The “…noted linguist reflects on his tumultuous foray into politics… For years he’s been at the center of some of the biggest intellectual disagreements in linguistics (most famously with Noam Chomsky) and has helped create an important interdisciplinary field of study,
cognitive linguistics, that is reshaping our understanding of the complex relationship between language and thought. More recently he has been vying for respect among people notoriously hard to persuade about anything — politicians and their financial backers.”
(The Chronicle of Higher Education)
Could this be the presidential campaign in which the Democrats finally take his work seriously enough to make the difference I believe it should and could?
“It is the political ramifications of
Lakoff‘s theory that preoccupy him these days. An unabashed liberal (he insists on the label “progressive”), he says that Republicans have been quick to realize that the way people think calls for placing emotional and moral appeals at the center of campaign strategy. (He suspects that they gleaned their knowledge from marketing, where some of the most innovative work on the science of persuasion is taking place.) Democrats, Lakoff bemoans, have persisted in an old-fashioned assumption that facts, figures, and detailed policy prescriptions win elections. Small wonder that in recent years the cognitive linguist has emerged as one of the most prominent figures demanding that Democrats take heed of the cognitive sciences and abandon their faith in voters’ capacity to reason.”
The essay runs down a number of influential objections to Lakoff’s position from both hte political and academic domains. The political objections strike me as pitiful efforts to cling to the outmoded paradigm that it is the message, not the medium, that matters. Some of the academics say that Lakoff’s appeal is based on the new neuroenthuiasm. Put neuro- in front of anything and it seems novel and exciting. This is a more credible objection, I feel (as one who can often be seen as a neuroenthisiast myself). Much of what Lakoff wants to convey would do as well without the trappings of neurocognitive science. It is about the power of metaphor, essentially, certainly an old concern. But, perhaps, in terms of grappling with its appeal, shouldn’t we understand that the medium is the message as well?
