Your Brain's Politics

by George Lakoff, Elisabeth Wehling

At first glance, issues like economic inequality, healthcare, climate change, and abortion seem unrelated. However, when thinking and talking about them, people reliably fall into two conservative and liberal. What explains this divide? Why do conservatives and liberals hold the positions they do? And what is the conceptual nature of those who decide elections, commonly called the "political middle"?The answers are profound. They have to do with how our minds and brains work. Political attitudes are the product of what cognitive scientists call Embodied Cognition — the grounding of abstract thought in everyday world experience. Clashing beliefs about how to run nations largely arise from conflicting beliefs about family conservatives endorse a strict father and liberals a nurturant parent model. So-called "middle" voters are not in the middle at all. They are morally biconceptual, divided between both models, and as a result highly susceptible to moral political persuasion.In this brief introduction, Lakoff and Wehling reveal how cognitive science research has advanced our understanding of political thought and language, forcing us to revise common folk theories about the rational voter.

Genres: Politics, Psychology, Nonfiction, Linguistics, Science, Philosophy

153 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 1, 2016

About the author

George 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.

Reviews

[Saman · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

کتاب جالبی بود.من تو این حوزه تا الان مطالعه نداشتم و بخشی از اینکه مطالب واسم جالب بود به این برمی‌گشت که در مورد یک موضوع تازه دارم مطلب می‌خونم. کتاب گفت‌و‌گوی مشروحی بین آقای جرج لاکوف زبان شناسی و فیلسوف شناختی آمریکایی و خانم الیزابت وهلینگ هست که در سال 2016 انجام شده.جرج لاکوف مهمترین تزی که داره اینه که زندگی مردم خیلی زیاد و بیش از آن چیزی که تصور میشه تحت تاثیر استعاره‌هاست و مردم برای صحبت کردن و توضیح مسائل پیچیده از استعاره استفاده می‌کنند. در قسمت‌های ابتدایی کتاب در مورد استعاره ها و نقش و تاثیرشون بر مغز و ذهن انسان حرف می‌زنند و بعد از بحث های ابتدایی که بین طرفین شکل می‌گیره، در فصول بعدی گفت‌و‌گو به سمتی میره که استعاره ها رو در دنیای سیاست به ویژه رقایت های سیاسی انتخاباتی در آمریکا بین دو حزب دموکرات و جمهوری خواه بررسی می‌کنه و نشون میده که چه قدر از رقابت ها و عقاید سیاسی هر دو حزب بسته به این استفاده از استعاره ها داره و از چه استعاره هایی استفاده میشه. حتی پیروزی ریگان در دهه هشتاد میلادی رو از این منظر بررسی می‌کنه و نکات جالبی رو مطرح می‌کنه. او برای پیشبرد نظرات خودش از الگوی پدر سخت گیر و پدر پرورنده استفاده می‌کنه و نظرات خودش در این حوزه رو تشریح می‌کنه. اساسا در نگاه آقای لاکوف استعاره مثل گنجی است پنهان که درسته ما ازش استفاده می‌کنیم ولی چیز زیادی نمی‌دونیم و حالا لاکوف سعی می‌کنه چشم‌های مخاطب رو به نقش و تاثیر استعاره ها باز کنه. این اولین کتابی بود که درباره‌ی این موضوع و از لاکوف خوندم.چند کتاب از او ترجمه شده. اونطور که سرچ کردم کتاب " استعاره‌هایی که با آن زندگی می‌کنیم" که تا به امروز سه انتشارات در ایران ترجمه‌اش کردند منبع خوبی برای شناخت عقاید لاکوف در مورد بحث استعاره هاست..احتمال داره چند ماه دیگه این کتاب رو هم بخونم.

کتاب مورد بحث در این مرور، تحت عنوان "مغز سیاسی، استعاره ها در گفتمان سیاسی" توسط نشر لوگوس و با ترجمه‌ی محسن توکلیان در 140 صفحه به چاپ رسیده.

[B. Rule · Rating 3 out of 5]

While Lakoff has made some deep contributions to our understanding of linguistics and cognition, I was left underwhelmed by this short volume. The insight of metaphor as essential to, and controlling of, meaning in speech? Aces. The idea that the metaphors we use control the reality we perceive? Yep. That polarized politics reflects mutually exclusive referential frames? Definitely something to that. So from 40,000 feet, yes, we're on track.

