QuakerQuaker migration starting soon, can you help?
Hi QuakerQuaker fans,It's time to start the migration of QuakerQuaker to a new online platform. It…See More
QuakerQuaker
Primitive Christianity Revived, Again
Political Minds with Religious Implications
The first time I heard of George Lakoff's work, I didn't like it. From that second-hand account, I thought he was saying we shouldn't try reasoning with people about politics... which I've always considered a duty, so far as possible, since the alternatives seem to come down to: force, fear, or manipulation.
Lakoff is much more complex than that. First off, he's working from a well-established principle: that human thinking, about anything more complicated than primary concrete experience, is done with metaphors. (Even mathematics, which mathematicians consider quite concrete, which non-mathematicians consider 'mysterious'-- comes down to working logically with structured metaphors, ultimately based on common simple experiences with physical objects.) Basic metaphors like 'up'= 'more' and 'down'= 'less' lead the mind to also use similar words of the same basic meaning: 'higher' or 'lower', 'over' or 'under', say.
Where there are alternative metaphors, like: 'greater' or 'smaller', the use of one metaphor tends to diminish the use of others (particularly those which illuminate different properties of your subject. This works much like the old-woman-with-nose/young-lady-with-neck drawing; seeing one face tends to persist until the set of neurons indicating that interpretation gets tired and the alternative set takes over-- which for someone of short attention span, just might take too long!
In the case of political issues: The prevalent metaphors seem to be based on modes of family interaction. Lakoff distinguishes two basically different moral systems: modeled on the 'strict father' family or the 'nurturant parent' family-- though mixtures of the two are common enough, so that many people will take a 'strict father' stance on some issues, a 'nurturant parent' approach to others.
This is more than a nifty classification scheme... because, when Lakoff took a long list of 'conservative' (in the US political sense) principles and issue stands, and related them to the value-system typical of an authoritarian US family, positions with no logical connection, which separately seemed simply irrelevant to each other or to the political issues involved, suddenly fit together.
He calls the authoritarian, hierarchical moral system the 'strict father' model because the hierarchy it promotes is typically male-dominated, 'enforced' as needed by force, fraud, and violence: emotional violence where that suffices and the physical sort if it fails. So-called 'conservative' (in the US political meaning) political positions work to maintain that hierarchical order and thus seem patently immoral, even antimoral to us liberal types, while our morality seems dangerously chaotic, weak, etc. to 'conservatives'. [Critics of the early Quakers, for example, feared that the movement would undermine and destroy all social order...]
A lot of political discussion is seem as futile, and becomes futile, because partisans of one position do in fact use the same words for different concepts, and thus often fail to understand "how you could possibly think that..."
Are both moral systems (each tending to approve actions the other finds appalling) really 'moral' systems? I've concluded that they are, if the function of a moral system is to give people a basis for settling interpersonal conflicts and moral dilemmas... in a way that everyone involved might agree, "This was an acceptable resolution."
A top-down authoritarian morality worked pretty well on historic sailing ships, manned by a large crew of ignorant, malnourished, horny and not particularly dedicated men a long way from home. Involved in a conflict in that context, you'd probably like it settled in favor of the guy with the navigational instruments, expertise, long-term purpose. In similar contexts, especially where that long-term purpose involves wholesale manslaughter, that form of organization is particularly functional, far less inclined to make some sensible decision like: "Let's go find a nice place to sit this war out!"
Notice, however, that it is not particularly desirable for one's sailing ship to be manned by ignorant men, or for them to be malnourished, horny, and brutalized, or for the purpose of the trip to be collective mayhem and/or robbery inflicted on strangers.
If you've got people needing to make collective decisions for a clearly benign purpose, where some people's expertise is not so objectively clear or necessarily relevant, you'd want to interact on a more equal basis.
It doesn't hurt to have those interactions structured to facilitate some agreed-on purpose. A playground morality is nominally egalitarian, but in practice--Being bigger and having tougher friends goes a long way to mis-structure environments lacking any formal structure, and doesn't well serve any mutual purpose.
A playground, by the way, serves as a good example of how two contrasting moralities can intersect and conflict. Basic order is given by tacit agreements between the children, which in my day came down to matters like not going to the adults for support, having fights be one-on-one via fists, no knives or guns or kicks in tender places (unless you were a Bad Kid. Kung-fu movies had not caught on.) The adults considered their top-down moral system the dominant reality, so if you got in a fight you'd probably spend some time waiting for the principal to tell you how much trouble you'd gotten into, but the other kids would figure you were all right.
Most actual human beings have a mix of different moral systems available to them, which they are likely to choose between in different contexts. But generally any moral system-- like the ancient Playground Code of Honor-- is accepted as a guide to Fair Settlement for some people in some types of dispute.
Which system does God prefer? Thoughts on this?
