some examples of what is considered fair:
Equality of distribution, one child one cookie
Equality of opportunity, one person one raffle ticket
Procedural distribution, playing by the rules determines what you get
Equal distribution of power, one person one vote
Equal distribution of responsibility, we share the burden equally
Scalar distribution of responsibility, the greater your abilities the greater your responsibilities
Scalar distribution of rewards, the more you work the more you get
Rights based fairness, you get what you have a right to
Need based fairness, you get what you need
Contractual distribution, you get what you agreed to
Here one can see clearly some of the ways that fairness and equality are contested. For example, where progressives tend to support equality of distribution and need based fairness conservatives prefer equality of opportunity and contractual fairness."
Quote on exemptions of matters of fairness:
"In all the cases of imposition on freedom, it is a person who interferes with another's freedom. And in all cases there is a possibility of not imposing, of not interfering with someone else achieving his or her goals.
If these two conditions hold in all cases of the imposition on freedom, what happens in cases where one or the other does not hold? In those cases there can be no imposition on freedom. That is, the issue of freedom or the imposition on it does not arise."
-> Any outcome of a competition (if rules are abided by) and Natural Developments
Quote on justice, human rights vs responsibility:
Blocking access to scarce resources is not subject to evaluation when it's regarded as either a matter of nature or as a matter of justice.
The link between freedom and human nature brings up the question of inalienable rights. Human rights are specified as freedoms. Human rights confer the freedom to do what is natural and normal for any human being.
If guaranteeing a right is guaranteeing a freedom, either a freedom from harm or coercion or a freedom to achieve some desired state, then someone must be responsible for guaranteeing that right. For every right there is a responsibility. The freedoms that come from rights are meaningless in the absence of people carrying out those responsibilities.
For the most part, a free society requires that it's citizen help guaranteeing the rights of others as well of our own rights.
Responsibility is often contested.
If the indigent have a right to food, who has the responsibility to feed them? Progressives see feeding the poor as a responsibility required of the citizenry. Some conservatives argue that using tax money forces the responsibility on the public and that the responsibility should be freely undertaken, say by private charities or churches. They see this as a matter of freedom. Freedom from the forced imposition of a responsibility for someone else."
Quote about Justice as moral accounting:
"Justice is commonly understood in terms of moral accounting. A metaphorical system in which wellbeing is understood as a form of wealth and harm as a taking of wealth. Justice in this metaphor is a balancing of the moral books. Either punishment of the wrongdoer by paying ones debt to society or compensation of the victim by the wrongdoer, paying in recompense for the harm done."
'Whose Freedom' is an incredible piece of work breaking down in minute details how language determines the success or failure of political agendas.
George Lakoff argues that nowadays, through deliberate application of cognitive linguistic principles, conservatives in America have gained an edge over democrats in public debates concerning highly contested political issues such as gun laws, abortion and health care.
A key tenet of the book is the concept of metaphorical thought as a means for humanity to associate an abstract concept with a visceral experience.
Quote:
"Most thought uses conceptual metaphors. Metaphorical thought is normal and used constantly and we act on these metaphors. In a phrase like tax relief for example, taxation is seen as an affliction to be eliminated. Moral and political reasoning are highly metaphorical, but we usually are unaware of the metaphors we think with and live by."
In the realm state, we regard government as family in the metaphorical sense, evidenced by figures of speech such as Founding Fathers, Uncle Sam, Big Brother, Fatherland and so forth.
One central thesis of 'Whose Freedom' is that a preference for government as family with nurturing parents defines the progressive left, conversely the conservative right prefers government to be led by a strict patriarch.
George Lakoff claims that the strict father vs nurturing parent metaphor is at the root of disagreement between all topics of interest for the progressive left and conservative right.
Hence, it's futile to attempt arguments based on logic in the political realm. Common sense and logic rest on the underlying frames and metaphors to which we apply them.
Quote:
"Most thought does not follow the laws of logic. Since metaphors and frames may vary from person to person, not all the forms of reason are universal. The metaphors and frames in our brain define common sense. Common sense reasoning is just the reasoning we do using the metaphors and frames in our brains.
Our common sense ideas may not fit the world. Frames and metaphors are mental constructs that we use to understand the world and to live our lives, but the world doesn't necessarily accommodate to our mental constructs."
