Two conceptual models of morality

Conservatives have a Strict Father morality,

where people are made good through

self-discipline and hard work

Liberals have a Nurturant Parent morality

which sees people as something

to be cared for and assisted

There is one cluster of beliefs

that most conservatives share

Including some kind of condemnation of abortion,

a positive emphasis on military spending,

and a fixed-percentage income tax

And another cluster that most liberals share

Including some kind of support for abortion,

a negative emphasis on military spending,

and a progressive income tax

Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think is a 1996 book by cognitive linguist George Lakoff.

It argues that conservatives and liberals hold two different conceptual models of morality.

Conservatives have a Strict Father morality in which people are made good through self-discipline and hard work.

Liberals have a Nurturant Parent morality which sees people as something to be cared for and assisted.

Lakoff attempts to use the techniques of cognitive linguistics to better understand the mental frameworks that lie behind contemporary American politics.

The book is an objective study of the conceptual metaphors underlying conservative and liberal politics although the closing section is devoted to the author's personal views.

Lakoff makes it clear however, that there is no such thing as an objective study of politics, as politics is based in subjective morality.

The major observations/assumptions and questions on which the book is founded include these:

1. There is one cluster of beliefs that most conservatives share (including some kind of condemnation of abortion, a positive emphasis on military spending, and a fixed-percentage income tax).

And another cluster that most liberals share (including some kind of support for abortion, a negative emphasis on military spending, and a progressive income tax).

What is the explanation for this clustering? What "unifies each of the lists of moral priorities?" , such "mix and match" views seem comparatively rare. How come?

2. Liberals and conservatives usually not only disagree with one another but view the "other side" as largely incoherent.

Many liberals, for example, see building more prisons a completely ineffective and illogical solution to crime, while many conservatives view it as the obvious solution. Why can't the one side even begin to understand the other?

3. Why do liberals and conservatives tend to use the same words to mean different things?

For example, a liberal might use the term "big government" to condemn the military, but, to a conservative, the term "big government" has nothing to do with the military, even though the military is a significant government institution.

4. Why do liberals and conservatives make different issues the focus of campaigns?

For example, why did the Republican leaders emphasize "family values" so much in their 1994 campaign, and why was similar emphasis not made by Democrats? Don't liberals also have families and a moral framework for reasoning about families?

The proposed solution: a metaphorical model

Lakoff tries to resolve these difficulties through a model in which liberals and conservatives have different and contradictory worldviews.

These worldviews are thought to conflict in a number of ways relevant to the understanding of politics.

Nonetheless, Lakoff claims that all these differences center around the two sides' respective understandings of the ideal nuclear family.

The family is central to Lakoff because he views it as our most common ways of understanding the country.

Americans often metaphorically understand their country as a family, the government corresponding to the parent(s) of the family and the individual citizens corresponding to the children.

Thus, one's understanding of how a family should be will have direct implications for how the country should be.

Liberals' ideal conceptualization is in terms of the "nurturant parent" family, while Conservatives' is in terms of the "strict father" family.

Given the importance of these concepts in Moral Politics, it is important to consider what they mean, along with how each suggests and is justified by a corresponding way of viewing the natures of child rearing, morality, and justice.

A "nurturant parent" family is one that revolves around every family member caring for and being cared for by every other family member, around open communication between all parties, and around everyone pursuing their own vision of happiness. It is also correlated with the following views:

* Morality: The basis of morality is in understanding, respecting, and helping other people, and in seeking the happiness of one's self and of others. The primary vices are selfishness and anti-social behavior.

* Child development: Children develop morality primarily through interacting with and observing good people, especially good parents. Punishment is necessary in some cases, but also has the potential to backfire, causing children to adopt more violent or more anti-social ways.

Though children should, in general, obey their parents, they will develop best if allowed to question their parents' decisions, to hear justifications for their parents' rules, etc..

Moral development is a life-long process, and almost no one is so perfect as not to need improvement.

* Justice: The world is not without justice, but it is far from the ideal of justice. Many people, for example, do not seem properly rewarded for their hard work and dedication. We must work hard to improve everyone's condition.

A "strict father" family revolves around the parents teaching their children how to be self-reliant and self-disciplined through "tough love". This is correlated with the following views:

* Morality: Evil is all around us, constantly tempting us. Thus, the basis of morality is strong moral character, which requires self-reliance and self-discipline.

The primary vices are those that dissolve self-discipline, such as laziness, gluttony, and indulgent sexuality.

* Child development: Children develop self-discipline, self-reliance, and other virtues primarily through rewards and punishment, a system of "tough love".

Since parents know the difference between right and wrong and children still do not, obedience to the parents is very important.

Moral development basically lasts only as long as childhood; it's important to get it right the first time, because there is no "second chance".

* Justice: The world may be a difficult place to live, but it is basically just; people usually get what they deserve.

The difficulties in one's life serve as a test to sort the deserving from the undeserving.

Let's consider how this model can be used to answer the central questions framed above.

As for why we have liberals and conservatives, as opposed to a bunch of issue-by-issue voters, Lakoff claims that one's take on any given political issue is largely determined by which model one adopts.

He tries to demonstrate how the liberal and conservative worldviews outlined above lead to typical liberal and conservative positions on a wide range of issues, including taxes, the death penalty, environmental regulations, affirmative action, education, and abortion.

As to why liberals and conservatives view each other's as incomprehensible on an issue-by-issue basis, Lakoff claims the trouble lies in each side not grasping the other side's worldview, and how different it is from its own.

Failure to do so results in both sides thinking the other is hopelessly irrational and immoral; an obviously unfortunate state of affairs.

As to why liberals and conservatives use different vocabulary, even to the point of using the same words to mean different things, Lakoff would again point to his model.

Liberals and conservatives have different worldviews, and words are very much influenced by the worldview of the speaker. As Lakoff puts it,

"Words don't have meanings in isolation. Words are defined relative to a conceptual system. If liberals are to understand how conservatives use their words, they will have to understand the conservative conceptual system."

Here, he is talking about liberals having trouble understanding conservatives, but Lakoff obviously views the reverse situation as equally problematic.

As for why conservatives and liberals make different issues the focus of their campaigns, this, too, stems largely from the model.

The fact that Republicans focus so much on "family values", while the Democrats do not, is quite interesting to Lakoff.

He views this as a sign that conservatives understand the Country is a Family metaphor that lies behind people's views of politics much better than liberals, which has helped them to get ahead politically. Wikipedia