Framing: Thug, Terrorist, Pirate, any Difference?

[coberst]

Framing: Thug, Terrorist, Pirate, any Difference?

 

I have been reading some articles about the problem of introducing to the public an idea about which they are unfamiliar. I think that one problem we have and one that political parties has mastered, as displayed in recent elections, is how to better manipulate public opinion.

 

Data acquires significance only when it is mapped into some kind of pattern. The pattern consists of facts and ideas bundled in a format know as scripts, frames, and schemata. These frames (I will use this label) are data and ideas that are attached to a general idea. An example might be the word ‘relief’. . “Here's the frame: In order to give someone relief, there has to be an affliction and an afflicted party -- somebody who's harmed by this affliction -- and a reliever, somebody who gives relief to the afflicted party or takes away the harm or pain. That reliever is a hero. And if someone tries to stop the person giving relief from doing so, they are a bad guy. They are a villain. They want to keep the affliction ongoing. So when you use only one word, "relief," all of that information is called up. That is a simple conceptual frame.” Quotes from George Lakoff

 

“Then there's metaphorical thought. We all think metaphorically. When you add "tax" to "relief" to give you the term "tax relief," it says that taxation is an affliction. That's a new metaphor. Then, using the metaphor, anyone who gets rid of the taxation -- the affliction -- is a hero, and anybody who tries to stop him is a bad guy.” Quotes from George Lakoff

 

It is psychologically difficult to disturb an established mapping because of habit and it is difficult to start a new mapping because it is difficult to remember a new mapping and it is difficult to recognize the new relationships.

 

We are all subjected to habitual thinking. Information that does not fit into some established frame tends to be easily forgotten. Information that fits well into an established frame will be remembered well.

 

The “War on Terror” is no more. It has been replaced by the “global struggle against violent extremism.”

 

The phrase “War on Terror” was chosen with care. “War” is a crucial term. It evokes a war frame, and with it, the idea that the nation is under military attack – an attack that can only be defended militarily, by use of armies, planes, bombs, and so on. The war frame includes special war powers for the president, who becomes commander in chief. It evokes unquestioned patriotism, and the idea that of lack of support for the war effort is treasonous. It forces Congress to give unlimited powers to the President, lest detractors be called unpatriotic. And the war frame includes an end to the war – winning the war, mission accomplished!

 

The war frame is all-consuming. It takes away focus from other problems, from everyday troubles, from jobs, education, health care, a failing economy. It justifies the spending of huge sums, and sending raw recruits into battle with inadequate equipment. It justifies the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. It justifies torture, military tribunals, and no due process. It justifies scaring people, with yellow, orange, and red alerts. But, while it was politically useful, the war frame never fit the reality of terrorism. It was successful at consolidating power, but counterproductive in dealing with the real threat.

 

Colin Powell had suggested “crime” as the frame to use. It justifies an international hunt for the criminals, allows “police actions” when the military is absolutely required, and places the focus and the funding on where it should go: intelligence, diplomacy, politics, economics, religion, banking, and so on. And it would have kept us militarily strong and in a better position to deal with cases like North Korea and Darfur.

 

But the crime frame comes with no additional power for the president and no way to hide domestic troubles. It comes with trials at the international court, giving that court’s sovereignty over purely American institutions. It couldn’t win in the administration as constituted.

 

The abstract noun, “terror”, names not a nation or even people, but an emotion and the acts that create it. A “war on terror” can only be metaphorical. Terror cannot be destroyed by weapons or signing a peace treaty. A war on terror has no end. The president’s war powers have no end. The need for a Patriot Act has no end.

 

It is important to note the date on which the phrase “war on terror” died and was replaced by “global struggle against violent extremism.” It was right after the London bombing. Using the War frame to think and talk about terrorism was becoming more difficult. The Iraq War was declared won and over, but it became clear that it was far from over and not at all won and that it created many new terrorists for every one it destroyed. The last justification – fighting the war on terror in Iraq so it wouldn’t have to be fought at home — died in the London bombing.

 

We have a similar problem with the use of the word “pirate” when speaking of the bandits taking control of ships and their crews and then demanding ransom from the ship owners. How do we now take the romanticism framed in the word “pirate” from these thugs who are really just common criminals?

[CraigD]

Coberst’s points about the power of framing – choosing ones metaphor – to achieve a political end, such as with “The war on terror”, are, I think, well made. and the consensus view of most political experts and social scientists, much as described by Lakoff.

 

However, sometime popular and political speech uses a term specifically intended to describe a profession or activity. Thus, when Coberst writes

We have a similar problem with the use of the word “pirate” when speaking of the bandits taking control of ships and their crews and then demanding ransom from the ship owners.

I see no problem, as “pirate” has a well-defined popular and legal definition of “one who seizes ships at sea and sells or ransoms them and/or their cargos and crew.” The wikipedia article “piracy” gives, I think, a well-accepted definition:

Piracy is a war-like act committed by a nonstate actor, especially robbery or criminal violence committed at sea, on a river, or sometimes on shore, either from a vessel flying no national flag, or one flying a national flag but without authorization from a national authority.

Incidents such as the recent Maersk Alabama hijacking by Somali pirates fit this description so well it’s difficult for me to imagine a more apt alternate term.

How do we now take the romanticism framed in the word “pirate” from these thugs who are really just common criminals?

I don’t believe many people have difficulty distinguishing real world such as the Alabama hijackers from fictional pirates depicted in book and movies, but rather accept the common description of them as economically impoverished people from a failed state.

