When I read the Lackoff book this weekend I was so outraged at his blatant bias being called "cognitive science" that I knew someone out there would be slamming him in the press. So I googled Professor Lackoff's name (he's a Professor at Berkeley where he's been in academia since 1972...and a former Chomsky protege...draw your own conclusions from that association) and right away the controversy over this article appeared. It seems that Lackoff and Steven Pinker, a fellow cognitive scientist/psychologist who is at Harvard have been engaging in quite the debate which has ranged from the serious to the seriously ad hominem. It all springs from an article Pinker published in the New Republic criticizing Lackoff's work (Note:Pinker is not a Republican, he's a fellow liberal).
Pinker's main problems with Lackoff's work can be summarized as such:
-Lackoff believes that people are not rational or thinking actors and instead refer to metaphors which were somehow formed in time without and rational thought ...so the metaphors basically appeared out of thin air? That's impossible because someone at some point used their reason to define the concept that created the metaphor and we need reason and cognition to understand and use metaphors in everyday life
-His usage of cognitive science goes way beyond any claims that a scientist in that field would make, and he makes his claims without citing any other works, only himself. So there's no empirical evidence, only his thoughts. In addition, he totally misunderstands the brain science concept of framing that he uses to establish his ideas
-His political bias (this is coming from one dem to another) clouds everything he does
Pinker calls Lackoff's work a "Lollapalooza" and a "Train-wreck." I happen to agree with Dr. Pinker.
In addition, I have my own reasons for doubting Prof. Lackoff. Obviously as a moderately conservative person, I abhor his model which repeatedly uses the idea of racism as a practical outcome of the conservative world view. I also don't prescribe to invented abstracted systems used to show how people act. Whether it's positivism, Hegelianism, or any other ism, abstracted systems over time have not accurately described human behavior because we don't fall nicely into set categories.
Since I for some reason can't paste into this page, I encourage you to google Pinker, Lackoff and enjoy the reading.
-Matt Vigeant
I would agree that Lakoff's analysis is wildly oversimplistic, but I believe that he points out some pretty valid characteristics of either extreme of the modern political spectrum. Generally, I agree that a liberal and conservative political viewpoint can be quite difficult to mash together as the two poles generally see themselves as serving the true needs of humanity with the other group considered to be naive or ill-intentioned.
ReplyDeleteMatt, you describe yourself as moderately conservative...in my mind, moderately anything indicates a degree of rationality that has spurred a rejection of any absolute rules that whatever forces (institutional, symbolic, who cares) have projected, and instead an adoption of a happy medium that enables you to better communicate with society while sustaining a degree of moral rigidity that facilitates understanding. Things are generally hard to get without some sort of framework, moral or otherwise.
Anyway, my understanding is that Lakoff is describing the extreme cases and that most sane people moderate their views, because like you said we aren't so easily captured by constructed categories. But books are hard to write without categorizing some things. Especially when our political system has been categorized from the outset. So while he isn't always entirely on target, I sense that some valid points are made.
P.S. Matt, you strike me as the "Strict Father" type from that post. If it would help, I am in possession of an abundance of egotistical empathy, ripe for the taking.
Looks like some strong "D" action going on here!
ReplyDeleteIn my reaction to your post, I highlight a quote you sited:
"Lackoff believes that people are not rational or thinking actors and instead refer to metaphors which were somehow formed in time without and rational thought "
As one who generally abhors broad generalizations, my initial reaction to this book has always been negative. I read it as an undergrad a few years ago, so these concepts are not new. As I have had many moons to reflect upon his ideas, I will say this with regards to that quote...
I separate the "thinking actor" from the politics which they identify. And it is POLITICS, particularly political ideologies, which I have little issue applying a broad brushstroke to. After all, these ideologies succeed in part because they create an easily worn "identikit" which help inform, guide, and nurture political behaviors. The thinking actor may be a rational being, but political ideologies demand no measure of rational thought, and instead are generally built on agreed upon and assigned value judgements. With Lackoff, it is often his value judgements that I take some issue with, but not the act of assigning them. If we are to expect ideologies to observe the rules of rational thought, then they would most likely blink out of existence. And frankly, even if the actor operating outside of the compromised ideology remains "rational", I think we are still miles away from a universal agreement on what exactly constitutes "rational"...