About this title: In this application of cognitive science to politics, Lakoff analyzes the unconscious and rhetorical worldviews of liberals and conservatives, discovering radically different but remarkably consistent conceptions of morality.
Note: This is a general synopsis. Each listing is described below.
Binding: Paperback
Publisher: University Of Chicago Press
Date Published: 2002-05-01
ISBN-13:9780226467719ISBN:0226467716
Description: Very Good. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Second printing. Paperback. 471 pp. Very good. Unmarked. Slight lean to spine. read more
Description: Good. Used copy-Because of our high volume, we can not accurately describe each book, so we list the MINIMUM condition you can expect; most are better than the condition listed. read more
Binding: Paperback
Publisher: University Of Chicago Press
Date Published: 2002-05-01
ISBN-13:9780226467719ISBN:0226467716
Description: Like New. Like new softcover in excellent condition, no writing, non-smoking home, clean text, binding tight, Christian business. read more
Binding: PAPERBACK
Publisher: University Of Chicago Press
ISBN-13:9780226467719ISBN:0226467716
Description: Fine. 0226467716 paperback in like-new condition. Pages are clean, binding is tight. Cover has slight shelf wear. Appears gently read. Satisfaction Guaranteed. read more
Edition: Later printing
Binding: Paperback
Publisher: The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Date Published: 2002
ISBN-13:9780226467719ISBN:0226467716
Description: Very good. How Liberals and Conservatives Think. 471 p. read more
Edition: Second Printing
Binding: Trade Paperback
Publisher: Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Date Published: 2002
ISBN-13:9780226467719ISBN:0226467716
Description: Near Fine. Current Affairs. 8vo-over 7¾"-9¾" tall. An explanation why liberals and conservatives are at odds over so many seemingly unrelated issues. This book is in near fine condition and appears unread and unopened. There is a name and year written on the inside of the front cover. read more
Edition: Second Edition
Binding: Trade Paperback
Publisher: Univ of Chicago Pr, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Date Published: 2002
ISBN-13:9780226467719ISBN:0226467716
"This book might change how you think about American politics. A worldclass cognitive linguist from the University of California-Berkeley, Professor George Lakoff analyzes liberal and conservative ideology in terms of his specialty-metaphor. In America, he insists, politics is all about morality, and American morality is grounded in the metaphor of the family: conservatives champion a Strict Father morality and liberals a Nurturant Parent morality. In Strict Father morality "father knows best": the father rules and must be obeyed. The father's authority derives from the Moral Order, a God-given hierarchy in which man dominates nature and exploits it for his own use, men dominate women and parents dominate children. With authority goes responsibility: to provide for, to protect against external evils, and to teach the self-discipline that alone will yield the moral strength for combating internal evils (temptations), and (in the case of children) the self-reliance needed for success in life. Among other things, this translates into a black-and-white politics with little middle ground, and policies that favor the successful and militate against life's "losers" (the unself-reliant). This brief description scarcely touches the surface of a metaphor that Lakoff treats at great depth, and which makes sense of many apparent inconsistencies in conservative politics-for example, being against abortion but in favor of the death penalty. In fact, Lakoff devotes many chapters to demonstrating the moral consistency of apparently inconsistent political views of both conservatives and liberals. The Nurturant Parent morality of the liberals is based on moral nurturance. This includes protection as a prerequisite but is primarily based on empathy: being able to walk in other peoples' shoes, see what they see and feel what they feel (remember Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain."). Nurturant Parent morality emphasizes social ties, community, interdependence ("We're all in this together"), self-development, happiness, fairness. Nurturant Parent moral authority stems not from the "Moral Order," but from respect earned through nurturing and setting a good example. For instance, when enforcing standards, the Nurturant Parent shows respect for the child by patiently explaining the rules and reasons and by encouraging the child to ask questions and state her views. Politically, these beliefs translate into policies that respect the voices of all Americans, and that seek to "level the playing field" so every American has a genuine (not merely rhetorical) opportunity to pursue his own version of the American Dream. These are ideal models; Lakoff discusses many variations on the "central metaphors." He describes both normal and perverse versions, the latter including abuse by strict fathers and over-indulgence by nurturant parents. Lakoff is a liberal. In the interest of analytical rigor he attempts to suppress this personal predilection in the first portion (about four-fifths) of the book, then explains why, from a meta view (rising above the Strict Father and Nurturant Parent metaphors), the Nurturant model makes more sense and is more effective in light of what is now known about child-rearing and how the human mind works. Scientifically, according to Lakoff, the Strict Father model is not only out-of-date but counterproductive. The first edition of this book appeared in 1996. The second edition (2002) includes an afterword that discusses, in terms of the Family Metaphors, the Clinton impeachment and the 2000 election. I think it's fair to say that if Al Gore and his advisers had read and taken to heart the first edition of this book, George W. Bush would never have made it into the White House. Conservatives, on the other hand, have (as Lakoff says) for some time intuitively understood the power of these metaphors and have developed coherent policies around them; liberals, including John Kerry, suffered incoherence for not doing so. I have little doubt that the GOP's Frank Luntz (and probably Rove and Mehlman) read the first edition of this book with great interest. I think Lakoff got quite a bit of attention from the Obama campaign. A disturbing implication of this book: since politics is based on morality, on many issues compromise may be well nigh impossible. This is especially true for conservatives, for whom in some cases any yielding is considered immoral-giving in to evil. According to Lakoff, at core there's really no such thing as a "moderate": at core you're either a liberal or a conservative-you favor either Nurturant Parent morality or Strict Father morality. Does this mean that "moderates" and "independents" should quit waffling and choose sides once and for all? Read this book. It will teach you to x-ray right through the partisan bickering and obfuscation and propaganda to the heart of American politics."
"Whether you are liberal in your thinking or conservative all depends on how you think about life in general. Both views make logical sense but the starting assumptions afftect whcih path you follow."
"This came out in 1996, and I've seen it, or its core idea, referred to so many times in newspaper articles that I felt as though I'd already read the book. Probably would have rated it higher and enjoyed it more if I'd read it when it first came out.
Basic concept is that liberal vs. conservative political views on specific issues are best understood as emanating from different metaphors for government as family -- the Strict Father (conservative) or the Nurturant Parent (liberal), not some of the dimensions that supposedly account for them (relative importance of freedom vs. equality, individual vs. collective, states' vs. federal rights, less vs. more government, etc.).
The case is elaborated in numbing detail and is fairly persuasive, though he doesn't deal much with how to account for people whose views do not agree with one side or the other consistently across issues (or as one of my brothers would say, whose ideas do not come by the six-pack).
The author strains through most of the book to be even-handed, though it comes as no great surprise at the end that he thinks the liberal view is correct and superior. Somehow I'm not confident that conservatives are going to read the chapter on negative effects of corporal punishment and then deduce (via strict father metaphor linkage) that they must be wrong about the need for robust national defense and stricter anti-abortion laws.
Also, it's not relevant to the utility or accuracy of his ideas, but I find it a slog getting through books in which the author is greatly impressed with his own insights -- there is a good deal of stuff along the lines of "consider this quote that shows how analyst or politician X fails to understand the way people think or where their politics come from - now let's consider my superior analysis"."
We guarantee every item's condition, as described on Alibris. If you are not satisfied that an item is as described, return your purchase for a refund.
rating