Lakoff is much more complex than that. First off, he's working from a well-established principle: that human thinking, about anything more complicated than primary concrete experience, is done with metaphors. (Even mathematics, which mathematicians consider quite concrete, which non-mathematicians consider 'mysterious'-- comes down to working logically with structured metaphors, ultimately based on common simple experiences with physical objects.) Basic metaphors like 'up'= 'more' and 'down'= 'less' lead the mind to also use similar words of the same basic meaning: 'higher' or 'lower', 'over' or 'under', say.
Where there are alternative metaphors, like: 'greater' or 'smaller', the use of one metaphor tends to diminish the use of others (particularly those which illuminate different properties of your subject. This works much like the old-woman-with-nose/young-lady-with-neck drawing; seeing one face tends to persist until the set of neurons indicating that interpretation gets tired and the alternative set takes over-- which for someone of short attention span, just might take too long!
In the case of political issues: The prevalent metaphors seem to be based on modes of family interaction. Lakoff distinguishes two basically different moral systems: modeled on the 'strict father' family or the 'nurturant parent' family-- though mixtures of the two are common enough, so that many people will take a 'strict father' stance on some issues, a 'nurturant parent' approach to others.
This is more than a nifty classification scheme... because, when Lakoff took a long list of 'conservative' (in the US political sense) principles and issue stands, and related them to the value-system typical of an authoritarian US family, positions with no logical connection, which separately seemed simply irrelevant to each other or to the political issues involved, suddenly fit together.
He calls the authoritarian, hierarchical moral system the 'strict father' model because the hierarchy it promotes is typically male-dominated, 'enforced' as needed by force, fraud, and violence: emotional violence where that suffices and the physical sort if it fails. So-called 'conservative' (in the US political meaning) political positions work to maintain that hierarchical order and thus seem patently immoral, even antimoral to us liberal types, while our morality seems dangerously chaotic, weak, etc. to 'conservatives'. [Critics of the early Quakers, for example, feared that the movement would undermine and destroy all social order...]
A lot of political discussion is seem as futile, and becomes futile, because partisans of one position do in fact use the same words for different concepts, and thus often fail to understand "how you could possibly think that..."
Are both moral systems (each tending to approve actions the other finds appalling) really 'moral' systems? I've concluded that they are, if the function of a moral system is to give people a basis for settling interpersonal conflicts and moral dilemmas... in a way that everyone involved might agree, "This was an acceptable resolution."
A top-down authoritarian morality worked pretty well on historic sailing ships, manned by a large crew of ignorant, malnourished, horny and not particularly dedicated men a long way from home. Involved in a conflict in that context, you'd probably like it settled in favor of the guy with the navigational instruments, expertise, long-term purpose. In similar contexts, especially where that long-term purpose involves wholesale manslaughter, that form of organization is particularly functional, far less inclined to make some sensible decision like: "Let's go find a nice place to sit this war out!"
Notice, however, that it is not particularly desirable for one's sailing ship to be manned by ignorant men, or for them to be malnourished, horny, and brutalized, or for the purpose of the trip to be collective mayhem and/or robbery inflicted on strangers.
If you've got people needing to make collective decisions for a clearly benign purpose, where some people's expertise is not so objectively clear or necessarily relevant, you'd want to interact on a more equal basis.
It doesn't hurt to have those interactions structured to facilitate some agreed-on purpose. A playground morality is nominally egalitarian, but in practice--Being bigger and having tougher friends goes a long way to mis-structure environments lacking any formal structure, and doesn't well serve any mutual purpose.
A playground, by the way, serves as a good example of how two contrasting moralities can intersect and conflict. Basic order is given by tacit agreements between the children, which in my day came down to matters like not going to the adults for support, having fights be one-on-one via fists, no knives or guns or kicks in tender places (unless you were a Bad Kid. Kung-fu movies had not caught on.) The adults considered their top-down moral system the dominant reality, so if you got in a fight you'd probably spend some time waiting for the principal to tell you how much trouble you'd gotten into, but the other kids would figure you were all right.
Most actual human beings have a mix of different moral systems available to them, which they are likely to choose between in different contexts. But generally any moral system-- like the ancient Playground Code of Honor-- is accepted as a guide to Fair Settlement for some people in some types of dispute.
Which system does God prefer? Thoughts on this?
-
Comment by Eric H-L on 8th mo. 13, 2010 at 12:29pm
-
This seems extremely useful. Why? Long ago I tried a very goal directed democratic process for political change. We mobilize as many as possible of those who agree with us and convince as many as possible of those who are uncommitted. Meanwhile the honarable opposition try to do the same thing. “Obviously” time spent talking with the “other side.” Is wasted!
