My study efforts of the past few days have been spent on the Lakoff framing model and related topics. There are several things that have been disturbing me about this model and the way it is being used, some of which I hinted at in the Forum in response to Jason's blog entry on the framing workshop. At http://forum.rockridgeinstitute.org, progressives are trying to use the Lakoff model to produce a comprehensive list of progressive values upon which to base a political platform. I will attempt a preliminary dissection of that last statement, and then I will make some suggestions that might make the model a bit less fuzzy yet at the same time richer. Disclaimer: I will NOT attempt to build the platform; I believe it is clear that the values must be defined and adopted first, then successfully framed into platform planks.

(continued, click "read more" below...)

COMPREHENSIVE

This means the list of values, and therefore the platform that emerges, should satisfy the needs of all six flavors of progressives. The flavors are defined in terms of the issue thought to be central to correcting the errant path this country seems to be traveling. I do not believe this list is exhaustive, nor do I believe the categories are mutually exclusive, but here is their list:

1. Socio-economic Progressives - those who believe that a more equal distribution of resources (money) is primary.
2. Identity Progressives - marginalized groups such as GLBTs, elderly, handicapped, ethnic minorities, etc.
3. Environmentalists - no definition needed.
4. Civil Libertarians - no definition needed.
5. Spiritualists - more definition needed than I can give.
6. Auto-authoritarians - I don't see how these are different from the Civil Libertarians.

LIST OF PROGRESSIVE VALUES

Each flavor of progressive has a favorite subset of Lakoff's list of values for which it claims a position of primacy. The Rockridge discussion adopts verbatim the Lakoff list given in Jason's blog, but there's a new (dare I say?) twist: There are really only two primary values, and all the others can be derived from them: EMPATHY and RESPONSIBILITY. The secondary values, in no particular order, are given as strength, safety/protection, fulfillment, fairness, freedom, opportunity, prosperity, community, cooperation, trust, honesty, and open communication.

Immediately upon reading Jason's report of the workshop activity, it became clear that some of the exercises addressed the values of service and knowledge, neither of which had been on the original list. Then I studied the lists of values for each of the flavors of progressives and found more that were missing from this list; I will list them here along with the number from the "menu" above in order to give the origin of the value: equality(1), sustainability(3), liberty(4), democracy(4), individual rights(4), and again service(5). Still dissatisfied with this list, I added three more of my own: privacy, ownership, and reciprocity.

It could be argued that some of these add-ons should be subsumed under values from the original list. For example, sustainability belongs under protection which in turn is a part of responsibility, except that now we have three levels instead of two. Liberty could be used as a synonym for freedom, but I'm not sure how either expression fits under the two primary values given. Individual rights is itself so inclusive that it might need to be elevated to a primary that includes protection, fairness, freedom, trust, or just about any of the others. (If we squeeze it under the primaries, we again have three levels.) I might even argue that some of these are not values at all. For example, service and knowledge, the two that came up in the Lakoff workshop, resemble more closely higher-level goals or concepts than they resemble basic values. I would even claim that some of these add-ons are simply misguided or poorly labeled. For example, I'm sure they don't mean equality in the mathematical sense. I think what they mean is best summarized by a quote whose source I don't recall: "Each to give according to her/his abilities, each to receive according to his/her needs." Democracy is another misguided or poorly labeled value. I think that word is supposed to identify the type of government we practice in this country, although even under ideal circumstances, with its appointed Judiciary and its Electoral College it is a hybrid at best and a mutant at worst. The point is that if we are going to be successful in our framing efforts, we MUST be consistent in our terminology or we'll reduce its effectiveness and end up confusing and contradicting ourselves.

Having said all that about the add-ons, let's focus once again on the original list, especially on the primary values, since they must be broad enough to include all the others. On a semantic level, I have a problem with EMPATHY simply because it has parapsychological implications that will alienate those who doubt the existence of such phenomena, which includes the vast majority of people, even progressives. I've been saving COMPASSION, one of the values from the Spiritual Progressives, to suggest in place of empathy; in Lakoff's terms, it evokes a more universal connection with people's experience. RESPONSIBILITY has a problem because the other side of the coin is missing. It is a basic principle of management that responsibility must be matched with authority. The former without the latter spells impotence, and the latter without the former spells abuse. Therefore, I suggest a slight modification: RESPONSIBILITY/AUTHORITY. This evokes a clear image with universal connection.

