Lackoff Precis

"How We Talk About the Environment Has Everything to Do with Whether We'll Save It: By George Lackoff."

Or does it? PRECIS

Lackoff's basic argument is that one's understanding of facts and figures translates through cognitive internalization into moral significance and that the values reflected by this internalization are contingent on the deliverance of that knowledge. That is to say, the way we use language and words determines the way our brains will produce an ethical understanding of certain facts, namely the current and dire environmental situation. By using the technical term for "understanding," Lackoff mobilizes the logic of "framing" to argue the importance of language as the mechanism for which we will realize a sense of reality and in turn, enact policy change.

"Framing," according to Lackoff, frames are organized into frame systems and work in terms of circuitry. These frames are further "organized in terms of values" and through reason, we "reflect our values." Lackoff claims that there are two opposing, but deeply ingrained, "value-based systems operating in our politics," and in particular, "the conservative framing system is actually at odds with a realistic understanding of the environmental problems facing us." Thus, given the unconscious power of developed framing systems, overcoming this will be daunting and the right language mandatory.

The argument seems to suggest mostly honesty, truth, and objectivity, but that our current understanding of "facts and findings", or rather the denial thereof, is not reflecting this reality. This is due to years of media manipulation and millions of dollars, dictates Lackoff.

The warrant in this piece appears to be that its widely accepted that the public believes a lie, more or less. That is to say, that the epiphany of the truth will suddenly result in instant action and change. However, Lackoff doesn't address the notion that bad habits are hard to quit. Even a lifelong smoker who nearly lost his life and is now breathing out of his throat will be known to continue to smoke. There is no doubt that he has internalized and understood the danger of smoking, but it doesn't change his actions. Many of those practices which have brought us to our current environmental crisis are matters of comfort and convenience, not out of an intentional malice towards the ozone layer. We enjoy those luxuries of driving our own car over a crowded sweaty bus, or the tantalizing juices of a perfectly cooked steak. When we're driving to work or eating a cheeseburger we're not actively thinking, gee I'm really sticking it to those global warming fanatics. No, its years of habit and compliance. So when Lackoff claims that "the future of our earth and every living being depends on it," he's not just talking about "understanding," he's talking about actions and changing our current actions. Lackoff's argument assumes that once we "know" honestly and objectively what is best for us, we'll just do it. The truth is, we do lots of things that we know are bad for us and neglect those things which we know are good for us. The rising rate of obesity in America or headlines reading "Cancer Risks Jump 75% if Ultraviolet Radiation Device used before 30" hasn't stopped McDonalds from selling 640 million cheeseburgers a day or bronzed obsessed youth from flocking the tanning beds. The real problem Lackoff faces, is getting from understanding to caring. It's not enough to just know the truth, you have to make people really care to see change.