Monkey Morality: Five Criticisms of George Lakoff's Political Metaphors (Part Five)

In this series of five diaries, I've been critiquing George Lakoff's Nurturant Parent metaphor for the liberal worldview and using recent insights from evolutionary psychology to try to create a stronger foundation for understanding the differences between the liberal and conservative worldviews and a more appealing framework for telling the liberal story.

In Part One, I argued that the Strict Father model doesn't go deep enough and that the conservative worldview is actually based on behaviors that are typical of primate societies, namely alpha-male behavior. Part Two concluded with a question: If evolution rewards the pursuit of self-interest, does the Strict Father model fit better with evolutionary theory than the Nurturant Parent model does? Part Three showed that natural selection can lead to cooperation as well as competition. Part Four proposed that competition and cooperation might make more sense as underlying conservative and liberal values, respectively, than strength and nurturance.

Join me on the flip for the big finish (Part Five).

Part Five. A liberal worldview based on the metaphor of a Cooperative Community makes more sense than one based on the metaphor of a Nurturant Parent.

In Part Four, I suggested that the complementary evolutionary strategies of competition and cooperation might be the foundation for the complementary political views that are conservatism and liberalism. There have been any number of other dichotomies suggested as the basis for these views: the Constrained Vision vs. the Unconstrained Vision, the Inherited Obligation Family vs. the Negotiated Commitment Family, the Strict Father vs. the Nurturant Parent, etc. I haven't seen any in-depth discussion of competition and cooperation so I hope someone will want to take on that project.

Over the course of this series, the reader comments brought up another possible angle. Several commenters (particularly alsaur) responded to the discussion of alpha-male behavior in primates by pointing out that there is a long stretch of human evolution in which we lived as hunter-gatherers in what seem to be fairly egalitarian, cooperative societies. It's possible that the liberal and conservative worldviews are expressions of two phases of our evolutionary history, with conservatives seeing the world more as our primate ancestors did and liberals seeing the world more as our hunter-gatherer ancestors did. It's likely that our primate ancestors lived in an extended Strict Father (alpha male) family. It's likely that hunter-gatherers lived in a cooperative community. We probably evolved different behaviors and mental models for negotiating each social environment. Again, I think it's a worthwhile area for further inquiry.

But back to the task at hand. In Part Four I suggested that the idea of the Cooperative Community made more sense as a basis for the liberal worldview than the Nurturant Parent model does. In Moral Politics, Lakoff presents the following moral metaphors as the foundation of the Nurturant Parent model:

• Morality as Empathy
• Morality as Nurturance
• Morality as Self-Nurturance
• Morality as the Nurturance of Social Ties
• Morality as Self-Development
• Morality as Happiness
• Morality as Fair Distribution

Lots of nurturance, a little empathy, a little self-development. For me, the problem with this model is that most of it doesn't hit on the things that liberals actually concern ourselves about. Who really sees morality as empathy or self-development or the nurturance of social ties? Maybe nurturance in the general sense of helping each other, but not in the sense of raising a child. The moral metaphors in the Strict Father model, on the other hand, read like a list of conservative obsessions: strength, authority, moral order, discipline, purity. Conservatives see the world in terms of these values. I never got the same sense about most of Lakoff's supposedly liberal values.

So here's where I throw out my Better Idea: the model of the Cooperative Community, complete with a Lakoff-style breakdown of its constituent moral metaphors. In the Cooperative Community, morality is:

• Morality is Working Together (we all share the same goals)
• Morality is Making Alliances (we're stronger when we band together)
• Morality is Fair Play (everyone plays by the same rules and no one gets to take advantage of the group)
• Morality is Sharing (it's wrong to have more than you need when others don't have enough)
• Morality is Assistance (we take care of everyone)
• Morality is Inclusiveness (there's room for everyone)
• Morality is Tolerance (we all have to live together)

In my opinion, these moral metaphors fit the liberal worldview better than those in the Nurturant Parent model do. I just don't see liberals talking about nurturance, self-development, or empathy very much; even though we all read Don't Think of an Elephant, those moral metaphors have never caught on. On the other hand, liberals concern ourselves a great deal with values like sharing, inclusiveness, tolerance, working together, and helping others. And what really gets us riled up is people who won't cooperate, won't play fair, take more than their share, won't help those in need, divide the world into "us" and "them", and are racists or bigots.

In addition, the Cooperative Community model has the advantage that the liberal values of equality and democracy are built right in. The interactions in the Cooperative Community model are interactions between equals, not between parents and children. And from a political standpoint, the model aligns with frames that already come naturally to Democrats. We've all heard Democratic candidates say they're "Working for You" or "Helping Our Community". But you'll never hear a Democrat try to get elected by saying they'll nurture you or empathize with you.

Finally, I'd like to point out that Lakoff addressed the concept of cooperation in the conclusion of Moral Politics:

Strict Father morality is not just unhealthy for children. It is unhealthy for any society. It sets up good vs. evil, us vs. them dichotomies and recommends aggressive punitive action against "them." [...] Strict Father morality thereby breeds a divisive culture of exclusion and blame. It appeals to the worst of human instincts, leading people to stereotype, demonize, and punish the Other — just for being the Other. [...]

