In his chapter "What the Right Wants," Lakoff paints a fairly unflattering portrait of the conservative movement's attempt to gain power in America, and he says, "for strict father morality to gain and maintain political power, disunity is required" (87).
What does he mean by disunity? Disunity among whom? How does disunity further the cause of conservatives? In what sense does the strict father frame use or promote disunity? Has Lakoff gone off the deep end here?
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Saturday, January 27, 2007
So why did Lakoff write this book?
I sense that most of you are struggling with your first paper. I'd like to give you some guidance, and I'll use Lakoff and his writing process and me and my own writing process to frame my comments.
As we've already discussed in class, Lakoff became intrigued by the collection of political positions that conservatives held in 1994 when they put together their Contract with America and took over both houses of Congress. As he observed what was going on in American politics, he came to realize that he did not know why conservatives held the political positions that they held. Upon further observation, he realized that he didn't know why progressives held their positions either. He decided, as a cognitive and linguistic scientist, that he should know these things.
So he began to systematically inquire into the issue. I'm sure he read the existing scholarship on how and why people form their political opinions, and he combed through his own extensive learning in the subject, but he also talked to people (fortunately, he knew some pretty bright people) and he observed some more. He may have done a few experiments or taken some surveys. Gradually, he began to form some solid, sensible insights into how and why people think about politics the way they do, and in 1996, he wrote a rather scholarly book called Moral Politics that explained what he had learned. (You really should follow the link to Moral Politics and read the article about that book. You might also read this excerpt from the book.)
So if Lakoff had already written a 486-page book about conservative and liberal frames, then why did he write this book, Don't Think of an Elephant? Had he learned new stuff that wasn't included in the first book? I don't think so, or not much new stuff, anyway. Moreover, as many of you have noted already in class, this book is rather repetitive, saying some of the same things in chapter after chapter. So it doesn't appear that Lakoff is adding new content to the discussion. So what is he doing and why?
I think his motivation for this book lies in his reconsideration of current events and his current audience after 2000:
His first book, like most scholarly books, was trying to explain and clarify an issue. Its primary purpose was to expand the discussion of how cognitive frames shape public opinion and behavior. It was a cooler and more intellectual look at and explanation of the issue.
This second book is not so much an exploration and explanation of how frames work as it is a plea for progressives to wake up and do something before America falls off the cliff that Lakoff sees ahead. Lakoff has already explained frames and how they work in his earlier book, now he wants to show progressives how conservatives use framing to beat progressives in the public arena. He gives example after example. Through repetition, he is drumming the message into the progressive mind.
But he doesn't just want progressives to understand how conservatives are beating them, he wants progressives to start fighting back. So he gives progressives a primer on their values. He says, "Look, these are the values we progressives believe in. They are good, American values. We should know our value frame, and we should speak from our values, NOT from conservative values. Now, go out and talk about progressive values so that we can take back our country."
So, Lakoff tells progressives what he's going to tell them, he then tells them, and finally he tells them what he told them. It's an old rhetorical technique to drive home an idea to your audience. It often works–if you are already receptive to the message. If you don't like the message, then it is just annoying. Conservatives will not like Lakoff's message, but remember, he isn't writing to conservatives. He is writing to progressives, and they will not mind the repetition so much.
So what does this long explanation have to do with you?
Well, you are writing your first paper, and you can use Lakoff as a model. Your writing might go something like his:
As we've already discussed in class, Lakoff became intrigued by the collection of political positions that conservatives held in 1994 when they put together their Contract with America and took over both houses of Congress. As he observed what was going on in American politics, he came to realize that he did not know why conservatives held the political positions that they held. Upon further observation, he realized that he didn't know why progressives held their positions either. He decided, as a cognitive and linguistic scientist, that he should know these things.
So he began to systematically inquire into the issue. I'm sure he read the existing scholarship on how and why people form their political opinions, and he combed through his own extensive learning in the subject, but he also talked to people (fortunately, he knew some pretty bright people) and he observed some more. He may have done a few experiments or taken some surveys. Gradually, he began to form some solid, sensible insights into how and why people think about politics the way they do, and in 1996, he wrote a rather scholarly book called Moral Politics that explained what he had learned. (You really should follow the link to Moral Politics and read the article about that book. You might also read this excerpt from the book.)
So if Lakoff had already written a 486-page book about conservative and liberal frames, then why did he write this book, Don't Think of an Elephant? Had he learned new stuff that wasn't included in the first book? I don't think so, or not much new stuff, anyway. Moreover, as many of you have noted already in class, this book is rather repetitive, saying some of the same things in chapter after chapter. So it doesn't appear that Lakoff is adding new content to the discussion. So what is he doing and why?
I think his motivation for this book lies in his reconsideration of current events and his current audience after 2000:
- First, conservatives completed their sweep of national politics by taking the White House and the Supreme Court as well as Congress. By 2001, all three branches of federal government were decidedly conservative.
- Then, progressives seemed to be losing their vision and were unable to present any real alternative to the conservative political, military, economic, and social agenda.
- Finally, the neo-conservative agenda of the Bush administration seemed, to Lakoff, to be taking America on a dangerous path of militarism abroad and social and economic decline at home.
His first book, like most scholarly books, was trying to explain and clarify an issue. Its primary purpose was to expand the discussion of how cognitive frames shape public opinion and behavior. It was a cooler and more intellectual look at and explanation of the issue.
This second book is not so much an exploration and explanation of how frames work as it is a plea for progressives to wake up and do something before America falls off the cliff that Lakoff sees ahead. Lakoff has already explained frames and how they work in his earlier book, now he wants to show progressives how conservatives use framing to beat progressives in the public arena. He gives example after example. Through repetition, he is drumming the message into the progressive mind.
