Both conservatives and liberals should listen
to questions better
|
Newsroom • Write a Letter to the Editor
Related news from the Web Find it online at Topix.net. |
By
published:
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
- Presidential adviser Karl Rove (speech to the New York Conservative Party, June 22)
It seems Rove started something with this description of the difference between conservatives and liberals. Thoughtful and passionate commentaries about conservative and liberal thinking have been popular in this paper throughout the summer - from both nationally syndicated and local columnists.
But I am concerned about the tone and the effects of this debate. The discussion is dominated by both sides trying to score political points by arguing their position and citing the contradictions in the other's position.
What does this say about Americans? What does this say about American politics?
George Lakoff explored these questions, when he wrote "Moral Politics: How Conservatives and Liberals Think." In this book he describes and analyzes why thoughtful, well-meaning people can look at the same situation and come to opposite conclusions about why things are the way they are, and what should be done to make them better.
As a cognitive linguist, Lakoff studies the relationship between how people think and the words they use. He claims that our metaphors reveal our morality and our worldviews.
Concerning political worldviews, he explains that conservatives better understand the fundamental metaphor of American politics - the nation is a family, with government as parent and provider.
Lakoff's first point is that both conservative and liberal positions are fraught with contradictions. Therefore, it matters little that one side can identify the contradictions in the other side. Lakoff says that liberals do this more, as they take an issue-by-issue approach to politics. He also says that liberals lose sorely every time - the Al Gore presidential campaign being a good example. According to him, Americans are attached to their metaphors more than they are to issues.
His second point is that the conservative metaphor for family is a Strict Father model, and the liberal metaphor is a Nurturant Parent model. The main point of his book is that these differing family metaphors explain all the conservative positions and all the liberal positions - including the contradictions. The two parts of the Rove quote, above, reflect these two models.
As Rove said, the conservatives sought to punish the terrorists and wage war against their immoral actions. This thinking follows directly from the Strict Father family metaphor, which assumes that the child needs to be punished when it does wrong and rewarded when it does right. And both right and wrong are defined by traditional Christian morality.
On the other hand, the Nurturant Parent metaphor for family assumes that the child needs to learn self-discipline and self-reliance, which are be fostered in a nurturing environment that includes parental support, protection, courage, strength, love, respect, communication, questioning and listening.
According to Lakoff, "We have two different forms of family-based morality." These two metaphors for family explain a lot about the distinctly different worldviews of conservatives and liberals. I recommend this book to those interested in "how liberals and conservatives think."
I suspect, however, that conservatives will not like it because, at the end, Lakoff confesses his liberalism and argues that the Nurturant Parent model contributes to more well being than the Strict Father model. I believe conservatives would disagree with both Lakoff's descriptions of the detrimental effects of the Strict Father model and the benefits of the Nurturant Parent model.
Conservatives would also argue that the Sept. 11, 2001, situation mentioned by Rove exemplifies why a worldview based on the Strict Father model is necessary. And, finally, conservatives would argue that Lakoff does exactly what he accuses them of doing - demonizing those who see the world differently.
Consequently, although this book tries to go to the heart of the matter, it moves us no closer to a healthier, more enlightened political discourse. Reactions to this book are simply another situation in which our understandings are related more to our worldview than to the reasoned arguments in the book.
I believe Lakoff's book fails because he examines the same thing that the writers in this paper have examined throughout the summer. They all discuss the positions taken by conservatives and liberals - their metaphors, their stances on taxation, national defense, spending, etc. These differences may be interesting, and they make good topics for debate. They are not, however, what we should focus on if we want to improve understanding and political discourse.
Instead, we should keep an ear cocked for the questions that are asked. The best way to understand the difference between how conservatives and liberals think is to consider the questions they ask.
As an educator I value questions more than answers because questions point the way and pave the way toward understanding.
When teachers explore the terrain of their students' thinking, in search of riches, they often plead with them for that beautiful thing called a question. Just as a student question leads a teacher to the vein of gold, so too, does a question posed by the conservative or liberal point the way toward understanding and improved political discourse.
Instead of saying we are attached to our metaphors, as Lakoff does, I say we are attached to our questions. And just as metaphors emerge from our unconscious and reveal much about our thinking, so do questions.
And questions have a neutrality about them that positions and metaphors do not. Questions are neither good nor bad. They are neither morally right nor wrong. They don't threaten anybody's worldview. They are just questions. And, as the saying goes, "There is no harm in asking."
So, as we all think about the differences between conservatives and liberals, pay attention to the questions each asks more than the positions they take. Their questions reflect what they want to know.
I am not talking just about the questions that are verbally asked, although they need to be part of our political discourse, along with the common courtesy to listen to another person's response. Neil Postman wrote, "All the answers we ever get are responses to questions. Questions may not be evident to us, especially in everyday affairs, but they are nonetheless doing their work."
In conclusion, I would be remiss if I did not mention that the letter, "Terrorism dependent on the eye of the beholder," started me thinking about the role of questions in our public discourse. That July 29 letter to the editor posed three questions, making it one of the shortest, but most thoughtful letters this summer.
What about the rest of us? Can we listen carefully while the other side asks its questions? Do we want to know what they do?
Are there questions the other side does not want to ask? How will we know? Are we listening? Are they listening?