Insofar as Nurturant Parent morality can encourage cooperation and provide the incentive, the training, and the environment in which the largest number of citizens can work together productively and cooperatively, it seems by far the better choice.

Source: Moral Politics, "Basic Humanity"

I would submit that, insofar as Cooperative Community morality can encourage cooperation and provide the incentive, the training, and the environment in which the largest number of citizens can work together productively and cooperatively, it is an even better choice than Nurturant Parent morality.

(Thanks to everyone who read and commented and SusanG for rescuing this diary series on Wednesday. And thanks to George Lakoff for Moral Politics, a truly brilliant, original, and compelling book.)

Additional Reading (from the comments)

Lakoff/Ault Synthesis: Fixing Lakoff's Family Models
Bonobo Society
A Natural History of Peace

Update [2006-9-18 16:53:28 by lucidity]: Paul Waldman, author of Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Can Learn From Conservative Success (John Wiley & Sons, 2006), suggests "We're all in it together" as the "big idea" that underlies progressive positions, values, and identity. Progressives and liberals certainly seem to be gravitating toward community as our underlying metaphor. (Waldman's whole book is terrific, btw.)

•  Tip jar

  If you read this whole series, you deserve a tip.

  by lucidity on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 08:50:59 AM PDT

•  Thank you

  George is speaking at my school on monday. Should be interesting and it's great to have this criticism.

  by Alkibiades on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 09:21:24 AM PDT

•  Well, he's _our_ sophist, but...

  I still have reservations about the sophistical character of Lakoff's project. Good, honest language patterns reality, and enlightened public discourse empowers by informing and fostering reasoned decision making. I'm not at ease, morally, with Lakoff's playing Gandalf to Rove's Sauron; i.e., both use language and metaphor to elicit behavior (=manipulate) rather than to liberate. As a progressive, I'm not sure I want to be mixed up with this kind of thing. Spin is still spin--even if we do it and call it "framing."

  by Stagarite on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 09:59:14 AM PDT

  •  I have reservations too

    But I think Lakoff would say that framing isn't necessarily deceptive. For example, when conservatives talk about "tax relief", it may bug the heck out of liberals, but they are being honest. They really do see taxes as a burden and an affliction. OTOH, when Frank Luntz invents the term "death tax", that's intentionally deceptive. You don't trigger the estate tax just by dying, you have to leave a large estate.

    I think progressives can use language framing and still have the moral high ground -- as long as it's honest framing and not spin, as you said.

    by lucidity on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 10:13:32 AM PDT

    •  even the appearance of manipulation

      I'm not claiming that framing = deception. I'm worried about the whole use of language issue. Once we start viewing language and metaphor as a means of eliciting conduct rather than as tools for mirroring reality we're already on our way down Route 666. In a hyper-hyped media culture, being fair and accurate will in the long run be more successful than being just another inveigling voice. Re the "death tax," it's most aptly characterized as a tax on the stupid rich--those who don't have enough sense to create a trust naming their heirs as beneficiaries.

      by Stagarite on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 11:21:25 AM PDT

      •  Okay, I think I see what you're getting at

        But I don't see how you can use language in the political arena without in some way intending for it to elicit behavior. Could you give an example of language that would be mirroring reality rather than trying to manipulate?

        by lucidity on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 11:48:49 AM PDT

        •  likewise

          I think we may be having the Frank v Lakoff debate. Frank thinks that what's wrong with, e.g., Kansas needs to be cured by the electorate having an insight about how vested economic interests are gulling it into voting against its own best interests. The idea is that change has to come through self-awareness, economic, and political awareness. It's a confrontational approach. By contrast, Lakoff seems to have given up on  the Enlightenment model of political discourse in favor of a PR model. I.e., he seems to think that image and metaphor will always trump reasoned discourse. Within this latter model whoever has the more vivid metaphors wins, full stop. another way to pu it is that it's a tactics v strategy debate. Lakoff might be useful on the tactics side of things, but longterm, lasting change requires a change in the electorate's mentality. What's wrong with Kansas doesn't really change until voters become aware that they're walking around in a false state of consciousness engineered by vested economic interests. Simply adopting the methodology of the PR/advertising industry is really just an instance of meet the new boss same as the old boss.

          by Stagarite on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 07:39:45 PM PDT

          •  oh, the example

            When the Repugs say "death tax," reply, "Oh, you mean the tax on the stupid rich." It deflates the GOP rhetoric while being absolutely accurate.

            by Stagarite on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 07:45:07 PM PDT

•  Nice job. I like it.

  What you describe is the product of enlightenment versus tribalism. Recognizing that cooperation works better than competition was perhaps a step toward agriculture and civilization? The cooperative mindset embraces 'the other' without fear of difference, in confidence that one's competence, and the collective competence of the community can survive all challenges through mutual effort.

  What we see happening to Iraq and Afghanistan, the reversion to warlordism looks like a horrble way to live, because fear is embedded in such groups. People in Iraq are changing their names out of fear of being murdered for being part of the out group. The purposeful 'dividing' of our nation is IMO the beginning of the path to societal breakdown which will accelerate as economic conditions worsen. When the collective effort of the group is powerless to effect improvement in the group's welfare, then it's not long before the ensuing fear of loss and uncertainty lead to YOYO, every man for himself.

  by Halcyon on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 02:00:33 PM PDT