But he doesn't just want progressives to understand how conservatives are beating them, he wants progressives to start fighting back. So he gives progressives a primer on their values. He says, "Look, these are the values we progressives believe in. They are good, American values. We should know our value frame, and we should speak from our values, NOT from conservative values. Now, go out and talk about progressive values so that we can take back our country."
So, Lakoff tells progressives what he's going to tell them, he then tells them, and finally he tells them what he told them. It's an old rhetorical technique to drive home an idea to your audience. It often works–if you are already receptive to the message. If you don't like the message, then it is just annoying. Conservatives will not like Lakoff's message, but remember, he isn't writing to conservatives. He is writing to progressives, and they will not mind the repetition so much.
So what does this long explanation have to do with you?
Well, you are writing your first paper, and you can use Lakoff as a model. Your writing might go something like his:
- Something in all our discussions in this blog, our classroom, or in your reading piques your interest, just as Lakoff's interest was piqued by the conservative's 1994 Contract with America.
- You explore this interest to learn more about it. You do research, exploring your own mind first, then the minds of others (conversation, books, etc.), and then the world (looking, experimenting, surveying, drawing, taking notes, etc.), just as Lakoff explored why conservatives and progressives have the values they have.
- You write a first draft to clarify for yourself your old thinking about the issue and then to integrate your new thinking about it, just as Lakoff wrote his first book, Moral Politics, to lay out his new understanding about why people believe and act as they do.
- Eventually, after you have a pretty good picture of your understanding of this issue that piqued your interest, you start thinking about how and why to present your understanding to others, to an audience, just as Lakoff did with his first book (an explanation for scholars and other people interested in cognitive science, linguistics, and political discourse) and his second book (a plea for progressives to wake up and take political action).
- So what have you come to understand and what do you want your audience to understand, to do, to think, to decide, to believe, to say, to feel after reading your paper? You need an answer to these questions before you can finish your paper. Really, if you don't know much and if you don't know what you want from your audience, then why the hell are you writing? Just for a grade? Don't bother. We the class will see quickly that you don't know much and that you are just shining us on. It'll be an embarrassment to you and an annoyance to us. If you can't engage us on a real level, then just disengage. Really. Go do something fun. This isn't the class and the discussion for you. We'll still like you and wish you well. But if you want to stay here in this discussion, then bring us some solid, valuable, interesting insight and think seriously about why you're bringing it to us. Your papers are due in about a week, and most of you seem not to have started. Strange.
- This blog post is based on my 30 years of writing and teaching writing. I've done my homework, and I've learned some valuable things about using writing as a tool for learning and as a tool for sharing that learning in a scholarly community. I've got some real insight to bring to the discussion. Also, I know to whom I'm writing and what I want from you: I want you college students to engage in real scholarly discussion. I suspect that some of you may not know how, so I'm giving you some concrete examples from Lakoff's writing and from my own writing in this blog. I want you to write interesting, insightful papers for this class and its discussion, and here's how. So, see? Because I have learned some useful stuff and because I know what I want to accomplish with you my audience, I'm able to sit here on a Saturday morning and, in less than two hours, write a paper that's longer than most any paper you are likely to write. Most of you will need far more than two hours to write a valuable paper. So what are you doing this weekend? I wrote my paper for this class. Where's yours?
- You don't have to be formal and totally serious in your papers for this class. You can be funny, casual, caustic, or serious. Entertainment is a valid reason to write. Criticism is a valid reason. Scholarship is a valid reason. We don't care why you write, but you MUST be real. You must show us that you've put some real effort into learning something and that you've given real thought about what you want from us. Comedians work really hard on their material, and they know precisely what response they want from their audience. You must know and do the same.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Keeping Trust
In Chapter Six of Don't Think of an Elephant, Lakoff says:
If the real rationale for the Iraq War has been self-interested control … if it was not self-defense and not selfless liberation, then President Bush betrayed the trust of our soldiers, the Congress, and the American people. Mere lying is a minor matter when betrayal is the issue (78).
For the moment let's assume that Lakoff's charge against Bush is valid. Then how do you explain his distinction between betrayal and lying? In what sense is betrayal the more grievous crime? Can you think of any instances where you have been betrayed by someone you trusted? Was that worse than lying?
As a way of starting to think about some of the issues that we will take up in the Popper book, consider the function of trust in a free and open society such as the United States. If we, the people, do not have faith and trust in the institutions of government, finance, religion, and society, then can our nation continue? What can we do to keep our institutions faithful to their obligations? What can we do to keep our trust in our institutions?
If the real rationale for the Iraq War has been self-interested control … if it was not self-defense and not selfless liberation, then President Bush betrayed the trust of our soldiers, the Congress, and the American people. Mere lying is a minor matter when betrayal is the issue (78).
For the moment let's assume that Lakoff's charge against Bush is valid. Then how do you explain his distinction between betrayal and lying? In what sense is betrayal the more grievous crime? Can you think of any instances where you have been betrayed by someone you trusted? Was that worse than lying?
As a way of starting to think about some of the issues that we will take up in the Popper book, consider the function of trust in a free and open society such as the United States. If we, the people, do not have faith and trust in the institutions of government, finance, religion, and society, then can our nation continue? What can we do to keep our institutions faithful to their obligations? What can we do to keep our trust in our institutions?
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Google Docs
Okay, it's time for us to start thinking about your first paper, which is due in a couple of weeks (Feb 05 & 07). Even if you've already earned an A on the paper, you must still submit that paper on time to get the grade.
We will use Google Docs and Spreadsheets to create, edit, and submit the papers, so click on the link to go to Google Docs. The first time you visit, you may have to log-in with your Gmail account name and password.
