• on a comment on Frameshop: It Makes Sense over 9 years ago
  • on a comment on Frameshop: It Makes Sense over 9 years ago
    Given your argument about the importance of science, why should I or anyone else accept your "opinion" that my methods or ideas are not professional?

    Your point that you do not agree with the ideas in my writing--that point is taken.  Oh well.  We can't be useful to everyone.  

    Let me repeat:  people who practice quantitative science have been trying to discredit qualitative researchers for centuries.  So far, it hasn't worked.  If your only argument is that my work is bad because it doesn't meet your definition of science--all I can say is, thanks for your opinion.  

    If the public finds my ideas useful, great.  If not, so be it.  I wouldn't waste time trying to discredit me.  If discrediting is your passion, then I'd spend time trying to discredit the Republicans.  They are the ones ruining this country.

    You seem to be convinced--by virtue of a college course that you have taken or a seminar paper that you have or are writing--that you now have the ability, and the responsibility, to determine what is and what is not professional expertise.  

    You also don't seem to be interested in anything anyone else says. In particular, you claim to be guarding Lakoff's approach, but you don't seem to have listened to anything he has written.  Lakoff says nothing about submission and total discipline.  His ideas are based on a very loose and open-ended idea of repetition.  It's actually a very hopeful idea which leaves open a range of creative possibilities. In fact, you sound more like one of Lakoff's critics than a follower.  And I am confident--as a professional--that my reading of Lakoff is sound.

    Moreover, you seem to be running on some strident idea of politics as war and activists as savages needing to be civilized.  Unfortunately, I've encountered this approach before.  There appear to be a very small group of activists out there--most of them men in their 20s--who are convinced that it is their job to police the grassroots and enforce discipline.  They almost always enter a comment thread with an aggressive critique, and they share a common vision of electoral victory through absolute discipline and unity.  

    Speaking from my experience from hundreds and hundreds of discussions and workshops about Progressive framing--Democrats do not view the party as needing to adopt militaristic views of politics to win.  The Democrats that I know talk about unity, energy, working together, coalitions, truth.

    If you want to transform the party into a party based on the core value of "discpipline," well good luck.  And if you really believe that we will have 100 years of GOP rule unless we become a party centered on "discipline," well...I feel bad for you.  That's a dark, dark vision of American society.  Frankly, it's a vision closer to militant Leninism than the Progressive Democratic movement I see here.  

    Message discipline, sure.  We will have a system for message discipline.  And we hope you are in the room or even at the table when that conversation takes place.

    Until then, why not try a little harder to communicate with  people in a manner that persuades them to work with you, rather than in a way that makes them feel policed by you.  

    Good luck on your research, which sounds very interesting and important.  And as I said before...I look forward to our next conversation.

  • comment on a post Ask Santorum A Question over 9 years ago
    "Senator, thank you for taking the time to speak with us, tonight.  What would be your advice to those elderly Americans who find themselves right now living in poverty?"
  • on a comment on Frameshop: It Makes Sense over 9 years ago
    What, then, would be your strategy for getting people to agree?

    Your current strategy of demanding that people stop what they are doing and listen to you is not going to be successful.

  • on a comment on Frameshop: It Makes Sense over 9 years ago
    I'm probably going to stick with it, but I will give the suggestion some thought.

    It's been many centuries since quantitative researchers first started their efforts to convince qualitatives to make the switch.  The arguments are all sound, compelling even.  For now, I'm happy with the methods I've chosen.  But I look forward to your paper (and to future exchanges).

  • on a comment on Frameshop: It Makes Sense over 9 years ago
    I would say that we would be "all screwed" if we continued in the direction that we were on prior to November '04.  And since we are not doing that, I feel positive about our current direction.

    Framing is a big concept, Alex.  It's much bigger than Lakoff.  In the past few months, the word framing has been strongly linked to Lakoff, but that has less to do with its actual meaning than the success he has  had at circulating his particularly view of what needs to be done.  And it's a great set of ideas.

    There are now multiple efforts aimed at a variety of different end goals, and spearheaded by people with a range of professional training.   I think we can all support and be true to the Lakoff effort, while at the same time working at these different levels.  In fact, I cannot think of any large scale effort that has not gained from a healthy division of labor.  

    Keep in mind that since Rockrdige's ideas unfold behind closed doors, there is no constructive way to speak back to their ideas until they are launched.  Frameshop ideas unfold in public, with the goal of eliciting constructive response.  

    In fact, one of the major differences between Frameshop and Rockrdige is the way we value that resopnse.  I view the response as part of the process of Framing.  Rockridge values it much less.  

    That much being said, one of the things that Rockrdige has missed is the value of the discussion itself as a part o the process of transforming the party for the better.  Certainly, the end products are of great value.  But for now, it is the discussion that is of greater value because it is unifying and energizing Progressives who felt so alienated and let down by the last election.  I think we are a long way from exhausting the need for that unity and energy.  

    That unity and sense common purpose is the foundation for the very type of message discipline you describe--much more so than an allegiance to a top down system (which will also play an important role at a later stage).

  • comment on a post Right Reframing the Social Security Debate over 9 years ago
    Does the Nickles Coalition to Slay Social Security have a website or someplace where they post their PR stuff in one place?
  • on a comment on Frameshop: It Makes Sense over 9 years ago
    Well, OK, I'll give it a shot since my office hours are quiet this afternoon...

    Let me just say up front, though: if you're not happy with what you read in the Frameshop pieces, by all means ignore them. Lakoff is an inspired writer and a great teacher.  He has much to offer.  