 

I’ve been pleasantly surprised at the lack of sensationalization and accuracy of reporting of recent incidents out of Somalia by major the news organizations. They’ve served well, I think, is dispelling misconceptions people previously unfamiliar with Somalian piracy. The subject is a complicated one, difficult to summarize in short news articles, but I think the media has for the most part done well in not descending to pointless name calling or blame laying, while print journalism and various encyclopedic sources such as the above wikipedia link give, for the most part, good and accurate more detailed information.

 

Coberst’s use of the word “thug”, however, is IMHO an example of the ill-chosen name calling I’ve just complemented the mainstream media for avoiding. Specifically, the term “thug”, which is derived from Thuggee, a violent religious cult believe to effectively ceased to exist by the late 19th century, informally refers to robbers who are unusually violent and/or murderous. Although the present-day meaning of the term has come to mean any unusually brutal criminal, in its older use, it referred to a specific kind of crime in which victims are murdered for their possessions, which are kept of sold by the robbers.

 

Somalian pirates, depending as they do on the perception of that ships, cargos, and crews will be returned unharmed in exchange for ransoms, have a reputation for treating their captives well. In nearly all cases, they do not steal and keep or sell the ships and cargos they seize, but return them and their crews after receiving a cash ransom.

 

Likewise, “terrorist” is a poor term for a Somalian pirate. Again taking a definition from a

Terrorism is, most simply, policy intended to intimidate or cause terror. It is more commonly understood as an act which (1) is intended to create fear (terror), (2) is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack) …

As Somalian pirates appear to without exception have materialistic, not idealistic goals, and depend on the belief that if you pay a demanded ransom, you have nothing to fear, the term terrorist appears completely inappropriate for them.

 

The problem of Somalian piracy will not be solved, IMHO, by reframing them as “thugs and common criminals” rather than “pirates”, but by changing socioeconomic conditions in Somalia so that Somalis can make a decent living in pursuits other than actually being pirates or supporting or tolerating pirates. The problem is, in my and the opinions of every reasonable person I’ve heard, due to conditions that prevent Somalis from making their livings legitimately.

[coberst]

 

The problem of Somalian piracy will not be solved, IMHO, by reframing them as “thugs and common criminals” rather than “pirates”, but by changing socioeconomic conditions in Somalia so that Somalis can make a decent living in pursuits other than actually being pirates or supporting or tolerating pirates. The problem is, in my and the opinions of every reasonable person I’ve heard, due to conditions that prevent Somalis from making their livings legitimately.

 

 

 

 

I agree, however, in a form of government wherein the citizen is sovereign one must have a citizenry that comprehends the facts. What we have learned is that the facts are often distorted by the framing of the issue. I suspect that the definition of these terms is not what leads to the comprehension that we seek in the general population. Citizens without Critical Thinking skills are easily manipulated by framing and are seldom moved by undistorted facts.

 

The problem is that few people understand the nature of frames and the force these frames have. When people do not comprehend they are unable to look behind the curtain. Another big problem is how to frame the issue to fit your value system.

 

Another good example of the power of good framing was the success of the conservatives in reframing the inheritance tax into a death tax.

 

People embedded within an ideology have a point of view that to them is universally true and is natural. They do not comprehend that they are using a linguistic frame. Take the pro-life church going individual. To that person the killing of a baby is not a frame but is reality. Likewise the pro-choice individual considers that the only rational way to look at the matter is from the choice view point. Ideologies are powerful because most of the individuals have the truth and the truth is whatever the truth of the ideology is.

[lemit]

To anybody who stumbles upon this thread and takes the time to read it,

 

This thread is very important, since it itself frames very precisely the problem with information and thought that makes us either negotiate peace or go to war.

 

I guess then that it's the difference between life and death. Does that framing get your attention?

 

I have a few questions. How do we make people constantly aware of the linguistic manipulation they face--and create--every day? How do we make people understand that all communication involves a framework that is itself part of the communication? How do we make people understand that manipulation extends beyond the narrow worlds of politics and advertising and is in fact part of all communication, including (intentionally) what I'm trying to communicate right now?

 

How do we make people careful consumers of language?

 

--lemit

[coberst]

To anybody who stumbles upon this thread and takes the time to read it,

 

This thread is very important, since it itself frames very precisely the problem with information and thought that makes us either negotiate peace or go to war.

 

I guess then that it's the difference between life and death. Does that framing get your attention?

 

I have a few questions. How do we make people constantly aware of the linguistic manipulation they face--and create--every day? How do we make people understand that all communication involves a framework that is itself part of the communication? How do we make people understand that manipulation extends beyond the narrow worlds of politics and advertising and is in fact part of all communication, including (intentionally) what I'm trying to communicate right now?

 

How do we make people careful consumers of language?

 

--lemit

 

 

Convince them to study CT (Critical Thinking).

 

A good place to begin is to read:

 

 

Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking

 

 

ABSTRACT: The ideal of critical thinking is a central one in Russell's philosophy, though this is not yet generally recognized in the literature on critical thinking. For Russell, the ideal is embedded in the fabric of philosophy, science, liberalism and rationality, and this paper reconstructs Russell's account, which is scattered throughout numerous papers and books. It appears that he has developed a rich conception, involving a complex set of skills, dispositions and attitudes, which together delineate a virtue which has both intellectual and moral aspects. It is a view which is rooted in Russell's epistemological conviction that knowledge is difficult but not impossible to attain, and in his ethical conviction that freedom and independence in inquiry are vital. Russell's account anticipates many of the insights to be found in the recent critical thinking literature, and his views on critical thinking are of enormous importance in understanding the nature of educational aims. Moreover, it is argued that Russell manages to avoid many of the objections which have been raised against recent accounts. With respect to impartiality, thinking for oneself, the importance of feelings and relational skills, the connection with action, and the problem of generalizability, Russell shows a deep understanding of problems and issues which have been at the forefront of recent debate. 20th WCP: Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking