What is language?

[erudito]

I recently linked to an exchange between Stephen Pinker and George Lakoff about the nature of language, thought and the use of metaphors and framings in politics.

As I noted in comments, I don’t have much interest in Lakoff’s application of linguistics to politics, since his notion of “reframing” is just the latest incarnation of the concept of

Comments

[tcpip]

That Wikipedia article needs serious work.

"False consciousness", in the Marxist sense, is when people support ideologies which are objectively bad for them.

Of course, that could include Marxism itself ;-)

Indeed and indeed

[erudito]

"False consciousness", in the Marxist sense, is when people support ideologies which are objectively bad for them.
A usage I have no problem with, since that is basically the concept I meant :)

Of course, that could include Marxism itself ;-)
*chuckle*

False Consciouness

[catsidhe]

So, naturally, any description of politics which includes such concepts as ...

• most people being convinced (for no reason they can rationally articulate)
• by arguments (which they don't understand for any of several reasons, none of which need have anything to do with inherant stupidy, or which in fact don't make sense, but are followed along with for fear of looking stupid)
• made by people whose personal goals (such as re-election, or setting up a post-politics career) may be actively harmful to the people who are being so influenced

... is automatically an example of false consciousness sour grapes, and can safely be pathologised away?

Re: False Consciouness

[erudito]

Well, if the alternative is to pathologise away people voting in inconvenient fashions, yes.

Except that is not the choice, of course. People lie, mislead, make mistakes. But if one persistently loses elections, it may be because what you are offering is not as good as what your opponents are.

My point was not specific to one side of politics. I heard plenty of Coalition supporters complaining in the 1983-1996 period that Coalition election losses were the fault of The Media. Strangely, the media did not change, but the voting results did.

Re: False Consciouness

[catsidhe]

And Lakoff's point was that assuming that the Democrats' policies are superior to the Republicans' (which is kind of important if you are a Democrat, and yes they have been going over their policies with fine-tooth combs in the meantime), then there must be some other reason why people vote for Republicans anyway.

Note that the answer is not 'because people are dumb', instead Lakoff posits the explanation that the Republicans are better at selling themselves, the actual content of their policies being hidden as much as possible, and offers some suggestions as to methods the Dems could use to sell their message as well as the GOP do (that message, of course, being "Vote for us").

The same thesis goes for .au: Howard won because he had learnt how to frame debate better than Keating could, and Labor has been singularly useless even since. For Labor to win, the same applies, including training in message framing, and the getting rid of those who have demonstrated themselves incapable of learning. Starting with Beasley.

Re: False Consciouness

[erudito]

Basically no. I understand how people who make a living with words, particularly a living studying words, think words are terribly-terribly-important but both content and message matter