Now let's look at the secondary values. By nature and by definition, each should be more specific than the primaries since it is meant to follow from one (or more) of them. If not, perhaps it should be combined with another secondary if it's too specific like we did above with some of the add-ons that were no more than synonyms for ones that were on the list (e.g. liberty/freedom). First, consider one that's already a combined value: safety/protection. I would make that a three-part value, thus safety/protection/strength. These clearly relate back to the primaries, and the one I added (strength) is a requirement for the other two. I would do the same with the last three on the list, trust/honesty/open communication, since trust is a result of honesty (and consistency; see below), and both depend on open communication - on all scales, from media to neighbors. It might even make sense to add fairness to that cluster.

As if all of that isn't enough of a mess, it is in the middle of the list that things begin to get really fuzzy - unclear definitions and overlapping concepts start to manifest. I stop and ask myself, "What is a value?" And I answer myself, "A value is that which contributes to the satisfaction of a need." Since I'm never one to try to re-invent the wheel (Progressive Fundamentalist, discussed elsewhere), I look to existing models for answers, and I find them. The first source would be the Constitution of the United States (as amended). Now I will confess that, while I have printed it out, I have not yet gone through it and circled all the value words, but I know they're there because, like most of my generation, I had to memorize the Preamble. The second source (which I haven't even printed yet) is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations; I'll bet that document is loaded with value words. The third source, which I HAVE studied carefully, is Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I would suggest looking in all of these places before finalizing any binding list of values upon which to base a progressive platform.

REFRAMING MASLOW

A fresh look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs clarifies those fuzzy and overlapping concepts, broadens the scope of the values while reducing their number, and eliminates the need for a distinction between levels of values. The highest-level need on Maslow's hierarchy is self-actualization. Now, in a very real sense, this is a value and not a need since some people live long and prosperous lives without reaching that level. There are four levels below this, but the nature of a hierarchy is that each level depends on the one before it. This doesn't work if we want our values to be equal in importance. So what I would like to do is to introduce some abstract framing into the lower levels so that they are elevated from the status of prerequisite concrete needs to more abstract values. I will review Maslow's hierarchy and show how those fuzzy values in our so-called secondary list can be clarified, and the entire muddy mess can be boiled down to one level of five values of equal importance with the rest of our value words (and Maslow's) as concepts or ideas to be used in the reframing or the defining of these values.

At the most basic level, Maslow discusses the physiological needs for sustaining life. The physiological needs he listed are water, food, sleep, and sex, and in view of our newly-awakened (since Maslow's time, at least) environmental awareness, I would have to add air to the front of the list. These are all very concrete needs. However, they speak to the very abstract biological concept of homeostasis, which in turn is a fancy word for balance. BALANCE! This is an abstract value word pregnant with meaning. Besides the concrete needs listed above, it encompasses the values of authority/responsibility, fairness, cooperation, my add-on of reciprocity, and the environmental add-on of sustainability. We can even go back to the original physiological needs and add some others that are more specifically humane (an abstract concept) and not quite so concrete like shelter, health care (both physical and mental), mobility, and freedom from (or at least reduction of) pain and say that we value the universal fulfillment of these needs for all of our people in order to achieve homeostasis or BALANCE. Isn't that what we mean by compassion? The sad part is that we have the resources to fulfill these needs, to honor these values, for all of our people with resources to spare - but that's another story. BALANCE! Some may argue that we should keep "compassion" as a primary as well because there's a certain attitude implicit in "compassion" that seems to be absent from "balance;" this will be addressed in a moment. Further in defense of deleting compassion from the primary values is that compassion without enlightened self-interest does nobody any good because it results in self-sacrifice. BALANCE is the spiritual mediator between compassion and enlightened self-interest. In other words, even compassion is subsidiary to BALANCE. BALANCE, by virtue of its spiritual overtones, includes both of the original primary values since it has already been shown that responsibility cannot stand alone without the BALANCE of authority.