By the end of this coming week, Friday, Jan 26, you should have created an online document and started sketching a paper. You should email me the link to your document and make sure that I have access to it.
I'm sending all of you an email inviting you to collaborate on a document that I wrote for these classes during the holiday break. You should make me a collaborator on each of your class documents. Go to it.
We will use Google Docs and Spreadsheets to create, edit, and submit the papers, so click on the link to go to Google Docs. The first time you visit, you may have to log-in with your Gmail account name and password.
By the end of this coming week, Friday, Jan 26, you should have created an online document and started sketching a paper. You should email me the link to your document and make sure that I have access to it.
I'm sending all of you an email inviting you to collaborate on a document that I wrote for these classes during the holiday break. You should make me a collaborator on each of your class documents. Go to it.
A Frame for Communications
In the textbook Mass Communication Theory, Denis McQuail starts his discussion of mass communications with an overview of the different kinds of theories that scholars have developed to help them define, study, and talk about mass communication. On page 4, McQuail defines a theory as "any systematic set of ideas that can help make sense of a phenomenon, guide action or predict a consequence."
This sounds to me curiously close to how we've defined and used frames in this class, with the possible exception of McQuail's emphasis on a systematic set of ideas. As we've already noted, most of us don't develop our frames systematically. We just sort of absorb our frames from our families, peers, and our other religious, political, economic, educational, and social groups. Maybe McQuail is saying that scholars are more thoughtful and conscious of the theoretical frames they develop to tackle some field of study, such as mass communication.
I'm not sure that scholars are all that more systematic and conscious of their frames than the rest of us, but let's give Mr. McQuail the benefit of the doubt just for the sake of the class. If scholars are more systematic, and if we are scholars studying mass communications (if only for this semester), then we should be aware of the frame we are bringing to our study.
McQuail outlines five different kinds of theoretical approaches to the study of mass communication (14, 15):
To extend our discussion of theoretical frames, can you approach any study in any field without a frame? If you can't, then should you know what your frame for that subject is? Do most of the different studies (art, math, history, language, physics, biology, etc.) have different frames? Do they share some frames? In some sense, aren't teachers in these subjects simply helping you learn and apply the frame for these different studies? Do you think your teachers usually know what frames they bring to their discussions of art, math, history, and so on? What frame is this class using? Do you think I know?
This sounds to me curiously close to how we've defined and used frames in this class, with the possible exception of McQuail's emphasis on a systematic set of ideas. As we've already noted, most of us don't develop our frames systematically. We just sort of absorb our frames from our families, peers, and our other religious, political, economic, educational, and social groups. Maybe McQuail is saying that scholars are more thoughtful and conscious of the theoretical frames they develop to tackle some field of study, such as mass communication.
I'm not sure that scholars are all that more systematic and conscious of their frames than the rest of us, but let's give Mr. McQuail the benefit of the doubt just for the sake of the class. If scholars are more systematic, and if we are scholars studying mass communications (if only for this semester), then we should be aware of the frame we are bringing to our study.
McQuail outlines five different kinds of theoretical approaches to the study of mass communication (14, 15):
- social scientific theory,
- cultural theory,
- normative theory,
- operational theory, and
- everyday commonsense theory.
- transmission model,
- ritual or expressive model,
- publicity model, and
- reception model.
To extend our discussion of theoretical frames, can you approach any study in any field without a frame? If you can't, then should you know what your frame for that subject is? Do most of the different studies (art, math, history, language, physics, biology, etc.) have different frames? Do they share some frames? In some sense, aren't teachers in these subjects simply helping you learn and apply the frame for these different studies? Do you think your teachers usually know what frames they bring to their discussions of art, math, history, and so on? What frame is this class using? Do you think I know?
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Frames vs. Facts
Frames are very powerful mental structures. In Chapter Two of Don't Think of an Elephant, Lakoff says that "if a strongly held frame doesn't fit the facts, the facts will be ignored and the frame will be kept" (37).
In the Wednesday night class, I mentioned that some members of my family have a very strong, fundamentalist Christian frame that says the entire Bible is literally true. Thus, some of them believe the Earth to be about six thousand years old, based on their reading of the Creation story in the book of Genesis. The overwhelming preponderance of modern research and thought about the age and development of the Earth carry no weight for those who believe literally in the Bible's Creation story. Their frames ignore the facts.
We commonly see this kind of blindness in people who are being cheated by their lovers. Everyone else can see that the offending lover is a cheat and liar—everyone except the person being cheated on. They are looking through the frame of love, the eyes of love, and they can't see the cheating that is so obvious to everyone else.
In a post about global warming, the Mother Jones blog says:
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight today. It now reads 5 minutes to midnight—for the first time reflecting global failures to solve the global climate crisis as well as problems posed by nuclear weapons.
So is this a case of some people being blinded to the facts of global warming by their conservative political frames, or is it a case of other people being blinded to the facts of natural climate cycles by their liberal frames?
Can you think of similar examples of people who cling fiercely to their frames even when all the facts are screaming that the frames are wrong? Don't use the frames I've mentioned. Think up your own. And if this is such a common habit of mind, then isn't it reasonable to think that you and I also ignore the facts and cling to our own frames? And the key question: if you can't see it, then how can you discover that you are doing it?
In the Wednesday night class, I mentioned that some members of my family have a very strong, fundamentalist Christian frame that says the entire Bible is literally true. Thus, some of them believe the Earth to be about six thousand years old, based on their reading of the Creation story in the book of Genesis. The overwhelming preponderance of modern research and thought about the age and development of the Earth carry no weight for those who believe literally in the Bible's Creation story. Their frames ignore the facts.
We commonly see this kind of blindness in people who are being cheated by their lovers. Everyone else can see that the offending lover is a cheat and liar—everyone except the person being cheated on. They are looking through the frame of love, the eyes of love, and they can't see the cheating that is so obvious to everyone else.
In a post about global warming, the Mother Jones blog says:
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight today. It now reads 5 minutes to midnight—for the first time reflecting global failures to solve the global climate crisis as well as problems posed by nuclear weapons.
So is this a case of some people being blinded to the facts of global warming by their conservative political frames, or is it a case of other people being blinded to the facts of natural climate cycles by their liberal frames?
Can you think of similar examples of people who cling fiercely to their frames even when all the facts are screaming that the frames are wrong? Don't use the frames I've mentioned. Think up your own. And if this is such a common habit of mind, then isn't it reasonable to think that you and I also ignore the facts and cling to our own frames? And the key question: if you can't see it, then how can you discover that you are doing it?
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Google Reader
As you know, one of the primary goals for this class is to see what we can do on the Net using Internet tools. So far, we have been using Google Mail to communicate with each other and Google Blogger to hold conversations about the course, our books, and whatever else comes up.
Now, we should start using Google Reader to manage our on-line reading. Google Reader is a web tool known as an aggregator, which is a tool to keep track of the web sites you regularly visit. As you know, the most interesting websites regularly update their content, and this can be difficult to keep up with without an aggregator. After you set up your Reader account, then you can use it to track changes in those websites that you follow.
Here's what I suggest:
You should then create groups to better manage your subscriptions. I have 3 groups currently: IDST-2215, Educational Technology, and News. The above blogs are listed in my IDST-2215 group.
Get started, and remember, you have to read before you can write.
Now, we should start using Google Reader to manage our on-line reading. Google Reader is a web tool known as an aggregator, which is a tool to keep track of the web sites you regularly visit. As you know, the most interesting websites regularly update their content, and this can be difficult to keep up with without an aggregator. After you set up your Reader account, then you can use it to track changes in those websites that you follow.
Here's what I suggest:
- Setup an account with Google Reader. You can sign-in using your Gmail account name, for instance: keith.hamon@gmail.com, and password.
- Once inside, go to your Reader Home page and add a subscription (click the Add Subscription button) to the following progressive and conservative blogs. Just copy and paste the links.
- http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/index.html
- http://weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp
You should then create groups to better manage your subscriptions. I have 3 groups currently: IDST-2215, Educational Technology, and News. The above blogs are listed in my IDST-2215 group.
Get started, and remember, you have to read before you can write.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
A Frame for Class
In the first chapter of Don't Think of an Elephant, Lakoff says that the language we use "picks out a frame" (3). On the next page, he says, "Framing is about getting language that fits your worldview. It is not just language. The ideas are primary–and the language carries those ideas, evokes those ideas." He then goes on to describe two basic, fundamental frames that he finds at work in American political, social, and economic thought: the strict father frame and the nurturant parent frame.
If frames are the main idea of this book, then why doesn't Lakoff give us a clearer, more formal, and more workable definition of frames? Can you provide a clearer definition? Here's my attempt:
A frame is a coherent collection of ideas, beliefs, assumptions, and feelings that give meaning to our experiences. A very complex frame can be evoked by a single key word or phrase–a word such as mother or honor or a phrase such as I love you or free market. We form frames in our minds to help us make sense of the world, but usually, we don't form these frames alone. Usually, frames are formed and reinforced in families, peer groups, and other social, political, religious, or economic groups. In fact, shared frames are part of what defines those groups and makes them work as a group.
Can you clarify or expand my definition? Please try, and let's talk in terms of the frame that you bring to class. All of you have been in formal education for more than twelve years, now, and you bring to any specific classroom a frame: a coherent collection of ideas, beliefs, assumptions, and feelings that give meaning to your experience in that specific classroom. Your frame can be evoked by single word or phrase: cool! or sucks! or he just doesn't like me, and your family and peers will know just what you are talking about because they share your frame (we usually will not willingly talk to people who don't share our frames, as we don't like those people much). You formed this frame from your own experiences and from the influences of your family and peers, and when you talk about education with your family and peers, you reinforce that frame. Protecting and validating ones frame is very important work. We spend a lot of time doing it, but here's the kicker: most of us don't know what our frames are. They just seem natural to us, so we don't notice them.
Well, it's time for you to notice your frame about education in general and this class in particular. Why are you in college? What are you trying to do? Are you enthusiastic? reluctant? ambivalent? dazed and confused? Think about it. What frame are you bringing to college that shapes your experience in every class that you take?
You can kick-start your thinking by using Lakoff's frames: do you view education in general as more a strict father kind of thing or a nuturant parent kind of thing? or are you somewhere in between? Go back and read the characteristics of each of these frames and apply them to your own feelings and beliefs about education, and for the sake of your own enlightenment, try to uncover your actual feelings and beliefs, not just what you think education should be, but what you actually think education is. This may be difficult for you to work through, but that's okay. You have years to work on it.
Finally, after you've explored your frames about education in general, consider this class in particular. Do you think this class falls closer to the strict father end of the spectrum or closer to the nurturant parent end of the spectrum? Why? Does it make a difference which end of the spectrum this class is on?
BTW, this WILL be on the test: your frame about education will be on the exam, the final exam, the exam you take at the very, very end, so you really should know the answer, or at least have an intelligent and convincing response. :-)
If frames are the main idea of this book, then why doesn't Lakoff give us a clearer, more formal, and more workable definition of frames? Can you provide a clearer definition? Here's my attempt:
A frame is a coherent collection of ideas, beliefs, assumptions, and feelings that give meaning to our experiences. A very complex frame can be evoked by a single key word or phrase–a word such as mother or honor or a phrase such as I love you or free market. We form frames in our minds to help us make sense of the world, but usually, we don't form these frames alone. Usually, frames are formed and reinforced in families, peer groups, and other social, political, religious, or economic groups. In fact, shared frames are part of what defines those groups and makes them work as a group.