However, the overarching metaphor used by Lakoff and his interlocutor to understand the differences between conservatives and liberals feels like a just-so story and a pretty thin one too. Lakoff's myth is that conservatives are enacting on the political stage a family model he calls "Strict Father" and liberals are playing out "Nurturant Parent". Don't get me wrong: there's definitely a kernel of truth in these ideas. That family models of authority influence our political ideals, I have no doubt. I further agree that these two models broadly describe many aspects of the political poles in the U.S.

But this is far too simplistic to explain real human behavior. How many families do you know where the parenting style isn't some admixture of strict demands for obedience and more nurturing and empathetic collaboration? I personally know of none, not one. But Lakoff's analysis doesn't tell you how those two perspectives can be on a spectrum, or how they collapse into a binary state. In fact, he claims you can't see both conservative and liberal conceptual frames at the same time, likening it to ambiguous image optical illusions! I may not be able to see the rabbit and the duck at the exact same moment, but I have serious doubts that overarching liberal and conservative frameworks operate on a one-to-one correspondence with our visual systems. I get why that's his story, because it is trying to explain why people so firmly entrench in one camp or the other. But I don't think the story is that simple. Further, Lakoff's story completely excludes other life experiences, education, peer interactions, genetics, etc., in offering up a neo-Freudian reductive account of political bias. It's a helpful piece, but this piece is arrogating the whole to itself.

I started this hoping for a grand unified theory of political behavior; I came away with an interesting but much more modest insight into metaphorical and emotional framing. Having then given up my grander aspirations, I looked to this book for practical suggestions on how to effectively use framing to advance my political preferences. Again, I came up short. Lakoff and Wehling (relegated to Lakoff's Sancho Panza here but true to form, often more insightful than the master) relish breaking down conservative, Strict Father political messaging. The book is peppered with examples, and they do a pretty good job tracing the concepts hiding behind the words.

But they have next to no advice for the nurturing Left. While at one point Lakoff does a multi-paragraph dump of the values undergirding liberal attitudes to taxes, he is unable to produce any pithy language that summarizes it in the same way "tax relief" does for the other side. How about "fair share"? "Collective good"? I'm sure there are better options than these toss-offs but he gives nothing, and he's had a whole career to think about it! The tone of the book is more messaging guidebook than dispassionate analysis, so it's puzzling to me that they didn't have more to offer in this area. I appreciate the overarching message here, but it could have been a lot better. I actually felt like I learned more about unconscious bias, metaphor, and political preference from Robert Anton Wilson than I did from this work. At least it's a quick read.

[Carol Willis · Rating 5 out of 5]

I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand why we so often seem to be talking past each other, especially in political conversations. Lakoff bases what he says on cognitive and behavioral science. It's highly instructive about communication or the lack thereof. I come away from it with a heightened awareness of our pervasive and largely unconscious use of metaphors in our communications. The book is written purely as a dialogue, as if the transcript of a podcast, which is different, but I did not find that it interfered at all with the meaning.

[Marilyn Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a timely book for making sense of US political divide that makes discussion so challenging right now. Lakoff explains how our brain's neural processing of words and phrases, often set in early childhood, can color words and phrases in ways that become auto pilot reactions.
A thoughtful and thought provoking read -

[Kathleen · Rating 4 out of 5]

As per political understanding and making sense of the American landscape I have to complaints. Full marks.

But I have issues. The first is that objective truth cannot be communicated. As someone with a longstanding study of science, thats an issue. Especially when I am cure learning from several groups who specialize in Science Communication.

Second, the chapter on religious language included mainline Christianity. And only that. Considering the religious diversity in America that's problematic.

And thirdly the book adopts a two party system. Two ways to think - that's it! It's not true in politics, and it's not true here.

This being said, the book REALLY DOES go into the cognitive language of our current political cycle. Though, oddly, I think his ”progressive” is more ”neo-liberal”.

But that's another topic.

[Addy Gilham · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars!! I really love the perspectives this book offered and how deep it dove into cognitive science. I just feel like the ending was so anticlimactic and left me with a zillion questions and hardly any solutions. I really did like it tho I’m just tired so I’m not going to write a ton about it

[Edward Ferrari · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wish there were more books like this.

[Kukjin · Rating 5 out of 5]

인간은 합리적이지도, 객관적이지도 않으며, 은유로 사물/세상을 인식한다는 인지과학적 접근이 참 도움이 되었습니다.

한 사람의 정치적 성향을 분석하기 위하여 국가=가정이라는 은유로 접근하여 설명하는 것도 참 좋네요.

https://hessedjin.tistory.com/355

[Nick B · Rating 2 out of 5]

Didn't care for the Q&A type reading layout. The concept laid out is certainly intriguing, but the Q&A style made it difficult to follow a train of thought.

[Lisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

The format of the book is set up like a transcript of an interview, although it is a conversation. Themes are aided by sub-chapter headings. This changed the way I read the book.

I did scan-read, because I came to this book as a political advocate and not as a linguist, who was seeking more tools in my toolkit--this time to talk to establishment Dems who seek to sideline Progressives.

I left this book without specific tooks. Yet, I left being more aware of metaphors used in politics and the awareness I would need to ruminate on those metaphors that crossed my path.

[Gigi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some good ideas are contained in this book; however, I did not like that it was published as a conversation, nor did I like that it was very short.

[Raymond Lam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lakoff and Wehling provide an account of how political attitudes are developed in humans based on recent research in cognitive science and linguistics. In essence, this work amounts to explaining how abstract concepts are formed in the human brain. The authors reveal that reasoning is a physical process according to which random neural connections in the brain get activated by interaction with the world thereby gradually structuring the brain into certain cognitive structure . This is a process called “embodied cognition”. Cognitive development is also unconscious and much of reasoning is metaphorical, a process by which concepts from one source domain are mapped on to another domain causing the thinking in the latter domain to model in structure after the source domain. Hence, cognitive development is a biological process which involves activating neurons in one’s environment to sustain a cognitive structure. This is similar to the Chomskyan internal language according to which a person acquires a language by setting the rules and parameters in one’s mental structure via interacting with the world thereby internalising the grammar biologically in the brain.
The authors suggest that a person’s first experience of being “governed” is in his family life. So political attitudes are developed metaphorically from family models. Conservatives endorse a strict father model while progressive, a nurturant parent model. A person’s political attitudes are a result of his collective beliefs acquired in life that reflect those models. A person can be “biconceptual” in both models cognitively in his collection of political attitudes depending on his experiences in life, and, is susceptible to persuasion to adopt new attitudes interpreted in either model depending on the interaction with his existent web of cognitive structure. A person who is politically neutral is just someone that is biconceptual.



Another important feature of political attitudes development is facts need frames to carry their meaning, especially facts about abstract ideas. A frame is a cognitive structure of concepts that gives a fact its meaning. Hence, a fact entertained by a person is always within a framework. This is reminiscent of Charles Taylor’s notion of “inescapable framework” according to which political discourse is always within some distinct framework with a unique hermeneutics to describe concepts and make distinctions.

This work is written in dialogue form and uses an impressive collection of cognitive linguistics articles as its sources. It is enjoyable to read and would be useful for a basic cognitive linguistics course.

[Mohammed Al-Humaikani · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliantly written book that clearly imparts its concepts upon the reader. Written as an intelligent dialogue between two great cognitive scientists, the book allows the reader to easily follow the flow of information.

I think that what is presented would be "enlightening" for those who read news while they are filled with emotions. It has been explained clearly how the mechanisms of political framing stems from the differences in family values. The book presents an acute analysis that would allow many to understand how the public discourse is being framed, be it in the US, or anywhere else, thus providing a person with better outlook on news and important speeches.

On the other hand, an Arab reader "might" realize that in the Arab world, there are layers of conservative stances but progressives are rare. So, some differences in the various layers of conservatives can strike as if the arguments in the Arab world seem to be between progressivists and conservatives. The societal background in the Arab world makes no much room for progressivists, in the sense used in the western world.
Moreover, I think that some readers who are tightly encompassed by their framing might regard this text as an erroneous way of looking at things as it merely "frames" them as a perspective that many others might not agree with due to different upbringing, family values, societal experiences, etc.

Also it might appear to some that a relativist argument was presented, yet the writers made clear why they don't hold that stance.

[Jessie Reynolds-Clay · Rating 3 out of 5]

brilliant.