This principle is illustrated best using a real life situation.
Quote:
"Stem Cell Research is an excellent example of the Fundamentalists use of language. The Conservative language technicians suggested that this scientific technique always be referred to as embryonic stem cell research since the word embryo evokes the conventional image of a little baby. Actually stem cell research is carried out on blastocysts, hollow spheres about 5 days old consisting only of stem cells.
Yet, former Republican leader of the house Tom Delay referred to stem cell research as "dismemberment of living distinct human beings."
The word embryonic sets the frame and if the word is allowed to stay, it doesn't matter to the public debate what the facts are.
That is an example of surface framing. A single word evoking an image that shifts the discussion in one direction.
When the facts don't fit the frame, the frame stays and the facts are ignored."
George Lakoff goes on to argue that in political discourse, the progressive left is at a disadvantage due to their belief in the world being made up of complex systems with multiple agents affecting each other. Conservatives on the contrary are much more likely to frame any outcome as the result of Direct Causation even if it requires oversimplification of the matter.
Quote:
"Two kinds of Causation:
Direct Causation is the simplest kind. There is a single agent who purposely exerts force on something and as a result that thing moves or changes. You throw a ball and the ball goes through the air. You flip a light switch, and the light turns on. The properties of direct causation are simple. One agent, one entity affected, one action performed freely using free will. No intermediate cause, no multiple agents.
What is at issue here is how the event is conceptualized, not the way it occurs in the world. Overthrowing a dictator may take millions of actions by hundreds of thousands of troops, but it can be conceptualized as a single action, carried out at the level of the army or the nation.
Bush overthrew Saddam Hussein is an example of a complex phenomenon in the world, being conceptualized as direct causation."
Below I have added a few additional quotes or passages from the book that resonated with me strongly:
Quote:
"What does justice have to do with freedom?
Deterrent from impositions on freedom. Injustice is an imposition on freedom."
Quote:
"Fairness is highly contested.
Here are some examples of what is considered fair:
Equality of distribution, one child one cookie
Equality of opportunity, one person one raffle ticket
Procedural distribution, playing by the rules determines what you get
Equal distribution of power, one person one vote
Equal distribution of responsibility, we share the burden equally
Scalar distribution of responsibility, the greater your abilities the greater your responsibilities
Scalar distribution of rewards, the more you work the more you get
Rights based fairness, you get what you have a right to
Need based fairness, you get what you need
Contractual distribution, you get what you agreed to
Here one can see clearly some of the ways that fairness and equality are contested. For example, where progressives tend to support equality of distribution and need based fairness conservatives prefer equality of opportunity and contractual fairness."
Quote on exemptions of matters of fairness:
"In all the cases of imposition on freedom, it is a person who interferes with another's freedom. And in all cases there is a possibility of not imposing, of not interfering with someone else achieving his or her goals.
If these two conditions hold in all cases of the imposition on freedom, what happens in cases where one or the other does not hold? In those cases there can be no imposition on freedom. That is, the issue of freedom or the imposition on it does not arise."
-> Any outcome of a competition (if rules are abided by) and Natural Developments
Quote on justice, human rights vs responsibility:
Blocking access to scarce resources is not subject to evaluation when it's regarded as either a matter of nature or as a matter of justice.
The link between freedom and human nature brings up the question of inalienable rights. Human rights are specified as freedoms. Human rights confer the freedom to do what is natural and normal for any human being.
If guaranteeing a right is guaranteeing a freedom, either a freedom from harm or coercion or a freedom to achieve some desired state, then someone must be responsible for guaranteeing that right. For every right there is a responsibility. The freedoms that come from rights are meaningless in the absence of people carrying out those responsibilities.
For the most part, a free society requires that it's citizen help guaranteeing the rights of others as well of our own rights.
Responsibility is often contested.
If the indigent have a right to food, who has the responsibility to feed them? Progressives see feeding the poor as a responsibility required of the citizenry. Some conservatives argue that using tax money forces the responsibility on the public and that the responsibility should be freely undertaken, say by private charities or churches. They see this as a matter of freedom. Freedom from the forced imposition of a responsibility for someone else."