Can you clarify or expand my definition? Please try, and let's talk in terms of the frame that you bring to class. All of you have been in formal education for more than twelve years, now, and you bring to any specific classroom a frame: a coherent collection of ideas, beliefs, assumptions, and feelings that give meaning to your experience in that specific classroom. Your frame can be evoked by single word or phrase: cool! or sucks! or he just doesn't like me, and your family and peers will know just what you are talking about because they share your frame (we usually will not willingly talk to people who don't share our frames, as we don't like those people much). You formed this frame from your own experiences and from the influences of your family and peers, and when you talk about education with your family and peers, you reinforce that frame. Protecting and validating ones frame is very important work. We spend a lot of time doing it, but here's the kicker: most of us don't know what our frames are. They just seem natural to us, so we don't notice them.
Well, it's time for you to notice your frame about education in general and this class in particular. Why are you in college? What are you trying to do? Are you enthusiastic? reluctant? ambivalent? dazed and confused? Think about it. What frame are you bringing to college that shapes your experience in every class that you take?
You can kick-start your thinking by using Lakoff's frames: do you view education in general as more a strict father kind of thing or a nuturant parent kind of thing? or are you somewhere in between? Go back and read the characteristics of each of these frames and apply them to your own feelings and beliefs about education, and for the sake of your own enlightenment, try to uncover your actual feelings and beliefs, not just what you think education should be, but what you actually think education is. This may be difficult for you to work through, but that's okay. You have years to work on it.
Finally, after you've explored your frames about education in general, consider this class in particular. Do you think this class falls closer to the strict father end of the spectrum or closer to the nurturant parent end of the spectrum? Why? Does it make a difference which end of the spectrum this class is on?
BTW, this WILL be on the test: your frame about education will be on the exam, the final exam, the exam you take at the very, very end, so you really should know the answer, or at least have an intelligent and convincing response. :-)
Thursday, January 11, 2007
What's with Progressives?
George Lakoff titles his book Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate: The Essential Guide for Progressives.
He uses the term progressives in his book, especially in opposition to the term conservatives. What do you think he means by progressives? Why does he use that term instead of other terms? What term is he avoiding? Why is he avoiding that term? Can you find any alternative meanings to the term progressives?
Think on these things, look for evidence in the first two chapters, and drop a comment below.
Then consider this: If you want to understand any conversation – say, a book, an essay, a poem, or a barroom conversation – then you need to look for certain cues.
First, who's writing or talking and what do they want? So who is George Lakoff and why is he saying these things?
Second, who is the audience and what response is the author seeking? So who is the proper audience for this book, and what does George Lakoff want them to do, to think, to say, or to feel after they read this book?
Third, what is the relationship between the author and the audience? What relation does Lakoff assume with his audience? Is he trying to teach them, lecture them, criticize them, entertain them, sell them, persuade them, humiliate them, amuse them, distract them, confuse them, or what?
Fourth, what problem is the author trying to resolve or clarify? Lakoff is writing in response to some problem – what? Is he simply trying to clarify the problem? or is he trying to resolve it?
If you want to understand the book as you are reading it, then you must have a good idea of who the author is and the role the author is trying to play, who the readers are and the role they are expected to play, and the general problem that the text addresses. It's a bit like the header of an email:
He uses the term progressives in his book, especially in opposition to the term conservatives. What do you think he means by progressives? Why does he use that term instead of other terms? What term is he avoiding? Why is he avoiding that term? Can you find any alternative meanings to the term progressives?
Think on these things, look for evidence in the first two chapters, and drop a comment below.
Then consider this: If you want to understand any conversation – say, a book, an essay, a poem, or a barroom conversation – then you need to look for certain cues.
First, who's writing or talking and what do they want? So who is George Lakoff and why is he saying these things?
Second, who is the audience and what response is the author seeking? So who is the proper audience for this book, and what does George Lakoff want them to do, to think, to say, or to feel after they read this book?
Third, what is the relationship between the author and the audience? What relation does Lakoff assume with his audience? Is he trying to teach them, lecture them, criticize them, entertain them, sell them, persuade them, humiliate them, amuse them, distract them, confuse them, or what?
Fourth, what problem is the author trying to resolve or clarify? Lakoff is writing in response to some problem – what? Is he simply trying to clarify the problem? or is he trying to resolve it?
If you want to understand the book as you are reading it, then you must have a good idea of who the author is and the role the author is trying to play, who the readers are and the role they are expected to play, and the general problem that the text addresses. It's a bit like the header of an email:
- To: Progressives
- From: George Lakoff
- Subject: A guide to knowing your values and framing the debate
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
The Wednesday Night Class
Okay, so the Wednesday night class is coming online.
I'm very interested to see how they start responding to the blog and interacting with the comments already posted there by the Monday night class. This could be cool. Or …
Let me compliment the Wednesday night class for being as enthusiastic as the Monday night class. This promises to be a very good semester. I'm excited!
I'm very interested to see how they start responding to the blog and interacting with the comments already posted there by the Monday night class. This could be cool. Or …
Let me compliment the Wednesday night class for being as enthusiastic as the Monday night class. This promises to be a very good semester. I'm excited!
Pix for Gmail Accounts
So far, only Angela Lockard has added a pic to her Gmail contact info. I think she should share with the rest of us how she did it, and then I encourage all of you to follow her example. Go for it, Ms. Lockard.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Gmail Groups
Okay, so most of the Monday night class has a Gmail account. I hope the Wednesday night class will be as enthusiastic.
