So we said in class yesterday that our generation challenges Lakoff’s binary worldviews. I wonder if this questioning is indicative of an altogether different perspective fairly unique to young people today.
If worldview is a pair of glasses – ones we rarely notice until they're knocked off by guys like Lakoff – we’ve been raised with post-modern, x-ray specs designed to hone in on underlying motivations and power structures. One of our strongest generational morals seems to be evaluating why things are, and of course questioning others who are too confident in their own answers. Strict fathers or nurturing mothers? Maybe we’re the new parents who don't know exactly how our babies are still in one piece, but we're not content trusting the advice of mothers-in-law we know didn't do it perfectly (until we're sleep deprived and at wits end).
Through his description of the extremes – one subtly caricatured, the other obviously supported – Lakoff invokes a dualistic gravitational pull of ideas. He describes an ossified political system that may care more about ideological loyalty than about the meaning and impact that our generation craves. I believe we're characterized by idealism like that of the 60s, but with a grounding rooted in worldwide travel, access to information, and other facets of a shrinking world. The status quo of prior generations – lifelong career ladders, loyalty to a bloc just like me, etc. – and the secondary status quo of objecting to that one hold little allure in themselves.
So getting to my point, I think Lakoff's description is helpful in understanding a powerful bloc of voters, but ours may be a transitional generation. One of the few concrete, testable notions Lakoff offers is that his model’s value will be tested in so far as it describes the future. Political ads like those from class target established (i.e. baby-boomer) constituents and seem to pat Lakoff's categories on the proverbial backs. But messages to our generation offer more of a challenge.
“Social justice” is no longer the rally cry of progressives, but of The Heritage Foundation's recent curriculum. It encourages young conservatives, through personal giving and relationships, to help those living in poverty flourish as complete human beings. And in a presentation by the American Enterprise Institute to a group of young DC elites last summer, a scholar explained that capitalism is king but that the king should serve the people. Social enterprise and harnessing market forces to care for those in need were the topics of keynote addresses.
Other examples are just as stark. And even if they're just well-aimed rhetoric, major parties have, to some extent, altered their messages to meet the criteria of our generation. Maybe our worldview - as it questions the norms and seeks deeper meaning - could soften ideologies and shape them into something fresh. We don’t know where it'll all lead, but hopefully we won't drop the baby. In the meantime, there's a lot of interesting groping in the darkness.
Just some thoughts for what they're worth. And I’m absolutely certain of my generalizations and anecdotes. I’ve seen nothing on television or in the news that proves my system wrong :).
Jake T
Well said Jake. I had a long talk with another student after our class on Tuesday regarding similar themes, i.e., which audience does this apply to? Your question of generational relevance could highlight one of the myriad reasons why people in our class many have reacted poorly to the book. I would like to pose another question along the same idea: "For the purposes of Lakoff, are we a relevant audience?" I realize that is places me dangerously in "academic elitist" territory, but let me try to articulate this idea. Our group is statistically a very small segment of the population. Not only are we graduate level students, but we are attending a top tier university AND studying policy. That's not to say that the "rules" of social behavior and cultural norms don't apply to us. But what I am saying is statistically we have probably been exposed (I would hope) to more critical thinking exercises than a majority of the population. We have had our worldviews (again, hopefully) challenged by professors, authors, and our peers. We have been groomed by academic institutions to approach both politics and politicians from a different angle than perhaps most. Therefore, saying that his system "doesn't apply to me" or that it "doesn't apply to anyone in this class" seems misplaced. If we think in terms of John & Jane Q. Voter (yay generalities!), there are many concepts from Lakoff I see reflected: when politicians speak; when political ads air; in the content and presentation of television news; when protestors argue, chant, and debate on the sidewalk. I hate the fact that this sounds like a statement of intellectual exceptionalism. Perhaps this goes back to Jake's point and this idea is true of much of our generation. My point is that this book was written FOR us, but not necessarily ABOUT us.
ReplyDelete