Quote about Justice as moral accounting:
"Justice is commonly understood in terms of moral accounting. A metaphorical system in which wellbeing is understood as a form of wealth and harm as a taking of wealth. Justice in this metaphor is a balancing of the moral books. Either punishment of the wrongdoer by paying ones debt to society or compensation of the victim by the wrongdoer, paying in recompense for the harm done."
August 30, 2020
I'll be brief, to avoid quoting much of the book here.
I've read a couple other Lakoff books over the years. This one is from clear back in 2006, but it reads as though it is reporting the daily news. His position is that certain types of conservatives have taken control of the social and political language used by Americans. Few people bother to unpack the exact meanings of the words they use. The latest campaign speech by Trump last week perfectly embodies Lakoff's observations. Republicans are speaking a different language than what progressive people are hearing. Dumbshit and McConnell can say those things with straight faces, because they don't mean the same thing that they do to the rest of us.
By now, Lakoff's observation that American political beliefs and actions can be broken down into two metaphorical categories: Strict father groups and nurturing father groups. Guess where the current fascists fall?
The least convincing part of this book is the idea that progressives will be able to overcome the advantages currently held by those with daddy fears by reclaiming the meanings of "freedom" and "liberty." The battle is for the "centrist" 20-30 percent of Americans that are generally too disconnected from politics to fall firmly in either camp. That is why Democrats pussyfoot around with uninspiring candidates with vague feel-good plans for the US.
Progressives already know that reactionaries do not accept classic rules of logic. So, if it is not possible to transcend the language to get all sides to agree to some jointly held vision for the country, progressives may be pushed into adopting the very fascist, militaristic methods that the daddy issue loves... Elections count, but it will take much more than a couple of elections to stem the flow of religion driven fearful white folks who are losing their majority position in the world.
I've read a couple other Lakoff books over the years. This one is from clear back in 2006, but it reads as though it is reporting the daily news. His position is that certain types of conservatives have taken control of the social and political language used by Americans. Few people bother to unpack the exact meanings of the words they use. The latest campaign speech by Trump last week perfectly embodies Lakoff's observations. Republicans are speaking a different language than what progressive people are hearing. Dumbshit and McConnell can say those things with straight faces, because they don't mean the same thing that they do to the rest of us.
By now, Lakoff's observation that American political beliefs and actions can be broken down into two metaphorical categories: Strict father groups and nurturing father groups. Guess where the current fascists fall?
The least convincing part of this book is the idea that progressives will be able to overcome the advantages currently held by those with daddy fears by reclaiming the meanings of "freedom" and "liberty." The battle is for the "centrist" 20-30 percent of Americans that are generally too disconnected from politics to fall firmly in either camp. That is why Democrats pussyfoot around with uninspiring candidates with vague feel-good plans for the US.
Progressives already know that reactionaries do not accept classic rules of logic. So, if it is not possible to transcend the language to get all sides to agree to some jointly held vision for the country, progressives may be pushed into adopting the very fascist, militaristic methods that the daddy issue loves... Elections count, but it will take much more than a couple of elections to stem the flow of religion driven fearful white folks who are losing their majority position in the world.
May 26, 2020
Well worth the read. This is an incredibly important book for understanding the foundations of progressive and conservative thought; for understanding those extensions to ideas like "freedom" and "morality"; and grappling with the implications. My favorite points include the nurturant family vs strict father, which I think I was vaguely aware of but now more fully understand; morality stemming from empathy & responsibility vs. from a moral authority/religion; that corporations act as governments, but with zero accountability; that markets are not natural and benefit those who design and direct them; that poverty and environmental destruction are questions of morality; and ultimately, perhaps best, that progressives value "freedom" and "morals" just as much as conservatives, but that conservatives have stolen those words from us.
I'd describe the writing style as textbook-lite. I do appreciate the straightforward manner of writing, but there were times when I thought an essay style would have made it a tad more compelling and make it flow better. Lakoff doesn't hide that he's a progressive, and I agree with him, but I can imagine a conservative person would be offended at this book. Maybe that's okay.
I'd describe the writing style as textbook-lite. I do appreciate the straightforward manner of writing, but there were times when I thought an essay style would have made it a tad more compelling and make it flow better. Lakoff doesn't hide that he's a progressive, and I agree with him, but I can imagine a conservative person would be offended at this book. Maybe that's okay.