I find it helpful to create a class group in Gmail that allows me to send an email message to everyone in the class at one time. You should create a similar group. Here's how:
I find it helpful to create a class group in Gmail that allows me to send an email message to everyone in the class at one time. You should create a similar group. Here's how:
- Open the Gmail that I sent you entitled: Welcome to Gmail for IDST-2215 Monday or Wednesday.
- In the Address line of the email, click the Show Details button to reveal ALL the email addresses used in the email.
- Highlight the addresses and copy them.
- Close the email and return to the Gmail Inbox if you have left it.
- On the left side of the Gmail Inbox screen, click on the Contacts button to go to the Contacts screen.
- On the Contacts screen, click the Groups tab and then the Create Group button on the right hand side.
- On the Create Group screen, enter a name in the Group Name field for the class group: IDST-2215 Monday, or something like that.
- In the Add Contacts field, paste the email addresses that you copied earlier. Or you may enter them by hand, separating each email address by a comma. Remember to add my address to the group: keith.hamon@gmail.com
- Now you have a group, and you can send an email to all of us at one time.
Monday, January 8, 2007
Google Email Accounts
Oops!
I forgot that Google won't let just anyone sign up for a Gmail account. In an effort to manage SPAM on their email servers, Google demands that you must either send Google your cell phone number so that they can send you an invitation or you must be invited to join by an existing member.
I'm an existing member, so all students must send me an email address to:
keith.hamon@gmail.com
I will then send each student an invitation to get a Gmail account. They can follow the instructions that Google sends, then log into their Gmail account, and send me an email. Cool.
I forgot that Google won't let just anyone sign up for a Gmail account. In an effort to manage SPAM on their email servers, Google demands that you must either send Google your cell phone number so that they can send you an invitation or you must be invited to join by an existing member.
I'm an existing member, so all students must send me an email address to:
keith.hamon@gmail.com
I will then send each student an invitation to get a Gmail account. They can follow the instructions that Google sends, then log into their Gmail account, and send me an email. Cool.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
My Goals for IDST-2215 Spring, 2007
This is the first blog that my IDST-2215 students should read and respond to. And yes, I know I shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition. So?!
I have three large goals with lots of sub-goals. The goals are:
Now, I encourage all of my current students to respond to this post. Follow these steps:
I have three large goals with lots of sub-goals. The goals are:
- I want to explore how far a class can be moved to the Internet before conversation breaks down, if it ever does. I'm also interested in learning if the Net actually enhances the conversation in any way. I think it does, but …
- I want to explore frames and the open society and explore how both are developed and propagated by modern communication systems.
- I want to talk to some friends, some old and some new, about things that interest me.
Now, I encourage all of my current students to respond to this post. Follow these steps:
- Look for the Comments button at the end of this post, and click it once.
- On the Post a Comment On: IDST 2215 page, enter your response in the Leave your comment text box. If you know how to use HTML, then do so. It'll make your message more interesting.
- When you finish entering your comments, click the PUBLISH YOUR COMMENT button. Your comment will not appear on the blog until I approve it. I'll try to do that quickly.
Housekeeping 101
Okay, let's jump from the cosmic to the mundane.
What do I actually do in this class this semester to create all that cellular, fractal ecosystem that I've been going on about? Let's put some rubber on the road:
What do I actually do in this class this semester to create all that cellular, fractal ecosystem that I've been going on about? Let's put some rubber on the road:
- All students will open a Google Mail account using their preferred name in this style: keith.hamon@gmail.com. Each student must then email me from that account, telling me something about themselves. Why? Email will be a primary way for the class to communicate, especially given that I am seldom on campus. Though most of the students will already have an email account, the Google accounts give us all the same kind of named account which gives the class an identity, quickly identifies us to each other, and helps us all learn each other's names. It helps create a community of discourse. Finally, Gmail gives the students a Google account that provides access to other Google tools, which we will use in this class. How? I could give the students a paper handout in class describing how to setup a Gmail account, for those who might not know, but I'm inclined to give them a URL to the handout so that they have to go online from the get-go (that IS a technical term). We may as well jump right in. When? I'll make the assignment during the first class meeting, and students must send me an email from their new Gmail account by the third day after the class meeting. So the Monday night class is due by Thursday, the Wednesday class by Saturday. The first two students from each class to send me an email from their new Gmail account will receive an automatic A on their first paper. I like motivation, and grades motivate. They will also learn other things that will help them with the class.
- I will reply to each email with directions to this blog: idst-2215.blogspot.com. Each student must post a reply to a specific blog entry that I will make later today. Why? This blog will also be a primary way for the class to communicate, but email will be mostly for housekeeping messaging among the members of the class, while the blog will be mostly for discussing the content of the class: Lakoff's frames and Popper's open society. How? This should be rather easy. I'll put a link in my email, and I assume that most students are Net-savvy enough to click on a link. Still, I will say something like: click on this link -> idst-2215. I will also tell them to look for the Reply button on the blog page and submit their reply. We'll see. When? Students must respond to the blog prior to the day of the second class meeting–that's Sunday for the Monday class, Tuesday for the Wednesday class. How will the students know to do this? By reading this blog. Are you reading, my dear students? I hope so.
- I will also reply with directions to the class syllabus at docs.google.com/View?docid=dghvd3sx_1cqttnr, which students must print and bring to class for discussion and modification. Why? Again, I want the students quickly to become comfortable with working the class over the Net. Also, I want them to edit the syllabus so that they can assume some ownership for the class. Their papers will be available on the Net for peer review, so why not the syllabus? Past students might want to leave some comments here to advise the new students about changes they might want to make to the syllabus. Also, I want the students to be able to print a paper from the Net. How? The link to the class syllabus is available in a post to this blog, as I will mention in my email. The students will have to find that blog post and print it. When? Students must bring a printed copy of the syllabus to the second class meeting.
