When Richard Nixon went up on national TV following the announcement that he was under investigation for Watergate, he uttered the infamous line: “I am not a crook”.

And everyone instantly, regardless of their opinion on the affair, involuntarily thought of him as a crook. According to the linguist (hold in here, this is actually quite interesting!) George Lakoff, this is because every word or statement carries with it a ‘frame’. Frames are a little like connotations: ideas, things or concepts that come to mind when you mention a word. Frames go a little further though- they’re sets of connotations which, combined, represent an entire worldview, a system of logic, a way of seeing the world or a particular issue, and a way of reasoning our way through it.

You can endorse or negate a frame; Nixon could just as easily have said “I am a crook”, but simply by using that frame, you bring into the conversation all of the baggage it implies. The implications of this for politics are huge. When arguing, don’t use the other side’s language. Their language has been constructed to evoke a specific frame- a worldview, framework of values, that supports their argument- a framework in which the ‘common sense’ evoked by that frame will mean that you cannot win the argument. Paranoid conspiracy theory it is not. It’s a fact for the record that Radical Conservatives (yes, they exist too), have put millions of dollars over the past few decades into framing the terms of political debate, and, through sheer numbers, getting it out through the media and into the minds of millions of people. Don’t believe me? Look up the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and, here in the UK, Policy Exchange, all of which employ linguists to continually frame the day’s news and get themselves invited onto TV interviews and talk radio to disseminate those frames. It’s a huge operation, and something I’ll hopefully discuss in a future article.

A classic example of framing of this kind, raised by Lakoff, is the phrase ‘tax relief’, coined by US conservatives to describe proposals to cut taxes for the super-rich, and thus blow trillion-dollar holes in the US federal budget as a prextext for slashing social programmes.

What does the word ‘relief’ evoke? It evokes a victim, an affliction and an afflictor. By using the frame ‘tax relief’, regardless of whether you say you’re for or against it, you’re invoking a logic which casts the super-rich as the afflicted, the government as the villain-afflictor, and the conservatives who support the cuts as heroic liberators and champions of the common man.

Beyond US politics, the global justice movement is particularly terrible at ignoring frames. Each time protestors arrive at the G8 waving banners that say NO TO FREE TRADE AGREEMENT’, the sweatshops win. How can a global ‘freedom and justice movement’, be opposed to something which is ‘free’, or an ‘agreement’? As far as the general public is concerned, there’s an implicit contradiction there, which, of course, leaves the protestors wide open to attacks of naiveté, or worse, dishonesty. The protestors don’t agree that free trade is free at all, nor that the things signed at these international summits are even real agreements, given that developing countries are often coerced into signing them- that’s their point- so why accept the opposition’s attempt to describe it in such inaccurate terms? Similarly, the movement is one of the most internationally coordinated in history, and yet many happily accept the label of being ‘anti-globalisation’…..why not just wear a sign that says ‘kick me’ and be done with it?

If we’re going help the World mobilise itself towards a carbon-free future, then frames are more important than ever. At the moment, by using the other side’s language, environmentalists shoot themselves in the foot- we should be against ‘hidden-cost’ flights, not ‘cheap’ ones. They’re not cheap at all- that, again, is our point! They have an incalculable cost in terms of environmental impact which isn’t included in your ticket price. If we were to use ‘hidden cost’ flights frame instead, we’d not only reject the false notion of cheapness, but also build on an existing frame. The ‘hidden-costs’ frame is one that air passengers are already familiar with; they’ve long complained about hidden taxes, luggage charges and booking fees which lay behind the attractive looking prices on the billboards and newspapers. By taking advantage of an already well-established frame, those who recognize the urgency of climate change can, very quickly and effectively, link their arguments to existing dissatisfaction, rather than having to establish a new frame from scratch.

Frames aren’t propaganda terms; you’re not calling apples oranges, you’re simply making the decision to employ language that doesn’t just communicate naked facts, but also implicitly clothes them in your own wider ‘logical framework’, ‘values system’ or ‘world view’, rather than those of the opposition. Everything we say is framed in some way; all language carries, at least subconsciously, a reflection of our own particular worldview or prejudices. Rather, political framing is about being aware of that process and ensuring that the frames we evoke are the ones we believe in, rather than those of the opposition. Propaganda, on the other hand, is the act of framing something known to be patently untrue for the sake of political control. Manipulative framing isn’t just immoral; it also has a habit of backfiring sooner or later.

As all the examples show, whether you like it or not, frames trump facts. A frame, once established in the mind, contains a logical framework. Once the phrase ‘tax-relief’ has become established, it follows quite logically that the taxed become victims, government the aggressor, and so on. Someone opposed to those tax cuts can quote as many statistics as they like in order to refute it, and to point out that super-rich people don’t need tax cuts, but, within the ‘tax-relief’ frame, ‘logic’ will refute the facts every time. People ignore the facts if they don’t fit the frame through which they view the issue. Because Bush & Co were able to argue for the attack on Iraq using the same narrative frame used to justify Afghanistan, then facts and objections did not matter- the war was the next step in an accepted storyline; it made logical sense to a majority of intelligent, rational, honest Americans.

It’s not enough to refute facts, therefore. Progressives need to deliver those facts within their own frames, ones which suggest a coherent system of values and which accurately describe their beliefs. If you establish a frame, the facts that fit that frame are accepted, and the conclusions in regards to policies etc. follow quite naturally.

For example, instead of saying something stupid like “I oppose tax relief for the rich”, say something that you actually believe, rather than doing your opponent’s dirty work for them. What is tax? Tax is what we pay to live in a civilized country, with roads, courts, police, ambulances and clean streets. It’s what we pay for the opportunity and democracy of a civilized society, and to use the infrastructure paid for by previous taxpayers. So say it. A tax isn’t an affliction- spent wisely; it’s an investment in your own, and your country’s future.

Bill Gates only got rich by successfully building upon the investment made by previous generations-; an educated workforce, a secure and prosperous market in which to sell his products, courts to handle disputes with competitors, police to uphold anti-piracy laws- whatever we do in our society, we’re building on the achievements of our fellow citizens, and it’s our duty to repay that debt. That’s not to say people on either side of the political divide enjoy being taxed, and certainly nobody wants to see tax money wasted or to be taxed more than is necessary, but there’s a big difference between something oppressive and inherently bad, and something which, like homework, is a pain in the ass, but which we know is a worthwhile investment in our future.

If you were to discuss tax in this frame, the gap between your progressive and your Conservative neighbour doesn’t seem so wide. After all, he supports a strong military and the principle of social obligations, and believes that, by virtue of being born into this country, we all have a duty to invest in our country’s future by serving it and safeguarding the achievements of previous generations. He’s already accepted that we have an obligation and interest in serving our fellow citizens through military service; if framed correctly, consistently and in a coordinated way, the need for a fair system of taxes and other progressive issues such as climate change and trade justice can be argued for and accepted in quite similar terms.

****

The idea of ‘political framing’ is one I’ve picked up from the rather good ‘Don’t Think of an Elephant’ by linguist, George Lakoff, and elaborated on a little. Much of his work is focussed on the American political system particularly, and so I’m interested in how those principles might apply to politics here in the UK, particularly in the fights against poverty and climate change. I’ll be posting more observations, ideas and other stuff as I keep reading more from Lakoff and others, and we’ll see what comes of it. Have a great week! >Ben