November 12, 2022
An interesting take on the differences between radical conservatives and progressives from a cognitive scientist and linguist who has written much about politics. His take is that they have different deep frames. Conservatives have a "strict father" frame, and progressives have a "nurturing parent" frame. Progressive values are empathy and responsibility. The two different frames result in radically different answers to the question posed by the title. (I'd be interested in a discussion between Professor Lakoff and Jonathan Haidt, the author of The Righteous Mind, regarding their views on the subject of conservatives and liberals.)
The book is a call to arms. Radical conservatism is winning in the U.S. It is rewiring brains. (Think of your acquaintances who get all their news from Fox.) Progressives need to do a better job of framing their issues in terms of freedom--freedom for everyone, not just rich, privileged white males. The book was written in the second administration of the second Bush, well before Trump. But it is prescient. Professor Lakoff's views deserve a much wider audience. (One thing I learned from the book is that the war in Iraq was contemplated, if not planned, well before 9/11 and before Bush II even became President.)
The book is a call to arms. Radical conservatism is winning in the U.S. It is rewiring brains. (Think of your acquaintances who get all their news from Fox.) Progressives need to do a better job of framing their issues in terms of freedom--freedom for everyone, not just rich, privileged white males. The book was written in the second administration of the second Bush, well before Trump. But it is prescient. Professor Lakoff's views deserve a much wider audience. (One thing I learned from the book is that the war in Iraq was contemplated, if not planned, well before 9/11 and before Bush II even became President.)
October 25, 2020
George Lakoff grapples with the differences between conservative and progressive Americans by examining their differing concepts of "freedom." From there, he moves outward, discussing their differing concepts of morality and government using the metaphors they might use to navigate politics. Lakoff, who identifies as a progressive, then gives progressives a strategy for developing a populist movement in the same way that conservatives have managed to.
A pretty interesting read for someone who is progressive and wants to better understand conservatives but Lakoff doesn't do a very good job arguing for any of his progressive positions and so I wouldn't recommend it to a conservative as a means of converting them.
It's particularly fascinating reading this book, which was written in 2006, in wake of recent political movements. Lakoff writes about how a progressive populist movement could be built in America, and now that we have one, it's interesting to compare it to his model.
A pretty interesting read for someone who is progressive and wants to better understand conservatives but Lakoff doesn't do a very good job arguing for any of his progressive positions and so I wouldn't recommend it to a conservative as a means of converting them.
It's particularly fascinating reading this book, which was written in 2006, in wake of recent political movements. Lakoff writes about how a progressive populist movement could be built in America, and now that we have one, it's interesting to compare it to his model.
January 22, 2023
I love George Lakoff’s books, and I was super excited to read this one because I’m always interested in discussions about the idea of freedom and what it means in a society for different people. I’m not sure what it was, but this book just didn’t capture my attention, and I was extremely bored with it. I don’t know if it’s just because Lakoff has become repetitive with this being the third book I’ve read by him or this book just wasn’t all that great. I remember thinking I was almost done with it because it felt like I was reading it forever, but I was about a quarter of the way through.
If you’re interested in liberal vs. conservative views on freedom and framing political conversations, you may enjoy this book. If it’s your first Lakoff book, you may enjoy it a lot more than I did. But for me, it just went on and on and on. If the next book I read of his is as dull, then it may be because he’s become repetitive with his writing.
If you’re interested in liberal vs. conservative views on freedom and framing political conversations, you may enjoy this book. If it’s your first Lakoff book, you may enjoy it a lot more than I did. But for me, it just went on and on and on. If the next book I read of his is as dull, then it may be because he’s become repetitive with his writing.
November 19, 2017
This is a book about language. Specifically, it is a book about the language of Freedom. It is also a book about competition and moral obligation.
George Lakoff readily admits that in the U.S., conservatives are much better at using language than are liberals, and have been for a very long time. Why is this important? Why should you care? The author, a linguist, informs us that language can change our concepts; concepts change the brain; which affects our free will. If a conversation is framed incorrectly, the outcome will be incorrect; even dangerous.
Freedom, he says, is progressive and includes such things such as the freedom to compete in business - and in ideas, as well as freedom of speech, workers rights, voters rights, consumer protection, public health, and others. He also makes the argument that conservative freedom is regressive… and the resulting actions are regressive. "They want to go back to before these progressive freedoms were established." They have framed the idea of freedom in such a way that many conservatives now conclude that it is acceptable to deny ["those other people"] their voting rights, worker protection, even their health.
