Showing posts with label critical thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label critical thinking. Show all posts

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Brilliant

More than two decades ago, I read Mark Johnson and George Lakoff's book Metaphors We Live By. It knocked my socks off with its brilliance. "Yes," I thought. "Our language reveals the metaphors that shape/control our thinking. I'd never thought about it like that, but he's so right!"

I thought that same thing this morning when I read this article Lakoff wrote: "What Conservatives Really Want." In it, Lakoff lays out all the moves that conservatives make in the public sphere - including shaping/controlling the language ("80% of the talking heads on TV are conservative," Lakoff reminds us - he could make the same claim about "talk radio").

By listing all the moves conservatives make, he reveals that the controlling metaphor of conservatives' worldview is the autocratic "strict father": they want the world to be structured like a head-of-household family where the strict father makes all the decisions, is not questioned, metes out the [necessarily physical] discipline.

With this kind of family, the social contract that Democracy promises (that we-the-people have a social responsibility to our fellow citizens) becomes a threat: helping others in the wider culture undermines the authority of the strict father.

Lakoff articulates SO clearly the views I've had for at least two decades but haven't been able to formulate, other than to say we're living through the last desperate gasps of the Patriarchy. To me, no one talks about the masculine violence that's behind all the criminal activity, economic greed, and gun-toting fear we see around us.

Conservatives campaign on the slogan "Take our country/state back!" (Minnesota's recent Republican candidate for governor used this phrase, even though our state had been suffering under a Republican governor for eight years. No logic there, but "strict fathers" don't work with logic; they work with fear). Back to where, is of course the question. Turning out country back in time seems to be the conservatives' goal - when men were men, women knew their place, and Dad yelling "Get off my lawn!" and following that up with a few firings of a 410 shotgun are appropriate ways to act.

Change is automatically a threat to the "strict father." And our speeded-up, technologically enhanced pace of change scares these fathers (who can also be "Mama Grizzlies"), but "strict fathers" cannot show that they're scared. So they scare everyone else instead. And then use the threat of physical violence against everyone else.

Back to Lakoff: he sees the Wisconsin protests as a hopeful sign of real citizens who want to make the world a better place (real public servants such as teachers, pipe fitters, fire fighters, rather than the fake "public servants" that politicians claim to be, in another theft of a good metaphor). I applaud his article and want to share it far and wide.

Read it and pass on his clear thinking.


Monday, November 23, 2009

Good cartoon for class discussion?



Joel Pett
Lexington Herald-Leader
Nov 13, 2009
The hypocrisy of our current health-care "system" get summed up pretty well in this cartoon -- or at least one of the most egregiously sexist aspects of that hypocrisy.

Many more awful aspects to choose from, of course.

For example: why does no one talk about the *ethical* aspect of health care any more? Why don't we talk about the absolute necessity of *health* for anyone to exercise any of their human or civil rights? Why can't we have a system -- as do other democratic, industrialized countries -- that provides health care for all citizens?

Friday, October 9, 2009

Speech Act Theory-into-Practice

Today's Nobel Peace Prize for President Obama highlights the important accomplishment he's achieved: words matter. Speech *is* an action.

In our age of instant, global communication, Obama's changed the conversation. He's begun to resuscitate the American reputation. We can be proud that we no longer have a bully as a leader.

It's Rhetoric over War that's won: we rhetoricians should be proud to see the Nobel Prize's affirmation that words are actions, as John Austin reminds us in his philosophical How to Do Things with Words.

Austin reminds us that speech has "locutionary force" (the words refer to something); speech also has "illocutionary force" (there's a purpose for the words); speech too has "perlocutionary force" (it has an impact on the listener, who may then act or change).

In other words [ahem! :-)]
  • Words are accomplishments.
  • Words *are* the results that some people insist are necessary for the Nobel Peace Prize.

President Obama's rhetorical accomplishments are an example of the Practice of Peace. Negotiation and diplomacy lead to a more secure and peaceful coexistence than does violence.

Inviting is always better than Bullying.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Good News

Here's a Google News site that just posts good news! It's a great resource for students . . . for showing how a fake news site can look legit.

Wouldn't the world be good if this site was NOT a fake?