- Catch of the breath: So, by the second class meeting, all students will have a Gmail account, will be able to send emails to that account, will check that account regularly for replies from me and others in the class, will access and respond to the IDST-2215 blog, and will access and print a Google document, the class syllabus. And from the syllabus they will have learned of and completed their reading assignments for the second class meeting. This seems very ambitious, but doable, I think. We'll see.
- During the first weeks of the course, I will try to add posts to this blog several times a week, helping guide the students' reading and responding to their responses. Why? I want to see what kind of communication community the blog can build. I want to expand the discussion beyond the walls and time of the classroom. How? I'll post blogs that I hope will elicit response. I'll also ask people outside the class, past students, colleagues, and friends, to join the discussion. When? This question makes no sense, but the answer is whenever anyone wants to respond. It's entirely possible that a post early in the semester may not elicit a response until late in the semester, or even after the semester is over. Or never, if it's a silly post.
- Students will set up Google Reader to aggregate their online reading. Why? I want the students to expand their reading beyond the basic texts of the classroom and to learn how to use an aggregator. How? I'll post a blog entry describing how to set up Google Reader. Students will bring to class a screen shot of their Google Reader account. When? I'll post the instructions by the second class meeting. Students will bring in their screen shot by the third class meeting.
- Students will set up Google Docs & Spreadsheets to create their online papers. Why? For years my students have used word processors to create their documents, but often they use a word processor that I can't read (MS Works, for instance). Using Google Docs keeps all our documents in the same format. It also makes our documents available online. Now, peer review works anytime/anywhere, and we all can watch a document develop from rough exploration of a topic to mature presentation of that topic. How? I'll post a blog entry describing how to set up and use a Google Docs & Spreadsheets account. Students will create a rough draft of their first paper. When? I'll post the instructions by the third class meeting. Students will have a rough draft online before the fourth class meeting.
- This may be enough for the class to work for me and the students. I'm considering using Google Calendar, but it seems a bit superfluous. Basically, I would use the Calendar as a support for the syllabus, but it may not be necessary. I don't want to burden the class with too much technology. I want the class to be about the discussion, not about the technology. We'll see.
Saturday, January 6, 2007
Infinite Discussion
Oops! I've been partying too much, what with all the Winter Holidays, and I've slipped on my blogging. However, the Spring class begins in two days, so I'd best step it up.
Though I haven't been blogging, I have been thinking about fractals and scholarly discussion, and the notion that any scholarly discussion is an infinite structure contained within a finite boundary is fascinating me. It resonates. How is it that the conversation about, say, Shakespeare is infinite and yet recognizable as a conversation about Shakespeare; in other words, how do all the infinite variations stay within the finite and recognizable boundaries of the conversation about Shakespeare?
It might be easy to say that Shakespeare's work is just infinitely rich, but this is way too simplistic and, in the end, just wrong, but wrong not because Shakespeare's work is not infinitely rich. Like everything in this infinite universe, like "the meanest flower that blows" (Wordsworth, Ode: Intimations of Immortality), Shakespeare's work is infinite – as is Wordsworth's, or Faulkner's, or Popper's, or Tupac's, or Lakoff's. All of them "can give Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears," a strong hint at the infinity Wordsworth saw in even the most trivial flower of the field.
No, it's wrong because it limits us just to Shakespeare and his work. It omits the infinite world that Shakespeare's work reflects, and it omits the infinite responses of the infinite minds that read Shakespeare. And it omits the infinite number of relations among writer, reader, world, and text, as well as a host of other elements that I'm just too lazy to bring to mind. The conversation about Shakespeare, then, is not just infinite; rather, it is infinity compounded, infinity upon infinity. Once we enter the Shakespearian conversation, then everywhere we look, we find an infinite explosion of self-similar (though NOT self-same) iterations of the conversation, expanding everywhere, endlessly unfolding.
We see this infinite unfolding of the Shakespearian conversation in large part because of something that a student from last semester, Jason Maddox, noted in his response to my fractal post. He gave an example of a fairly simple mathematical procedure that can produce an infinite number of results, again infinity within a finite, recognizable structure. He's right. He might also have noted that there are probably an infinity of such mathematical procedures that can yield other infinities within finite borders.
So, too, with the Shakespearian conversation. People have been talking about Shakespeare since his plays were first performed and his folios circulated, but over the years, people have developed more and more sophisticated critical strategies (something like mathematical formulas), and each strategy appears capable of producing an infinite conversation about Shakespeare. Ben Jonson criticized honey-tongued Shakespeare for his "smalle Latin, and lesse Greeke," but his critical formula seems paltry compared to the new formalist strategies, biographical strategies, psychological strategies, historical strategies (including literary historicism, Marxist, New Historicist, and cultural criticism), gender strategies (including feminist and gay/lesbian criticism), mythological strategies, reader response strategies, and deconstructionist strategies, among others that the current Shakesperian conversation uses to discuss the Bard. It appears that there are an infinite number of formulas, or strategies, to apply to Shakespeare's works; thus, there are an infinite number of ways to expand an infinite conversation.
We are led, I think, to the same place that a young Robert Pirsig found himself when he began to study biochemistry at the University of Minnesota:
While doing biochemistry lab work, he was greatly bothered by the seemingly undeniable notion that there was never just one workable hypothesis for a given phenomenon, but many, and that the number seemed almost unlimited. He was gratified later in life to find the scientist Henri Poincaré seeming to concur as he stated:
No end. Infinity within infinity, regardless of whether the discussion is about Shakespeare, Einstein, Poincaré, Popper, Lakoff, or The Beatles. We learn, as Pirsig did, that the more we know, the more there is to know. The notion that through progressive study and research and conversation we may come to know all there is to know about any bounded, finite, recognizable structure or entity is simply wrong. The more we know about even "the meanest flower that blows," then the more there is to know.