Moving up to the second level, Maslow uses the word SAFETY and lists stability and consistency to clarify the meaning. Clearly a great deal more than physical safety is meant here. I think perhaps consistency is what we mean by fairness. Stability is all the strength we need for our protection. (I'm thinking here about the fact that this country has more WMDs than the rest of the world combined - overkill, in the literal sense!) Freedom, stability, honesty, consistency and fairness all require open communication, all allow us to trust, all give us the sense of SAFETY, which deserves to be elevated to a primary value because if we do not feel SAFETY, then we are dead, wounded, oppressed, or ill. So when Lakoff's model calls for responsibility, the guarantee of all of these aspects of SAFETY is what I think is meant. I believe SAFETY also contains some of the values we have in mind when we refer to "community." Finally, as humans, we need a belief system (e.g. religion) to make sense of the world and our purpose in it (in our own way) in order to feel safe. For such a small word, SAFETY is a huge value!

On the third level is the aspect of compassion that we left behind when we opted for BALANCE: LOVE. This includes the various forms of familial LOVE (marital, motherly, brotherly), LOVE of humanity, and from Lakoff's list, parts of that fuzzy value called "community." Maslow describes this kind of LOVE as the feelings of belonging, acceptance, and camaraderie. Disclaimer: It is not my intent to define the emotional content of love or present an exhaustive list of the different types of love; I only wish to include LOVE as a primary value.

On Maslow's fourth level we find ESTEEM. This is such a high-level need that a great number of people never get this far. (In fact, I'm not sure how Maslow ever got away with calling it a "need;" it looks more like a "want" or a "value" to me!) The words Maslow used were self-ESTEEM, mastery, power, competence, attention, and recognition. Right away, I can hear certain flavors of progressives demanding that power not enter into the equation. However, please consider that Maslow was writing in a different world and for a different generation. I would suggest that this word is simply misplaced; isn't power part of the authority we need for SAFETY? Of the other words, I find self-ESTEEM redundant and will substitute positive self-concept. Mastery and competence are very closely related as are attention and recognition. From the Lakoff list, we could add freedom, opportunity, and prosperity to ESTEEM. Again, since this is such a high-level value, not everyone will fit his/her life inside these frames. For example, I may shun attention because I am shy, the guy next door may be incompetent because he is ill, your niece may have a child who will not prosper due to a congenital defect, we owe it to our SAFETY value to curtail the freedom of a psychopath, etc. But these are surely value words that must describe anyone who stands on our progressive political platform.

The highest level of Maslow's hierarchy is the achievement of self-actualization; only a tiny percentage of people satisfy this "need" in their lives. However, it includes some of our most cherished values: self-fulfillment, knowledge, inner peace, aesthetic appreciation, realization of our maximum potential, and a universal feeling of connectedness. The first two are on Lakoff's list, and realization of our potential surely addresses - even requires - opportunity.

As recent history shows, virtue does not win elections, nor does its lack bar a politician from holding office. And the ultimate goal, the reason we need to frame the values in the first place, is that we want to win. The important thing is that all of us, including our candidates, hold these five values as ideals. The frames we put around the higher-level values (abstract aspects of BALANCE and SAFETY, LOVE, ESTEEM, and SELF-ACTUALIZATION) must describe the candidates that stand on our platform.

Now for the punch line: These are not progressive values. These are HUMAN values. The way we frame them is what makes them look progressive. The fact that the current administration is so far to the right makes them look progressive. These values are actually in the center. So in summary, I will present the core values ("core" is simpler than "primary") and some of the value words they encompass that can be used in your progressive framing or my Progressive Fundamentalist rhetoric.

SUMMARY OF VALUES

BALANCE -
1. concrete - air, water, food, sleep, sex, shelter, health care, mobility, pain reduction
2. abstract - authority/responsibility, fairness, cooperation, reciprocity, sustainability

SAFETY -
1. concrete - strength, power, protection, honesty, open communication
2. abstract - stability, consistency, fairness, freedom, trust, authority/responsibility, community, belief system

LOVE - familial love, compassion for humanity, community

ESTEEM - mastery, competence, attention, recognition, positive self-concept, freedom, opportunity, prosperity

SELF-ACTUALIZATION - knowledge, aesthetics, inner peace, self-fulfillment, realization of one's maximum potential, universal feeling of connectedness