"The great ideas [and ideals] of our Founding Fathers are those that expand freedoms."
The idea of freedom as progressive is, after all, consistent with the ideals introduced in the Declaration of Independence, as well as in the Preamble to the Constitution: Justice, domestic Tranquility, defense, promotion (i.e., improving, not reducing) the General Welfare, and Liberty “to ourselves and our Posterity” [again, a progressive idea of constant improvement]; “the unalienable Rights [of] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” [not reduction or removal of these values].
Conservatives have also framed the concept of the commonwealth such that we no longer even think about it in the context that the Founding Fathers had in mind. "The idea of pooling the commonwealth for the common good so that individuals can have the resources to be free to pursue their individual goals is an idea as old in America as the colonies... the idea that the central role of government is to use the commonwealth for the common good to make individual freedom possible. The commonwealth builds the infrastructure for freedom," Lakoff tells us.
[The commonwealth belongs to the people, not the corporations.] "When we give up control of the commons, we are at the mercy of corporations who control it… we have lost these benefits to large corporate interests." (1)
The right wing manipulates language in two ways: first, via words and idioms, like "death tax," "tax relief," "judicial activism," "war against terror," "liberal elite's," "defending freedom," "pro-life," "tax and spend," "legislate from the bench," "cut spending," "up-or-down vote," "homosexual lifestyle," "ownership society," "cut and run" an so on; second, via arguments, such as "it's your money. You earned it. You can spend it better than the government can." These are clearly meant to lead to regressive actions.
Two of the most important points made in this book are about competition, and about moral obligations:
"Competitions are governed by rules. If you are free to enter the competition, there is no abridgment of freedom. If you lose or are eliminated on the basis of the rules, their is no abridgment of freedom." [Like boxing, chess and the Olympics, the realm of ideas is governed by rules of competition.] "The basis of competition [of ideas] is clear: the amount of evidence, convergence of independent evidence from many areas, coverage [and analysis] of data, crucial experiments, degree and depth of explanation [peer review]. The judges of the competition are distinguished scientists who have spent their careers studying the scientific evidence." Advocates of intelligent design [for example, as well as deniers of Climate Change] refuse to accept the rules governing competition. They frame science merely as belief. Their "theory" is as good as anybody else's. In matters of beliefs, there should be no prejudice. Freedom here is freedom of expression. [They have the right to their beliefs; they have the right to compete in the realm of ideas; they do not have a right to impose those beliefs on others. These beliefs are not factual, or even probable.]
"Normally, freedom comes with the moral obligation not to impose on the freedom of others. But in [economic] competition, this moral obligation is lifted... the free market is thus about [regressive] freedom - the freedom to make money without qualms about interfering with the freedom of others. From this perspective, government, which imposes regulations and taxes and in whose courts lawsuits take place, is interfering with freedom… Framing the choice in terms of the market removes the moral responsibility. The market is seen, via metaphor, as both natural and moral - moral because the invisible hand (its natural mechanism) guarantees that it will maximize benefits for all." "Transfers of wealth are transfers of freedom."
He concludes with a call to action: "it is time for progressives to integrate progressive ideas of freedom and liberty into our everyday thinking and into our language." I couldn't agree more.
This is a very important book. I highly recommend it to people of all political ideologies. Perhaps it will help us all to realign our concept of Freedom, with that of the Founding Fathers.
1) per Thom Hartmann: Thom Hartmann Explains the Commons; http://on.aol.com/video/thom-hartmann...
George Lakoff readily admits that in the U.S., conservatives are much better at using language than are liberals, and have been for a very long time. Why is this important? Why should you care? The author, a linguist, informs us that language can change our concepts; concepts change the brain; which affects our free will. If a conversation is framed incorrectly, the outcome will be incorrect; even dangerous.
Freedom, he says, is progressive and includes such things such as the freedom to compete in business - and in ideas, as well as freedom of speech, workers rights, voters rights, consumer protection, public health, and others. He also makes the argument that conservative freedom is regressive… and the resulting actions are regressive. "They want to go back to before these progressive freedoms were established." They have framed the idea of freedom in such a way that many conservatives now conclude that it is acceptable to deny ["those other people"] their voting rights, worker protection, even their health.
