Father Figuring
Oct. 17th, 2004 04:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
morgan_dhuAs a Canadian, I have been watching the current American electoral process very closely, for reasons that should be obvious. As former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau once said, in speaking about the Canada-U.S. relationship, “Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.” The elephant is doing a lot more than twitching and grunting these days, and no longer seems all that friendly and even-tempered, so it is, I believe, even more important for the mouse to pay close attention, not just to what the elephant is doing, but to anything that can shed some light on why the elephant is doing it.
In this context, I have lately been hearing a great deal about George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor of cognitive linguistics who has made a considerable study of the language of politics. He has been getting a fair amount of media time of late with his discussions of framing in political language. (For anyone who has missed this, here is an interview with Lakoff that discusses framing.)
Lakoff has also theorised that much political thought in the United States is influenced by the “Nation as Family” metaphor, in which both liberals and conservatives see the nation as a family, with the government as the parent and the citizens as children. One of the results of thinking about politics within this metaphorical framework is that personal and family values, goals and morality are mapped onto the policies and actions of the state.
Lakoff observes that, while both liberals and conservatives use this metaphor, they rely on two different models of the family, which he calls the strict father model and the nurturant parent model; therefore, the two main political constituencies in the U.S. see the nation as two very different kinds of families – which in turn means that they have different expectations of the policies and actions of their governments.
Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.
The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline — physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.
So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones — those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant — and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.
Full article here.
This leads me to the recently published book Fire and Ice: The United States, Canada and the Myth of Converging Values. by Michael Adams.
This book was written by the founder of the Canadian public opinion polling firm I work for, and is based on research we and our research partners in other countries have been conducting for more than a decade into the predominant social values in a number of countries, including Canada and the United States. I’m not shilling the book here, I honestly think the research is of some importance to an understanding of a number of social trends in both Canada and the U.S.
Adams argues, based on more than a decade of research into social values in the United States, that there is a growing trend towards an acceptance of both traditional patriarchal authority and hierarchical social structures in the United States today.
One of the most striking items we have been tracking during the past decade addresses Americans’ orientation to traditional patriarchal authority. In 1992, 1996 and 2000, we asked Americans to strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the statement, “The father of the family must be master in his own house.”
In 1992, 42 percent of Americans agreed (either strongly or somewhat) with this statement. The number seemed high at the time (1992 wasn’t so very long ago), but we hadn’t, as they say, seen nothing yet. Support for the Father-knows-best credo was actually on the rise. In 1996, 44 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, and in 2000, a full 49 percent of our sample – almost half the population – agreed that Dad should be boss; this is in spite of the frontal assault on patriarchal authority waged by Homer Simpson and Bill Clinton during the 1990s.
This growing acceptance of traditional patriarchal authority is truly remarkable – and seriously divergent with the patterns in other advanced industrial nations. But it is not only patriarchal authority that is enjoying increased acceptance among many Americans. When we asked Americans in 1996 whether it was better for one leader to make decisions in a group or whether leadership should be more fluid, 31 percent agreed with the more hierarchical position that a single leader should call the shots. In 2000, the proportion agreeing with the hierarchical model had shot up seven points to 38 percent. These Americans were becoming more and more willing to fall in line and do what the boss tells them to do, and this was before their president and commander-in-chief began to rally them for a post-9/11 war on terrorism.
Here, then, is the link between Lakoff and Adams – Lakoff suggests that conservatives in America see the nation/family in terms of a strict father who disciplines his citizen/children into his model of self-reliant individualism, and punishes those who fail to achieve this goal, and Adams presents evidence supporting the view that an increasing number of Americans find the “strict father” family model to be comfortable – and perhaps even comforting. I do not argue a causal link here – it is impossible to say, given the available data, if the observed increase in the acceptance of patriarchy and hierarchy is supporting a move toward the political right in America, or is merely documenting shifts in social values resulting from an overall trend to the right that is also reflected in political ideology and policy.
However, if both the theory and the research do in fact reflect the reality of American politics and society, then the current rightist administration under Bush may not be an aberration, but a real reflection of where American society, and the United States as a sovereign entity, is headed. And if this is so, then it may also suggest that those in the U.S. seeking to counter this trend may need to focus on not only on political action, but also on social movements such as the feminist movement to influence the values that may well be feeding the march to the right.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 03:21 pm (UTC)What sort of reforms are we talking about here? Abolish the monarchy? Change the Senate to be more like ours? Compulsory voting? Multi member electorates?
