Bloggers such as Body and Soul, Melanie at KOS, Cal Pundit , and Digby have written about George Lakoff recently. They have been critical of his Nurturant Parent/Strict Father metaphor theory. However, they misunderstand a fundamental distinction. The distinction is between a descriptive theory and prescriptions for rhetorical discourse. It is important to distinguish between cases when Lakoff has his scientist's hat on and when he has his liberal partisan's hat on. These bloggers would do well to read Lakoff's book, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, before being so quick to criticize an important contribution both to science and the liberal cause.

In the introduction of his book Lakoff writes.

"Contemporary American politics is about worldview. Conservatives simply see the world differently than do liberals, and both often have a difficult time understand accurately what the other's worldview is. As a student of the mind and of language, I think we can make much better sense than has been made of the worldviews and forms of discourse of conservatives and liberals."

He is describing the world views of liberals and conservatives. This is not a partisan endeavor. It is an attempt at a scientific account of the psychology behind liberals' and conservatives' worldviews or ways of seeing. Lakoff has generated a theory about this, the nurturing parent/strict father theory, and he is now making use of the understanding it provides for partisan purposes at the Rockridge Institute. The labels "nurturant parent" and "strict father" aren't intended for partisan rhetorical speech. They are categories in an objective scientific theory. Nurturant Parent/Strict Father is a theory about how framing works, it is not an attempt at framing itself. The difference here is like the difference between a tool and its uses. Nurturant Parent/Strict Father framework is a hammer, not a nail.

Having made that distinction clear let me address individual comments from Digby. Digby writes, "It’s not that he’s wrong in his analysis, it’s that he’s used the wrong terms to frame it." It's not important to use framing for a descriptive scientific theory. Lakoff isn't using the terms of the theory as rhetorical tools, he suggests using the understanding that the theory provides to develop new frames of political issues. Digby further writes, "I don’t think it’s a very good frame to begin with because it isn’t honest. Let’s not pretend that the real frame isn’t "strict father" vs "nurturant mother." The frame doesn't really make sense otherwise." Again this isn't intended to be a frame. Nurturant parent and Strict father are labels for categories in a theory. Moreover, parent is a more accurate description because both mothers and fathers can be nurturing parents. One might say mother's could be strict, but this doesn't fit in the conservative world view as well as a strict father does. Lakoff's descriptions aren't attempts to be politically correct or to frame, but to accurately describe worldviews.

Jeanne D'Arc has similar misunderstandings of Lakoff's theory. She writes, "Let me explain. Part of Digby's criticism is that the frame is dishonest; it sets up a dichotomy -- father and mother -- but doesn't carry through. I agree. Lakoff is trying to use a gender metaphor that the Republicans created, but he's afraid to go there." Again, let me emphasize that Nurturant parent and strict father aren't frames. They are labels for categories in a theory. Lakoff doesn't intend them for rhetorical discourse. The same point applies to comments such as this, "The second part of the criticism is more disturbing though -- if you set up a frame that has clear gender implications, leaving Democrats with the feminine role, Democrats lose, because, fair or not, most Americans still don't think of women as leaders." Republicans would be smart to use this as a frame, but Lakoff doesn't intend it to be a frame and Democrats shouldn't use it as one. Those who would use it as a frame, haven't learned the lessons taught by Lakoff's book. Finally, Jeanne writes, "It occurred to me, though, that we can't entirely take gender out of the picture." This seems a very sensible thing to do, and Lakoff would most likely agree.

Cal Pundit has written that he agrees with Digby and furthermore disagrees with Lakoff as to which values are most important for liberals. He then lists a mixed bag of liberal and conservative values. This is evidence that Calpundit is less liberal than many of his readers, which he readily acknowledges, and this is further evidence that Lakoff's categorization is accurate. Just as an aside, Calpundit lists "Group Identity - Us vs. Them." as a value. This sounds like Dubya. "Your either with us or against us." This appeals to conservatives. Whose side are you on anyway Kevin?