"The great ideas [and ideals] of our Founding Fathers are those that expand freedoms."
The idea of freedom as progressive is, after all, consistent with the ideals introduced in the Declaration of Independence, as well as in the Preamble to the Constitution: Justice, domestic Tranquility, defense, promotion (i.e., improving, not reducing) the General Welfare, and Liberty “to ourselves and our Posterity” [again, a progressive idea of constant improvement]; “the unalienable Rights [of] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” [not reduction or removal of these values].
Conservatives have also framed the concept of the commonwealth such that we no longer even think about it in the context that the Founding Fathers had in mind. "The idea of pooling the commonwealth for the common good so that individuals can have the resources to be free to pursue their individual goals is an idea as old in America as the colonies... the idea that the central role of government is to use the commonwealth for the common good to make individual freedom possible. The commonwealth builds the infrastructure for freedom," Lakoff tells us.
[The commonwealth belongs to the people, not the corporations.] "When we give up control of the commons, we are at the mercy of corporations who control it… we have lost these benefits to large corporate interests." (1)
The right wing manipulates language in two ways: first, via words and idioms, like "death tax," "tax relief," "judicial activism," "war against terror," "liberal elite's," "defending freedom," "pro-life," "tax and spend," "legislate from the bench," "cut spending," "up-or-down vote," "homosexual lifestyle," "ownership society," "cut and run" an so on; second, via arguments, such as "it's your money. You earned it. You can spend it better than the government can." These are clearly meant to lead to regressive actions.
Two of the most important points made in this book are about competition, and about moral obligations:
"Competitions are governed by rules. If you are free to enter the competition, there is no abridgment of freedom. If you lose or are eliminated on the basis of the rules, their is no abridgment of freedom." [Like boxing, chess and the Olympics, the realm of ideas is governed by rules of competition.] "The basis of competition [of ideas] is clear: the amount of evidence, convergence of independent evidence from many areas, coverage [and analysis] of data, crucial experiments, degree and depth of explanation [peer review]. The judges of the competition are distinguished scientists who have spent their careers studying the scientific evidence." Advocates of intelligent design [for example, as well as deniers of Climate Change] refuse to accept the rules governing competition. They frame science merely as belief. Their "theory" is as good as anybody else's. In matters of beliefs, there should be no prejudice. Freedom here is freedom of expression. [They have the right to their beliefs; they have the right to compete in the realm of ideas; they do not have a right to impose those beliefs on others. These beliefs are not factual, or even probable.]
"Normally, freedom comes with the moral obligation not to impose on the freedom of others. But in [economic] competition, this moral obligation is lifted... the free market is thus about [regressive] freedom - the freedom to make money without qualms about interfering with the freedom of others. From this perspective, government, which imposes regulations and taxes and in whose courts lawsuits take place, is interfering with freedom… Framing the choice in terms of the market removes the moral responsibility. The market is seen, via metaphor, as both natural and moral - moral because the invisible hand (its natural mechanism) guarantees that it will maximize benefits for all." "Transfers of wealth are transfers of freedom."
He concludes with a call to action: "it is time for progressives to integrate progressive ideas of freedom and liberty into our everyday thinking and into our language." I couldn't agree more.
This is a very important book. I highly recommend it to people of all political ideologies. Perhaps it will help us all to realign our concept of Freedom, with that of the Founding Fathers.
1) per Thom Hartmann: Thom Hartmann Explains the Commons; http://on.aol.com/video/thom-hartmann...
July 30, 2018
Lakoff always provides insightful discussions on metaphors, framing, and political language in general. The book is very informative and provides numerous examples to help illustrate and reinforce his claims. I did feel like some of the material was repetitive in regards to previously published works, but I didn't mind reading through that material as a sort of "refresher" on some of Lakoff's main arguments about political ideologies and framing techniques. I recommend anyone interested in politics read at least one of his books.
October 2, 2019
For all of those people wondering how Donald Trump could have been elected, this book is for you. The kicker is this book was published 13 years ago and the author warned us what was happening. He warned us about how facts are dismissed by conservatives if they don’t match their world view. He explained exactly what would happen and how it would happen. And here we are.
This book isn’t a light, fun read. It deals with complicated ideas. It can read like a textbook at times. But, as a newcomer to George Lakoff, it was mind blowing.