It seemed to me that Canadian government was more devolved that the US or Australia - more was done at lower levels.
We are at the moment even more obsessed with the U.S. than usual - for obvious reasons, at least in my opinion - and are torn between the need to find effective ways of dealing with our very large and militarily powerful neighbour and largest trading power, while at the same time feeling more and more that we want to be quite distinct from the U.S.
The whole world is probably more concerned with the US than usual. Here, the events of 9/11 have drawn us much closer to the US, and concerns about cultural imperialism have abated.
Internationally, we want to believe in the image of Canada as a peacekeeping and humanitarian nation that is the legacy of Lester Pearson, while not wanting to spend a dime on providing the military and international service infrastructures to carry out the work that has to underlie that image.
While we may not be quite so stingy as Canada, we don't have nearly the resources, so this sort of cancels out. But I think that the Canada-philes are misreading the situation when they equate Canada's desire to be a peacekeeping nation with our "deputy sheriff" <<insert cringe here>>.
Here's the Party Line:
Canada is a valued partner
Canada is an established partner for Australia. As one of the world's major industrialised nations, Canada is a member of several significant forums that affect Australian national interests. These include the group of the world's seven largest economies and Russia, and the group of four leading members of the WTO. Australia and Canada share underlying interests in many areas, particularly trade liberalisation, disarmament and UN reform. The Government will use regular official dialogue with Canada to develop further our cooperation in international forums. The Government initiated the Canada-Australia Dialogue in 2002 to expand cooperation on a range of public policy issues.Canada continues to be a valued partner for defence and intelligence exchanges and consular services. Canada's importance as an export market has also grown in recent years. Our goods and services exports were worth about $2.3 billion in 2001. Australian firms have invested some $3 billion in Canada's mining and transport sectors. The Government will continue to work with Australian exporters to identify new opportunities in Canada.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-30 10:50 pm (UTC)You asked:
What sort of reforms are we talking about here? Abolish the monarchy? Change the Senate to be more like ours? Compulsory voting? Multi member electorates?
Some people have been talking about abolishing the monarchy for a long time, but it's very much a minority. We'll see what happens when the next generation takes the throne. Senate change is much higher on the discussion list - ours is, as you probably know, appointed. There's a very strong move in the west for an elected Senate, and I think the idea is spreading. Whether it will happen, I can't say at this point, but it's on the discussion agenda. There is a good deal of discussion about changing the electoral system from first-past-the-post to some other form, possibly the preferential reassignment type that I believe is in use in Australia, or some form of proportional representation. It's in the early stages, but the new Prime Minister made a big deal about his desire to revitalise Canadian democracy, and he seems to have sparked a number of debates on a variety of issues by his comments.
I wouldn't necessarily say that Canadian government is more devolved, at least not as a matter of political principle. In fact, we started out by saying that anything not specifically stated to be under provincial jurisdiction was to come under the federal authority. But we have evolved a system in which the federal government has to broker deals among the provinces on a wide variety of issues, both federal and provincial in nature, because of the huge importance of equalisation payments in our country. The various provinces have widely disparate economic wealth, and so the federal government redistributes wealth via transfer payments. Naturally, the richer provinces are not always pleased about the idea of sharing their wealth with the poorer provinces - and often, when poorer provinces become rich, as has happened with Alberta, and may soon happen with Newfoundland, they don't want to see their transfer payments diminish and their monies being used to support programs in other provinces.
Because the federal government, in essence, takes most of the revenues and then gives them back under a formula that is theoretically designed to give all Canadians in all regions relatively equal access to services, this gives the federal government a lot of power over provincial areas of jurisdiction; at the same time, the constant negotiations over both transfer payments and the mechanisms of administering "equivalent" services in areas which are vastly different - physically, demographically, culturally and politically - give the provinces more influence than one would expect over areas of federal jurisdiction.
I'm afraid, though, that I don't know enough to accurately compare Canada's system to that of similar federated states, but it's always been my impression that within the U.S., the states are more independent than are our provinces.
The whole world is probably more concerned with the US than usual. Here, the events of 9/11 have drawn us much closer to the US, and concerns about cultural imperialism have abated.