Don’t get me wrong, I still think this process is preferable to religious wars…yet I am getting the hint of a new calling for me: to answer that of God, even in people who I profoundly disagree with. A daunting prospect for me. A few previous conversations have been unfruitful for many reasons: Me not sufficiently centered. Me afraid that my mind might be changed. Me not opening to God’s help and relying too much on my own bright ideas. The Lakoff theory helps me understand why it is so hard to build these bridges. I am not nearly faithful enough to believe that all people on earth can reach unity-like a big meeting for business, yet shouldn’t I be talking with traditional marriage advocates (for instance) as if we could?
-
Comment by Forrest Curo on 8th mo. 13, 2010 at 6:04pm
-
If we could get all people on Earth to meet in Worship-for-Business, and open themselves to whatever God might show them in that Meeting, no doubt we'd reach unity on a great many irreconcilable conflicts. But that initial step would be a steep one...
I think using your opponent's terminology is a big mistake (& Lakoff would agree that it tends to confirm people in the viewpoint that terminology came from.) You might instead call them "gay-marriage prohibitionists"? The idea is not to let politeness render thy mouth mealy, nor anger render it foamy, but to apply plain speech, precisely as thou seeth the truth of things.
Time talking to the other side is essential; that's time forcing you and them to recognize that you're both wearing belly-buttons and are therefore both mammals... maybe even children of the same God. I think you've got a finger on an important element: If you need to win, you can't. If you need to love some (other) confused human beings, you can. I know there's been some real hardship & hard feelings over that issue, but this still needs to be the starting point.
-
-
Forrest,
Thank you for the suggestion not to let my slightly misguided niceness get in the way of speaking truth. Accuracy is central as we reach across the divide of conflicting belief systems. You mentioned "irreconcilable conflicts" which brings to mind the word reconciliation. Unity seems improbable so long as we children of the same God are "unquestioningly dedicated to one or another conflicting systems"... but I do have great faith in reconciliation.
-
Comment by Rachelle Merle on 8th mo. 14, 2010 at 2:23am
-
I think a system God prefers is based on us recognizing each other as fellow humans trying to do "right" ("both wearing belly-buttons" as Forrest said). What has really helped me in this process is my group of childhood friends. I live in a rural area and went to a small school and still hang out with the girls I was friends with my whole life. So we know all those silly and quirky things about each other that only childhood friends and siblings can know.
There are five of us: atheist, born-again Christain, fundementalist Christian, ex-Mormon, and me. Polictically, we span the spectrum. There is no way we would all be friends had we met as adults. But we thoroughly know each other as fellow humans who have shared history, so we are able to have wonderful discussions about religion and politics in a very safe way.
I'm not sure how one would re-create this type of situation...
As for the nuturing mother versus authoritive father: don't both have some good points, but as an approach to be applied systematically (sorry for my spelling) aren't they both fundementally flawed?
Both are applied with human goals in mind: the authoratative father has very plain goals, whether it is the gov't stability, organized profit at the expense of the many... it is human goals, applied in a top down fashion.
Nuturing mother is the same: everyone get along, be happy. Gentle guiding that is easy to transform into sublte manipulation, "for their own sake."
People don't need to get along, or even to be happy all the time. Nor do they need to fullfill the wishes or command of other people. I see God's moral system as something like this: Listen to Me and follow the Golden Rule.
Hope this wasn't too babbly ;)
-
-
Rachelle,
Thank you for sharing the hopeful example of you and your long time friends. The kind of safe and deep conversations you describe are just what I am looking for. I agree totally that God wants us to recognize each other as brothers and sisters trying to do right. I get into trouble when someone else's doing right is my doing wrong...and visa versa! It is easier for me to 'live and let live' when the issue seems less urgent and less black or white. Examples of tough questions: Who is a Quaker? Whose marriage is sanctified?
------------------
Rachelle and Forrest,
Last week I was thinking of conversations with people not associated with Quakers. I am currently reading Chuck Fager's book Without Apology which describes some of the difficulties Friends have had coming together across our differences. The book is a sobering reminder just how challenging bridge building can be-- even when their is a shared heritage. (perhaps some of the bitterness arises out of the closeness) Fortunately, as a new attender I did not witness the troubles Fager recalls from the last thirty years. I think these same seemingly conflicting world views are still evident within the QuakerQuaker online community...may God help us continue these conversations in the spirit of love.
-
-
Amen!
Continuing in the spirit of love, and not giving up on the conversation either! Truth & love; one without the other isn't.
Comment
Support Us
Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? Our costs run to about $50/month. If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.
Latest Activity
"Hi Christopher, thanks for your ongoing support all this time; I understand needing to slow down…"
In person gathering - Friends of the Light
7th mo. 22, 2023 all dayFriends of the Light - Online worship
6th mo. 4, 2023 from 7pm to 8pm
"Hi Martin,
I hope other users have been making occasional/regular donations. I am…"
© 2023 Created by QuakerQuaker.
Powered by
You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!
Join QuakerQuaker