    Lakoff and I are professional colleagues in the sense that we are both Social Scientists trained in the American school and both work on questions of context and meaning.  We are different generations and different subfields.  As an Anthropologist, my training in linguistics and cognition are part of a broader expertise in culture and politics.  As such, I don't trace my relationship to the concept of "framing" through Lakoff, but through Goffman, Bateson, and more indirectly through William James.  Admitedly, Lakoff's cognitive psychological application to the two party system in the US has certainly been a catalyst for my writing.  

    In the sense that a key component of framing at this stage is teaching and communication, over a decade of teaching at all levels of the University  would also be qualification.  I suppose you'd have to ask my students if that helps or hinders my efforts, but I suspect most would be positive.

    My academic writing has not focused on electoral politics in the US, but on the relationship between keywords and other questions of culture and representation.  In this respect, I am trained as a qualitative ethnographer and lean towards those methods rather than quantitative hypothesis testing.  I respect both methods, but find that quantitative testing can be deceptive in questions of meaning.  

    The method I choose to generate my are a modified version of ethnography applied to the broad range of political messages that circulate in the media. Like most qualitative ethnographers, I look for patterns and from there construct models that elucidate the broadest range of observations for any given question.  I also find Lakoff's Metaphors We Live Buy to be very helpful as method for constructing new ideas.

    I hope that's helpful, Alex.

    If, by chance, you are also concerned about the question of discipline in the process of framing (e.g., whether it is good or bad to have more than one source of Progressive framing), I'd be happy to have an exchange about that as well.  I'm not sure I have much to add beyond what Paul Rosenberg offered, but it would depend on the issues you raise.

    Oh, yes...almost forgot: I'm not the Scientologist.  

  • on a comment on Frameshop: It Makes Sense over 9 years ago
    It's a good question, but I want to make sure I understand it before I answer.

    Are you asking if I have a background in one of the fields you list to confirm that I am qualified? Or is there a broader concern that you have?  

    Would you be willing to elaborate on what your question a little more?

     

  • comment on a post Krugman in Harmony with Blogosphere on Dean over 9 years ago
    I love Krugman.  He's a great writer and has the thickest skin of anyone out there.

    However...I think his analysis is wrong this time.  He is using facts to counter sentiment .  There is nothing in the Republican message about Dean that talks about policy.  Nothing at all.  It's pure emotion and frame.  Krugman's point about Dean being a centrist-- unfortunately, it will bounce off the Republican cries that Dean is a "rebel."

    I believe the only solution is to respond with the Democratic Party elevator speech, not by trying to re-label  Dean.  

    Keep in mind:  the GOP took less than 24-hours to control the debate on the future of the Democratic Party.  All focus on Dean will reinforce their frame.  

    Americans don't care about Howard Dean.  I do.  I think he's the heart of America.  But American's don't care.

    They care about prosperity and opportunity for all, strong communities, healthy families, great schools and protecting our future by regaining America's respect in the world.  

    They care about losing their jobs in a Republican economy, about losing their homes in a Republican free market, about losing their children in a Republican war in Iraq.

    If Dems can get out our elevator speech repeated in the media 10,000 times over the next news cycle--we'll turn back the GOP offensive against Dean without once mentioning his name.

  • comment on a post Krugman on the Fighting Moderates over 9 years ago
    I love Krugman.  He's a great writer and has the thickest skin of anyone out there.

    I think his analysis is wrong, here.  It is using facts to counter sentiment .  There is nothing in the Republican message that talks about policy.  Nothing at all.  It's pure emotion and frame.  Krugman's point about Dean being a centrist--unfortunately, it will bounce off the Republican cries that Dean is a "rebel."

    I believe the only solution is to respond with the Democratic Party elevator speech, not by trying to re-label  Dean.  

    Keep in mind:  the GOP took less than 24-hours to control the debate on the future of the Democratic Party.  All focus on Dean will reinforce their frame.

    Americans don't care about Howard Dean.  

    They care about prosperity and opportunity for all, strong communities, healthy families, great schools and protecting our future by regaining America's respect in the world.  

    If Dems can get out our elevator speech repeated in the media 10,000 times over the next news cycle--we'll turn back the GOP offensive against Dean without once mentioning his name.

  • comment on a post Democrats Must Abandon the War on Terror over 9 years ago
    with one exception.

    We must "overwhelm" the "war on terror" with our own frame such that the old idea is revealed as worthless and cynical.

    Unfortunately for Democratic politics, the Neo-Con notion that violence and pre-emptive strikes (Bush at OBL) are a short solution to violence and pre-emptive strikes (OBL at Bush) has thus far held.  There have not been attacks in the US.

    But the "war on terror" idea has also created a culture of fear, an a social environment threatening to the Constitution.  And it has made this country weak on many levels.  

    Weakness, I believe, is the place to start.  Democrats should be articulating solutions to American weakness.

    September 11 demonstrated our weaknesses.  And in response to those weaknesses, the Bush administration has chosen to weaken the dollar, weaken social programs, weaken our relationships to allies, weaken our domestic sense of security.

    We will outflank the "war on terror" if we take seriously the task of articulating Progressive ideas about strength.  

    Thanks for the post.

  • comment on a post Social Security is Healthy and Successful over 9 years ago
    This is my first MyDD posting.

    Thanks Chris for your brilliant work and dedication.

    This frame of Social Security as "healthy" and "successful" was promoted by a series of recent Frameshop sessions over at dKos.

    RE a recent comment in the book club about not having a megaphone to promote our framing efforts:  Megaphones come in many shapes and sizes.  Everything has to start somewhere. These efforts will take Conservatives by storm.

    You'd be suprised how far Frameshop has travelled after just a month.

    Back on topic:

    Social Security is healthy and successful.

    Repeat.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads