BOOK REVIEW OF: 'DON'T THINK OF AN ELEPHANT'

The Author is:
George Lakoff, Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California (Berkeley Campus)
Scribe Publications Ltd
PO Box 523
Carlton North, Victoria
Published in USA 2004, published in Australia 2005.

Lakoff wrote this book as an instruction manual for the progressive side of politics in the USA and the same lessons apply in Australia, not only for politicians but for the ordinary person who finds themselves caught up in debate about politics, religion, the environment or anything else.

The title refers to the exercise Lakoff uses with his students to illustrate the theme of the book. He gives the instruction “Don't think of an elephant” Students find it impossible to carry out.
The word evokes the frame of all things about elephants: size, trunk etc.
Similarly 'family values' evokes a frame of ideas and values in the listener. Those of a conservative bent immediately think of a father who protects and disciplines and defines a moral code.
It associates well with conservative religions.
For those of a liberal bent protection and nurture may be the major ideas, but for either the frame of the family is a good thing. Who could declare themselves against family values.
(Incidently didn't John Howard use this phrase quite frequently, especially when facing elections? Watch his disciple Tony Abbott to see if it occurs again. No doubt the God fearing Kevin Rudd will get on the same band wagon at some stage.)

Lakoff explains the extent to which the Republicans have been trained by academics and other members of their think tanks to choose words and phrases which lead the listeners along the path they want them to follow.
Apparently a great deal of money has been poured into media management and other means of controlling the debate and this will account for their success up till recently in controlling the White House and the Congress.
Perhaps something similar happened here in Australia under Howard and Rudd.

Lakoff's instructions:
Clarify your values then frame them so that they will appeal.
Don't rely simply on the truth and the facts.
Don't believe that people automatically act in their own interest.
Facts alone are not enough. People act according to their frames.
If the facts conflict with these, they'll reject the facts and keep the frame.
Don't get tricked into using the frames of your opponent. If you do you will reinforce them.
He refers to President George Bush's 'War on Terror' and asks what does this phrase bring to the popular mind: national security, military action, enemies, good and evil, etc.

Humanists/Atheists can get trapped by that old question.
“How do you have a moral standard if you don't believe in God?”
Don't set out to explain that we do behave well and share the same ethics as Christians.
That leaves the bystander with the impression that Christianity/Islam/Judaism is the source of morality and the better class of Atheist has fallen into line.
Point out what is wrong with the question and there is a lot wrong with it.
It is insulting. The implication is that Atheists lack morals.
It is based on the false premise that Christianity/Islam/Judaism are the only source of moral values.
It is predicated on notions of supernatural punishment and reward and is an unworthy basis for good conduct in this life.
In fact moral behaviour is essential for social co-operation and the survival of social animals such as ourselves.

Many of us have pondered how the American people (and by extension the Australian people) were so willing and able to accept the outright lies and blatant distortions of the facts which were used to justify the attack on Iraq. Why didn't they come to the rational conclusion?
Lakoff provides an answer. He says human brains don't work that way.
Our neural circuitry makes a frame; a conceptual structure.
When the facts don't fit the frame the facts are ignored and the frame remains.
Contradicting the lies doesn't help.
The opposition needed to produce an alternative frame:
understand the enemy, behave responsibly, need for moral foreign policy not raining bombs down on innocent civilians and causing perpetual war.

Lakoff goes on to look at the ways in which conservatives and progressives each form their own different frames about God and religion, morality, the economy, education, foreign policy etc.
He uses the last chapters to give what is basically a set of instructions the progressive side of politics and social life can use to combat the runaway progress the conservatives have made over the past several decades, especially the last one.
There is a list of at least fifteen detailed instruction which Lakoff himself summarises down to four basic ones:
Show respect to the opponent, (that is, a respect for the person, not his views.)
Respond by reframing.
Think and talk at the level of values.
Say what you believe.

I found this book to be a very useful instruction manual and interesting as well.
It certainly provokes thought on a number of matters: recent politics, religion, the education debate and much more.
As I read it I did what I have n't done since University days, I constructed a complete summary which I plan to edit down to a useful personal reference.
That's the trouble with a good book. One wants to retain so much of it.
I thoroughly recommend this book.
Des Young

After reading it I made some notes for myself to encapsulate its main points.
Here they are:

DEBATING WITH RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES OR ANYONE ELSE

In debate don't get trapped into using your opponents language.
Eg. He says “You are anti American or anti British.” Don't say “I'm not anti American. .
Your denial reinforces his message. Provide an alternative instead.
Eg. “I'm Australian to the bootstraps and I don't put any foreign country ahead of my own and I don't believe any Australian citizen should. My opponents seem to be confused as to where their allegiance should lie.”

If he gives his version of Australian values give your version in your own carefully chosen words:
egalitarianism, mateship, fair go, honesty, hard work, decency, etc.

People vote for their identity and values, not necessarily for their self interest.
Progressives should learn to speak about values and to think strategically.

Refuse to be put on the defensive.
Watch for traps and avoid them.
Eg. “You are anti American, You are anti religious, You are un Australian.”

Also avoid the language of exclusion: “Elites vs blue singlets” etc.
Ideas come first. Frame them in suitable words.

Watch out especially for the “moral standard” question.
It can be put in the form of a question, but it is really an accusation put in subtle terms.
Develop an approach to it similar to that described above.

Show respect and make it clear you expect it in return.

Avoid a shouting match, you lose control, they win.

Distinguish between the nice conservative opponent and his nasty ideologies.

Be calm and good humoured, don't forget to smile at the audience and at your opponent.

Don't let them stereotype you: unpatriotic
coddling
chardonnay intellectual etc.

Expect this tactic and prepare for it: “There he goes again, he can't deal with the argument so he attacks the person.”

Remember you are not really hoping to convert the opponent. It is the audience that matters.

Since many people mix progressive and conservative ideas/behaviours in their lives try to link the matter you are dealing with to their progressive tendencies.

You can't expect to win on facts alone. Frames beat facts. Always reframe.

Don't directly answer questions. Always reframe.

Be sincere. Don't use dodgy facts or frames.

Avoid setups. Eg Fox news jocks, Alan Jones and others. They don't show respect.
They have engineered a situation in which they have total control.
They won't let you present your case.
The game is rigged. Therefore don't play.