This book isn’t a light, fun read. It deals with complicated ideas. It can read like a textbook at times. But, as a newcomer to George Lakoff, it was mind blowing.
June 18, 2017
I have always found Lakoff's discussions of the deep frames that affect our thinking to be very enlightening. This book delves into the two predominant frames that affect American politics. The book is a bit repetitive at times, but it is packed with insight. Although the book was written during W's presidency it pretty much predicted our Trump catastrophe. I wish more politicians would listen to cognitive linguists.
June 18, 2020
This helped me further understand the different mindset of liberals and conservatives, but like Don't Think of an Elephant, I just kept wondering how Democrats keep getting this messaging wrong and Republicans have honed in on these emotions so effectively. Also, I just want to tell 2004 George that it gets so much worse.
February 6, 2022
Extremely enlightening. Lakoff is a cognitive linguist whose theme here is the differences in the way different political and religious camps frame concepts, especially freedom and liberty, and the language each uses. It's important because unless we are aware of it, we think we are talking about the same thing, when we really aren't, and then we wonder why we don't understand each other. Highly recommend.
November 26, 2024
It is very sad to realize that this book, published in 2006 seems even more relevant in 2024. Again, I agree with a lot that this author had to say under George W. Bush's administration. How much more well relate under the orange toddler's 2nd term.
July 17, 2017
I really wanted to like this book, but I found it dry and technical. Good information but a little rough to read.
March 20, 2021
The book makes good points, but I prefer writing that is a bit more balanced instead of so clearly being agenda oriented
to-read-later
July 24, 2021Recommended at https://twitter.com/roseaboveit/statu...
March 14, 2025
Although written in almost 20 years ago, it is even more relevant to today's political environment.
March 2, 2017
Returning to this book in these new post-truth and even post-truthiness days demonstrates how prescient Lakoff's analysis was and how progressives and American left ignored it to their loss. Hopefully, they will pay more attention now.
October 3, 2024
I'm so happy to see Harris's Campaign take all of these ideas and finally claim Freedom, prime during her nomination acceptance speech. Beyonce's song Freedom gives me chills, and nothing in the remainder of the campaign has felt quite as powerful.
Powerful introduction — two definitions of freedom underpin political posturing. This 2006 book foreshadows perfectly Trumps call to MAGA.
“Even more troubling is the light scratch will take over the idea of freedom’s going by unnoticed.… The longer the attempted left remains in visible, the better chance of succeeding… if Rush Limbaugh freedom is the only IDFC Mid-America than the radical right now is one. But they have not one, not yet!” (P8-9)
Even just the introduction, which describes how the right is successfully taken over the concept of free, should be required reading for everyone. Frames, metaphors, emotions driving rationality, common sense replacing logic,… “Conservatives have learned far better than liberals had to take it vantage of the links between emotion rationality.” (P15)
Lakoff’s Chapter one analogies between freedom and art, taught me a lot about both, especially how people analyze and innovate in art. For I have not admitted that people could innovative in political persuasion, yet here the right dramatically has!
10 different and often conflicting ways of evaluating equality. (p51)
“Empathy forms the basis for the progressive worldview. It is empathy that makes us concerned about the freedom of others. It is no accident at the nurturant parent model begins with empathy. Progressive morality is centrally about empathy. We are born wired for empathy.” (p85)
Powerful introduction — two definitions of freedom underpin political posturing. This 2006 book foreshadows perfectly Trumps call to MAGA.
“Even more troubling is the light scratch will take over the idea of freedom’s going by unnoticed.… The longer the attempted left remains in visible, the better chance of succeeding… if Rush Limbaugh freedom is the only IDFC Mid-America than the radical right now is one. But they have not one, not yet!” (P8-9)
Even just the introduction, which describes how the right is successfully taken over the concept of free, should be required reading for everyone. Frames, metaphors, emotions driving rationality, common sense replacing logic,… “Conservatives have learned far better than liberals had to take it vantage of the links between emotion rationality.” (P15)
Lakoff’s Chapter one analogies between freedom and art, taught me a lot about both, especially how people analyze and innovate in art. For I have not admitted that people could innovative in political persuasion, yet here the right dramatically has!
