Strangechord

George Lakoff, Professor of Linguistics at UC Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the progressive Rockridge Institute, has brilliant theories around the linguistic reframing of hot-button political issues. This online interview with him made the blog rounds last October and like many other readers, I was blown away by how much sense he makes. Lakoff suggests that the reason Republicans have enjoyed such a surge in the past ten years is that the party and its think tanks started pouring billions of dollars into morally reframing their messages to strike a chord with voters. The Democrats, he says, have not been as keen at this.

Lakoff has a new article out which appeared the other day at Alternet: What’s in a Word?. In it, he writes of the importance of linguistics in the same-sex marriage debate:

…The radical right uses “gay marriage.” Polls show most Americans overwhelmingly against anti-gay discrimination, but equally against “gay marriage.” One reason, I believe, is that “marriage” evokes the idea of sex and most Americans do not favor gay sex. Another is that the stereotype of marriage is heterosexual. “Gay” for the right connotes a wild, deviant, sexually irresponsible lifestyle. That’s why the right prefers “gay marriage” to “same-sex marriage.”

It’s pretty obvious the moral grounds those who oppose same-sex marriage are coming from. If you’ve grown up conditioned to believe that homosexuality is wrong, it’s likely you’re going to think allowing gays to marry is an abomination and a threat to traditional, morally righteous marriage. What progressives need to do, Lakoff writes, is reframe the issue according to their values:

Progressives need to reclaim the moral high ground - of the grand American tradition of freedom, fairness, human dignity, and full equality under the law. If they are pragmatic liberals, they can talk this way about the civil unions and material benefits. If they are idealistic progressives, they can use the same language to talk about the social and cultural, as well as the material benefits of marriage. Either way, our job as ordinary citizens is to reframe the debate, in everything we say and write, in terms of our moral principles.

I found the following advice practical, useful and aligned with what I already think :

For example, when there is a discussion in your office, church, or other group, there is a simple response to someone who says, “I don’t think gays should be able to marry, do you?” The response is, “I believe in equal rights, period. I don’t think the state should be in the business of telling people who they can or can’t marry.”

Language is important. I’ve realized many times before how it powerful it can be to express how I feel politically in terms of my values. It’s satisfying to see this so reinforced by a linguistics expert. At the same time, however, values debates are hard to settle - so much subjectivity!