"The Orwellian Language of Big Government"

Mentioned in class:

"The Orwellian Language of Big Government" (National Taxpayers Union, June 22, 2004)

location change for Tuesday

Tuesday's class will begin at 3.30 in 263 Dwinelle. Don't forget to vote!

class 9 notes

More adventures in classtime - class nine notes. Most of today was dedicated to the topics that people were working on for their class assignment, with the issues around the Estate Tax and Proposition F in San Francisco dominating.

Jon Stewart on Crossfire

In today's class, we got into a fabulous discussion on Jon Stewart's reframing on the Crossfire show. If you haven't see it, *DO*



(tx Lisa Rein)

class 8 notes

Another wonderful day in class, resulting in class 8 notes by Mary and danah. The conversation started out with an explicit discussion of Coturix's question, then dove into the New Lens' article and then spiraled off into the framing that Jon Stewart did on Crossfire before doing a comparison between the role of the comedian and the role of the blogger. A fantastic day!

Why are Post-Modernists/Deconstructionists considered to be the Left?

Coturnix asked: Why are Post-Modernists/Deconstructionists considered to be the Left? Is it their historical source, or they somehow fit into the Liberal system (perhaps on a big radial diversion away from the core). I find it difficult to align disdain for science and reality with the Nurturant Parent model.

Lakoff answered: History: Paris 1968 student uprising. Marxist background.

There are lots of different kinds of folks called postmodernists and deconstructionists. Stereotypical cases have the following properties relative to an NP analysis.

Here is a parametrization (see Elephant, p. 89):

Mode of thought: Anti-authoritarian (possibly added to other modes)
Empathetic with: Victims of illegitimate authoritarian uses of power
Idealist (not pragmatic)
Means: Militant
Time scale: Immediate
Pace of change: Radical
Means of inquiry: deconstruction, etc.

Correctly saw the power to interpret as real power -- the power to impose an interpretation can change reality.

How it differs from other forms of progressive thought:

Identified fixed interpretation (either author's intention, structural analysis, or new criticism) as an illegitimate authoritarian use of power (the power to interpret). Saw deconstruction/postmodernism as a means to power (the power to interpret). Saw "theory" as a way to legitimate their interpretive power. Also saw it (within the academy) as a way to gain social capital (cf. Bourdieu).

Some saw also science as "scientism" -- an illegitimate authoritarian use of power.

Certain cases were a pathological variant -- not nurturant but permissive, lacking responsibility (to reality, to community, to others with different views).

Coturnix asked: The same question on "Animal Rightists" (as opposed to "animal welfare" people which are clearly core liberals)? Is it just a huge radial deviation from the core? Their mindset (and tactics) reminds me more of anti-choice people than anti-war people.

Lakoff answered: Again: They are militant in means, idealists, and for immediate radical change -- like the pro-lifers.

New Lenses for Your Frames

New Lenses for Your Frames: An Analysis of The Framing of Living Wage was referenced in class as important to read.

Editor's Note: Framing can be a complex discipline requiring years of study, focus group polling, analysis, research and target audience testing. Professional communications analysts and practitioners have devoted much resources and time to this study. This section of the "Winning Wages" guidebook presents both quick spot-framing tips (see previous article) and more in-depth framing analysis. In this piece by noted academic researcher, progressive political thinker, author and cognitive science expert George Lakoff, we discover a more detailed analysis of framing for living wage. The first part focuses on the basic frames of living wage for those who want that specific focus. The second part goes beyond living wage into a "moral economy."

Class 7 notes

Today, Mary and i decided we'd both take notes:
Version Mary
Version danah

I fear this may give you dear reader an understanding of our different interests and attention spans.

Anyhow, the focus of today was supposed to be on "Don't Think of an Elephant" but it was really hard not to consistently derail and talk about the debates. For those who haven't read Lakoff's newest book - do! It provides excellent examples of how to politely alter the minds of all conservatives.

George W. Bush :: Keeping America Scared

(via Joi)

Class 6 notes

Today's visitor was from the Rockridge Institute. For the most part, today was spent discussing last week's debate with people airing their personal views. Here are the notes that i took.

Giving People Information to Get Them to See

Democrats have a false theory of the electorate.. and of how people vote: give people the facts and they will reach the right conclusion.. and they see framing as spin... and resist it.. -- from the Class 5 notes

This particular statement made in class last Tuesday reminded me of what I often heard journalism students and the occasional visiting professional journalist giving a lecture at the JSchool at UCBerkeley say, though they were speaking from the journalistic model, not the voting model. It would always make me stop then too. It's the idea that given the right information, people will choose wisely (code word for the 'right' way, which is the way the speaker thinks is right). In a way, the theory is understandable in that given better information, people will make better decisions. But economists know this doesn't happen. Given lower pricing, many people do not buy the generic brand over the branded brand even though the same manufacturer may have made it. And given the right information, or the facts, people do not necessarily choose a particular course of action, for one reason or another.

It might be due to their perception that the facts as delivered by either liberals or journalists is incorrect, to be disregarded because the fact don't fit the person's framework of life, are not trustworthy for some other reason, or are less trustworthy than some other conflicting fact. But it may also be because people don't like being condescended to, don't like being told what is right or good or correct. I believe this is one of the issues top down media currently faces today: the masses, who were supposed to be reading newspapers and getting the right info so they could make the right decisions and be 'well-informed', realized some time ago that newspapers in their old form were in one way or another out of touch with their lives and what they needed from their information deliverers. It might have been the paper-paper delivery, the generalist nature of the coverage, or the occasional journalist whose lack of humility or disregard for the truth or the intelligence of those they were reporting for just didn't sit well with the great unwashed. But when media has screwed up, anger toward top-down media has showed up in some surprising ways, and at least for me, and the few that I've spoken with, the anger and distrust comes in part from the sense of condescension we've felt. Liberal views of knowing what's best have also provoked this same sort of anger in the public. That's not to say that I or those I've talked with about this are libertarians.. though there is some flavor of it there, balanced by other sensibilities that government has a responsibility to control certain things for all of us, whether we like it or not (keeping industrial pollution regulated, making everyone stop at stop signs, providing education -- though you probably realize that I see us doing a better job on the stop signs and falling down with our responsibility to kids and the environment).

So does better information matter? Absolutely, as does education, so that people understand many ways of looking at fact, theory and argument. But I don't believe that given better information, people will the see 'the light', especially the one particular light the information giver wants to make people to see. Yes, some will see it, but the most responsible thing to do is to give people honest information no matter what position it supports and let them make up their own minds. It's why I love blogging and other newer forms of online information passing. It may not always be right.. it maybe require us to be continuously asking about whether the information appears true, whether we trust the purveyor, or should put our trust in the search for information that is more truthful. But expecting others to get some particular notion afterward is condescending, and will never get the liberals, or top down journalists, a considered place at the table of most folks. Because the bristling nature of that condescension just makes people feel funny and that leads to distrust. But sharing information across many information sources, blogs and top-down media online, and wikis and via word of mouth, gives us the opportunity to lose the condescension so that we do our own fact checking and be apart of the process of getting the best information for the sake of getting the best information no matter what its provenance.

probability

This week's class was particularly interesting to me because of the discussion of how people do not rationalize according to probability. Using my terms, they appear to interpolate using coarse descriptors.

Example: which is more probable: a earthquake in California resulting in a tidal wave that will kill 1000 people OR an earthquake in North America that will kill 1000 people.

More people choose the former, even though the latter is more probable. Why? Because one's conception of North America is basically Nebraska and what earthquakes exist in Nebraska? Obviously, earthquakes are a California thing.

We also discussed empathy at length, conversing about different research on how empathy operates in the brain. Basically, you have until about the age of 5 to build empathy. In a strict father culture, empathy is not something that is nurtured and thus it tends to die away. This devolved into a conversations about whether or not libertarians were the ultimate un-empathetic creatures...

putting the Bush daughers on a leash

A bothersome quote from the debate:

Mr. Kerry Well, first of all, I appreciate enormously the personal comments the president just made, and I share them with him. I think only if you've - if you're doing this, and he's done it more than I have in terms of the presidency, can you begin to get a sense of what it means to your families. And it's tough. And so I acknowledge - his daughters, I've watched them, I've chuckled a few times at some of their comments. And -

Mr. Bush Trying to put a leash on them.

Mr. Kerry Well, I know - I've learned not to do that. And I have great respect and admiration for his wife. I think she's a terrific person -

Bush is trying to put a leash on his daughters? Oh dear. Right... women don't count.

(Tx coturnix)

Notes from Class 5

Here are the notes from Tuesday's class. Please excuse the lateness.