10 different and often conflicting ways of evaluating equality. (p51)
“Empathy forms the basis for the progressive worldview. It is empathy that makes us concerned about the freedom of others. It is no accident at the nurturant parent model begins with empathy. Progressive morality is centrally about empathy. We are born wired for empathy.” (p85)
September 23, 2016
A exceptionally illuminating political opinion on the marketing of freedom in America.
Lakoff's personal political ideologies are not hidden in this work, but he makes an excellent point for the emotional pandering and idealistic lobbying for politics. This short work makes for excellent reading on the subject of marketing political ideologies, from freedom to the issues of church and state.
Various examples showcase the thought process of both sides of the political spectrum, with detailed analysis of these various ideas. How and why people think the way they do is touched upon, as well as the simplification of various buzzwords in the media. Certain demographics of individuals are much more likely to think a certain way because of how and where they were raised, as well as what they agree with on television, radio, and other general media.
Written during the Bush presidency, Lakoff touches on the idea of freedom as something to be marketed to the American public but very strictly controlled in terms of execution. The setup of the surveillance state after the passing of the Patriot Act is fully understood in this work. As well as this, the main driving point is how controlled our American freedoms are, and how for some individuals, that freedom comes with being able to control other's.
A poignant read for any political enthusiast.
Lakoff's personal political ideologies are not hidden in this work, but he makes an excellent point for the emotional pandering and idealistic lobbying for politics. This short work makes for excellent reading on the subject of marketing political ideologies, from freedom to the issues of church and state.
Various examples showcase the thought process of both sides of the political spectrum, with detailed analysis of these various ideas. How and why people think the way they do is touched upon, as well as the simplification of various buzzwords in the media. Certain demographics of individuals are much more likely to think a certain way because of how and where they were raised, as well as what they agree with on television, radio, and other general media.
Written during the Bush presidency, Lakoff touches on the idea of freedom as something to be marketed to the American public but very strictly controlled in terms of execution. The setup of the surveillance state after the passing of the Patriot Act is fully understood in this work. As well as this, the main driving point is how controlled our American freedoms are, and how for some individuals, that freedom comes with being able to control other's.
A poignant read for any political enthusiast.
October 5, 2008
This is an essential book to read no matter what political persuasion. It is especially important for people with progressive views to understand the true underlying ideology of the conservative right and the language they have used to "frame" the issues over the past 30 years. This book shows how the conversative right have highjacked our most cherished polical idea, Freedom, and the alarming consequences. We are seeing the results of that way of thinking in our current economic and housing crisis. Progressives have failed to see the dangers and haven't understood how to combat this conservative onslaught. This book takes Progressives to task and gives us the tools to take back and win in this linguistic and ideological war for our most cherished ideal, Freedom.
Currently reading
September 3, 2007I've only gotten through the introduction, but even though it's pretty much cognitive linguistics lite, I cannot put this book down. Lakoff goes through the invisible way in which the right has hijacked the idea of freedom and used it to make a great deal of headway in the culture wars. Of course, all of this happens while what he calls "progressives" (and I call Democrats;) sit around on our asses wondering why nobody sees what's going on. I'll have more to say about it when I'm done, but so far I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the subtleties of language and anyone who believes that words are a lot more than ink blobs on a page.
December 11, 2012
"We were raised to think that words are transparent, that they have single simple meanings hat directly fit reality. We were not raised to think in terms of contested concepts that have uncontested cores an virtually opposite extended meanings. We were not raised to think in terms of frames and metaphorical ideas. And we were not raised to think in terms of alternative worldviews – that our countrymen and even our next-door neighbors might see the world in a radically different way. In short, we were not raised to see certain deep truths that are essential to our freedom. Transcending the ideas that we were raised with – growing to see more – is the cognitive work of achieving freedom."
June 4, 2014
Not to deep or entertaining but still a revealing look into how conservatives use a "Strict Father" model in the way they conduct themselves in politics. Unable to comprehend systemic issues facing real American, they often choose heartless tough-love maneuvers in the name "liberty"-that is, free ourselves from the common good mentality and helping your neighbor- and "freedom"-that is, the freedom for YOU to pick up YOURSELF so that I don't ever have to empathize with your suffering. Both rightwing concepts, of course, being sadly the likely causation for widespread hunger, homelessness, our terrible healthcare system. (hopefully, Obamacare will right that ship.)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews