George Lakoff (on Tavis Smiley): "strict father."

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House George Lakoff (on Tavis Smiley): "strict father."

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #65091
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    This was very interesting TV.

    http://www.pbs.org/video/2365951602/

    It is all about the way we frame things. The Dems — and progressives in general — have been disciplined by conservatives for so long, they use conservative language to describe pretty much everything, and then wonder why the Overton Window keeps moving to the right. Lakoff’s suggestion of “protections” instead of “regulations” is a very good one, but there are too many to count. Conservatives won the language war a long time ago, and if the left doesn’t reverse this, we’re in for a long-term run of hell.

    Also of major interest here was the discussion of “strict father.” It’s CW that the GOP is the Daddy party and the Dems are the Mommy party. There’s actually a lot of truth to this. And when people believe they’re in danger — rightly or wrongly — they tend to seek the strict father. Smart righties know this, which is the main reason why they (aggressively, relentlessly) push the meme that we’re under attack by X, Y or Z. They hope the people choose Daddy, and this appears to be working all across Europe too.

    This idea, while (admittedly) seeming far too “essentialist” and overly simplified, does fit the present, and it fit the past, with the rise of Hitler and the fascist movements around the world in the 1920s – 1940s. The group bio on the Frankfurt School (Grand Hotel Abyss) talks about this well.

    More in the next post . . .

    #65092
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    In The Grand Hotel Abyss, the author talks about the Jewish intellectuals of the Frankfurt School, and how they, early on, battled with their parents, the first or second generation of assimilated Jews in Germany. They rebelled against them for many reasons, but mostly because they thought they had “assimilated” far too much.

    A Freudian analysis might make this an Oedipal conflict. A Bloomian one might say it was a battle over “the anxiety of influence.” Either way, they rejected the idea that to be a successful human being — or the unsaid “real man” — meant tremendous success in business, with few other exceptions.

    Breaking that down further, there was a lot of talk at the time about the dominant role of the Father in Protestant Christianity, and how this led to capitalism, versus the ancient concept of “Mother Right,” and how that led to (or could lead to) real socialism.

    From Stuart Jeffries’ bio (on Eric Fromm, at this point):

    “As an adult, Fromm became steeped in the work of the nineteenth-century Swiss Lutheran jurist Johan Jacob Bachofen, whose 1861 book Mother Right and the Origins of Religion provided the first challenge to the prevailing orthodoxy that patriarchal society represented a natural state of affairs, and thereby validated capitalism, oppression and male hegemony, as Fromm’s biographer Lawrence Friedman argues. Reading Bachofen also encouraged Fromm to reflect that the mother-child bond was the root of social life and that in a matriarchal society there was no strife, conflict or even private property, reflections that were decisive for his developing socialist humanism. In Bachofen’s description of matriarchal societies they functioned as what Fromm called ‘primitive socialist democracies,’ in which sociability, generosity, tenderness, religiosity and egalitarianism prevailed.”

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 9 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.