This book Fire and Ice sounds very interesting. It may well be a best-seller in Canada but I've never seen a copy either here or in the US and I doubt if it is available here
I believe it is available in the U.S., because there have been American reviews and some Americans of my Internet acquaintance have mentioned reading it. You’re probably correct in that it’s unlikely to be available in Australia.
The idea that Canada and the United States are diverging is an intriguing one. Determining what direction a country as diverse and fragmented as Canada is moving in (aside from apart) would be a daunting challenge.
Obviously, the social values analysis goes beyond the national level and looks at regional trends, in both Canada and the U.S. For instance, on the patriarchy item discussed above, the Canadian numbers in the six regions we look at range from 15 percent agreeing in Quebec to 21 percent agreeing in the Prairies, while in the U.S., the numbers range from 29 percent agreeing in New England to 71 percent agreeing in the Deep South. Looking at either country, one can find similar regional spreads on all 300-odd items that we track in this research.
With respect to Canada (where we have been tracking these trends for a longer period of time), while it is true that not all regions are moving at the same speed on all trends, overall, they are in fact moving in the same overall directions. We may have a number of political problems to solve at the moment, but there is not as much fragmentation at the social values level as one might think.
That a group with a leader is more capable than one without, even if the leader is incompetent, is pretty basic and I would place the dissenters in a bucket with the folks who are uncertain as to whether the world is round.
I think it really all depends on what kind of group it is and what it’s doing. I’ve been in a number of groups that functioned well without leaders. However, the particular item tracked above does not ask people to chose between a single leader and no leader, but between a single leader and a fluid approach to leadership – if you and I are part of a group that has several things to do, and I know more about doing X while you know more about doing Y, then it might be appropriate for you to take charge when we work on Y and for me to take charge when we work on X. Or if you have excellent people skills while I’m good at logistics, we might make a good set of co-coordinators. That’s what we mean by fluid leadership in that particular tracking item. And besides, the earth isn’t round – it’s squashed very slightly at the middle. ;-)
The part on family sits oddly, as George W. Bush has a nurturative rather than conservative outlook on family. Moreover, the "conservative" translation of that into government is not what we are seeing at the present time at all! In fact, it seems more like the "Nanny State" running rampant.
I’m certainly not an expert on American culture – I’ve never lived there, and though I’ve visited frequently, I don’t think that really gives one a “feel” for the culture. So I really don’t know if Lakoff’s model is a more-or-less accurate reflection of what is happening politically or not. But based on what I see peeking down from the north, I would not call Bush and his administration nurturant – toward the family or toward the state. In his approach to taxation and funding social programs, he seems to be clearly in line with Lakoff’s description – the rich are the good children, who should be allowed to do whatever they want with as little interference as possible, while a disciplinary or punitive approach of cutting funding is applied to those who don’t make the grade.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘Nanny State,’ but if you mean to suggest that most people in the U.S. are being coddled or are receiving more benefits than they need from the state, that doesn’t fit in with what I’m reading and hearing. Would you care to expand on your thoughts on this point?
no subject
I believe it is available in the U.S., because there have been American reviews and some Americans of my Internet acquaintance have mentioned reading it. You’re probably correct in that it’s unlikely to be available in Australia.
The idea that Canada and the United States are diverging is an intriguing one. Determining what direction a country as diverse and fragmented as Canada is moving in (aside from apart) would be a daunting challenge.
Obviously, the social values analysis goes beyond the national level and looks at regional trends, in both Canada and the U.S. For instance, on the patriarchy item discussed above, the Canadian numbers in the six regions we look at range from 15 percent agreeing in Quebec to 21 percent agreeing in the Prairies, while in the U.S., the numbers range from 29 percent agreeing in New England to 71 percent agreeing in the Deep South. Looking at either country, one can find similar regional spreads on all 300-odd items that we track in this research.
With respect to Canada (where we have been tracking these trends for a longer period of time), while it is true that not all regions are moving at the same speed on all trends, overall, they are in fact moving in the same overall directions. We may have a number of political problems to solve at the moment, but there is not as much fragmentation at the social values level as one might think.
That a group with a leader is more capable than one without, even if the leader is incompetent, is pretty basic and I would place the dissenters in a bucket with the folks who are uncertain as to whether the world is round.
I think it really all depends on what kind of group it is and what it’s doing. I’ve been in a number of groups that functioned well without leaders. However, the particular item tracked above does not ask people to chose between a single leader and no leader, but between a single leader and a fluid approach to leadership – if you and I are part of a group that has several things to do, and I know more about doing X while you know more about doing Y, then it might be appropriate for you to take charge when we work on Y and for me to take charge when we work on X. Or if you have excellent people skills while I’m good at logistics, we might make a good set of co-coordinators. That’s what we mean by fluid leadership in that particular tracking item. And besides, the earth isn’t round – it’s squashed very slightly at the middle. ;-)
The part on family sits oddly, as George W. Bush has a nurturative rather than conservative outlook on family. Moreover, the "conservative" translation of that into government is not what we are seeing at the present time at all! In fact, it seems more like the "Nanny State" running rampant.
I’m certainly not an expert on American culture – I’ve never lived there, and though I’ve visited frequently, I don’t think that really gives one a “feel” for the culture. So I really don’t know if Lakoff’s model is a more-or-less accurate reflection of what is happening politically or not. But based on what I see peeking down from the north, I would not call Bush and his administration nurturant – toward the family or toward the state. In his approach to taxation and funding social programs, he seems to be clearly in line with Lakoff’s description – the rich are the good children, who should be allowed to do whatever they want with as little interference as possible, while a disciplinary or punitive approach of cutting funding is applied to those who don’t make the grade.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘Nanny State,’ but if you mean to suggest that most people in the U.S. are being coddled or are receiving more benefits than they need from the state, that doesn’t fit in with what I’m reading and hearing. Would you care to expand on your thoughts on this point?