Comments on: Daily Kos On George Lakoff

By: Kim

Kim — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:34:56 +0000

I think you have completely misunderstood what Lakoff is saying. Unfortunately, I think many, if not most, have likewise misunderstood his concepts and definitions.
He is not prescribing, but describing, what the structure of people’s world views are.
Also, you, like many others, and, like the Neo-con word-smiths wanted you to, have confounded “permissive” with “nurturant”. Permissive is a different system than Nurturant. You claim that strict is what offers explainations and consequences — and that’s exactly wrong. Strict Father offers punishment not consequences, and authority not explanations. Nurturant parent offers REASONS for orders rather than “because I said so”. There is still discipline in the Nurturant system, it’s just based on reality rather than authority.

By: Paul Wilczynski

Paul Wilczynski — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:49:39 +0000

I don’t think Lakoff ’s says that liberals are all in favor of the “nurturant parent” model. Except for people who have actually read the book, people aren’t “in favor” of one model or the other. He’s defining a model or a framework where things aren’t as black and white as his definitions might make people think.

He says there are a lot of exceptions on both sides, but that liberals have a general tendency to display many of the traits of the fuzzy side, and conservatives have a general tendency to display many of the traits of the stern side.

By: fmodo

fmodo — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:05:53 +0000

Well said.
As a RINO married to a true-blue Massachusetts liberal, I often notice liberal benign condescension when my wife does not.

As I noted in this post, I agree with Camille Paglia in thinking many recent theorists have interesting points but in the end are way off the mark when trying to make sociological arguements about voting patterns--and this from a psychiatrist who puts more stock in psychodynamics and the unconscious than most do these days.