It's probably the mouse sleeping with the elephant thing, but we've become further from the U.S., and more concerned about cultural imperialism. Also, we are not militarily involved in Iraq, and at the same time, the U.S. has taken actions in several issues having to do with everything from trade protectionism and tariffs to changes in border regulations that may or may not be related to our lack of involvement, but have been seen by some as payback. We have a number of very unique concerns that result from out geographical proximity, and our deeply entwined mutual trade patterns.
But I think that the Canada-philes are misreading the situation when they equate Canada's desire to be a peacekeeping nation with our "deputy sheriff" <>.
I didn't really understand what you meant here. Could you clarify for me?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-31 03:18 am (UTC)This pretty much sums up the situation in Australia, except that the constitution lists the powers of the Federal Government. The Federal government collects most of the revenue through its constitutional monopoly on excise and sales taxes and its acquired (since 1942) one on income tax. The Commonwealth Grants Commission hands the money over to the states based upon some complex formulae on (as the Constitution says) "such terms and conditions as it may see fit".
But "physically, demographically, culturally and politically" the states are not as different from each other as the Canadian provinces and as a result there is a general dislike of anything that differs from state to state.
I didn't really understand what you meant here. Could you clarify for me?
The war in East Timor led to a policy of more direct involvement in the affairs of our neighbours. The stated policy is now that they have to keep everything under control or we will move in and do it for them. As a result, Australian troops are currently active in East Timor, Papua-New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.
The Prime Minister referred to Australia's new role in the region as that of the "Deputy Sheriff". And, true to this concept, Australia has joined the US in Afghanistan and Iraq - not to curry favour with the US but in line with our own peculiar world view.
So when Canada says it wants an expanded peacekeeping role and more say in world affairs, the response of Australia is enthusiastic support for the idea of Canada fighting bad guys in our region. When Canada calls for action in the Sudan, the response is: "You're putting a posse together? Count us in mate!"
I believe that this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Canada.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-31 01:29 pm (UTC)When Canadians talk about peace-keeping, we tend to see it very specifically as part of a U.N. sponsored action that has wide international backing.
From some of the limited reading I've done on Australian history, and culture, I have gained the impression that, like the U.S. in some ways, Australia has incorporated something of a "bringing law to the wild frontier" trope into its political and cultural bag of metaphors.
As a nation, we don't have this. (It exists in pockets, such as parts of Alberta and the Yukon, but it's not a national metaphor.) The public image of peacekeeping in Canada (I can't speak to the image of peacekeeping within the military community in Canada, as I know very little about that) is more that of sending in a bunch of polite and diplomatic but brave and resourceful policemen to separate the warring parties, care for anyone who got hurt, and get then to sit down and talk. No sheriffs, no posses.
One of our more cherished national myths is the one about half the U.S. army chasing the embattled Plains Nations north to the border, and then watching in amazement as two lone RCMP offices negotiate a peaceful entry of the fugitive Nations into Canada. (And of course, we never talk about how we betrayed those Nations after they arrived.) That's the essence of the Canadian image of a peacekeeper.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-01 11:17 pm (UTC)This was a major and important difference over Iraq between the US and Australia - the issue of UN support. Polls here showed the public divided about whether they would support the operation without UN support. Feeling on the issue was different from in the US, because the smaller group in favour of the operation supported it with or without the UN, rather than explicitly without the UN, as was the case there. Taken together though, the two added up to the largest majority in favour of any participating country.
We went into the First Gulf War without UN backing and then - probably the real watershed - into East Timor without UN support either. Since Canada participated in both operations in a small way, the assumption here was that Canada has also given up on waiting for the UN.
Australians don't have a concept of bringing law to the wild frontier. As the explorers moved past the Great Dividing Range into the interior, they found not the Great Plains but... a desert. Our character became more cynical.
The dominant concept in strategic thinking has been our isolation as an English-speaking country far from Europe and North America with distant, densely populated, culturally and racially different neighbours. So there is a conflict between our history and our geography.
The threat of invasion from these places dominated - and continues to dominate - defence planning and geopolitical thinking. We do, after all, have the world's largest Muslim nation on our doorstep.
This is really not so different from the US; during the 19th Century America built elaborate coastal fortifications to repel European invaders. However the fact that the perceived threat is so racially and culturally different imparted more urgency.