Well, I suppose one can be either depressed or exhilarated by this prospect. I am exhilarated. I am reminded of the great image of God in the Sixth Chapter of the Book of Isaiah:
1In the year that king Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. 2Above him stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. 3And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. 4And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.
I once disliked this image. It seemed too much like stupid moths fluttering about a flame, but my impression was a near enemy of the truth. The seraphim are, of course, endlessly and infinitely fascinated with God as moths are fascinated with a flame, but it is not a blind and stupid fascination. Rather, it is the fascination that an infinitely rich, resourceful, and intelligent being has for the endlessly infinite, rich, resourceful, and intelligent unfolding of reality. The angels are singing in constant and eternal conversation about this wonderful unfolding of reality before them, and that reality is so expansive, so rich that it shakes the foundations of the thresholds of the universe and is obscured in the smoke that fills Isaiah's mind.
Now, that's one college course I wouldn't skip.
Though I haven't been blogging, I have been thinking about fractals and scholarly discussion, and the notion that any scholarly discussion is an infinite structure contained within a finite boundary is fascinating me. It resonates. How is it that the conversation about, say, Shakespeare is infinite and yet recognizable as a conversation about Shakespeare; in other words, how do all the infinite variations stay within the finite and recognizable boundaries of the conversation about Shakespeare?
It might be easy to say that Shakespeare's work is just infinitely rich, but this is way too simplistic and, in the end, just wrong, but wrong not because Shakespeare's work is not infinitely rich. Like everything in this infinite universe, like "the meanest flower that blows" (Wordsworth, Ode: Intimations of Immortality), Shakespeare's work is infinite – as is Wordsworth's, or Faulkner's, or Popper's, or Tupac's, or Lakoff's. All of them "can give Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears," a strong hint at the infinity Wordsworth saw in even the most trivial flower of the field.
No, it's wrong because it limits us just to Shakespeare and his work. It omits the infinite world that Shakespeare's work reflects, and it omits the infinite responses of the infinite minds that read Shakespeare. And it omits the infinite number of relations among writer, reader, world, and text, as well as a host of other elements that I'm just too lazy to bring to mind. The conversation about Shakespeare, then, is not just infinite; rather, it is infinity compounded, infinity upon infinity. Once we enter the Shakespearian conversation, then everywhere we look, we find an infinite explosion of self-similar (though NOT self-same) iterations of the conversation, expanding everywhere, endlessly unfolding.
We see this infinite unfolding of the Shakespearian conversation in large part because of something that a student from last semester, Jason Maddox, noted in his response to my fractal post. He gave an example of a fairly simple mathematical procedure that can produce an infinite number of results, again infinity within a finite, recognizable structure. He's right. He might also have noted that there are probably an infinity of such mathematical procedures that can yield other infinities within finite borders.
So, too, with the Shakespearian conversation. People have been talking about Shakespeare since his plays were first performed and his folios circulated, but over the years, people have developed more and more sophisticated critical strategies (something like mathematical formulas), and each strategy appears capable of producing an infinite conversation about Shakespeare. Ben Jonson criticized honey-tongued Shakespeare for his "smalle Latin, and lesse Greeke," but his critical formula seems paltry compared to the new formalist strategies, biographical strategies, psychological strategies, historical strategies (including literary historicism, Marxist, New Historicist, and cultural criticism), gender strategies (including feminist and gay/lesbian criticism), mythological strategies, reader response strategies, and deconstructionist strategies, among others that the current Shakesperian conversation uses to discuss the Bard. It appears that there are an infinite number of formulas, or strategies, to apply to Shakespeare's works; thus, there are an infinite number of ways to expand an infinite conversation.
We are led, I think, to the same place that a young Robert Pirsig found himself when he began to study biochemistry at the University of Minnesota:
While doing biochemistry lab work, he was greatly bothered by the seemingly undeniable notion that there was never just one workable hypothesis for a given phenomenon, but many, and that the number seemed almost unlimited. He was gratified later in life to find the scientist Henri Poincaré seeming to concur as he stated:
| If therefore a phenomenon allows a complete mechanical explanation, it allows of an unlimited number of others, which will equally well take into account all the particulars revealed by experiment. And this is confirmed by the history of every branch of physics. | | |
No end. Infinity within infinity, regardless of whether the discussion is about Shakespeare, Einstein, Poincaré, Popper, Lakoff, or The Beatles. We learn, as Pirsig did, that the more we know, the more there is to know. The notion that through progressive study and research and conversation we may come to know all there is to know about any bounded, finite, recognizable structure or entity is simply wrong. The more we know about even "the meanest flower that blows," then the more there is to know.
Well, I suppose one can be either depressed or exhilarated by this prospect. I am exhilarated. I am reminded of the great image of God in the Sixth Chapter of the Book of Isaiah:
1In the year that king Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. 2Above him stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. 3And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. 4And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.
I once disliked this image. It seemed too much like stupid moths fluttering about a flame, but my impression was a near enemy of the truth. The seraphim are, of course, endlessly and infinitely fascinated with God as moths are fascinated with a flame, but it is not a blind and stupid fascination. Rather, it is the fascination that an infinitely rich, resourceful, and intelligent being has for the endlessly infinite, rich, resourceful, and intelligent unfolding of reality. The angels are singing in constant and eternal conversation about this wonderful unfolding of reality before them, and that reality is so expansive, so rich that it shakes the foundations of the thresholds of the universe and is obscured in the smoke that fills Isaiah's mind.
Now, that's one college course I wouldn't skip.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)