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

Has to be said, Brendan, you have a point. There’s nothing quite like the thrill of an accelerating plane and the sudden jolt as it lifts off the runway and begins to gracefully rise as the world gets smaller and smaller around you. Not to mention the miracle of setting into the cabin and stepping off on the other side of the World just a few hours later.

However, your article, whilst cute in its childlike simplicity and descriptive verve, is a bit of a distraction.

It’s a bit like complaining about the rationing of petrol or the blackout of our cities back in 1939 as we stood a good chance of being inundated by one of the nastiest regimes in history. Yes, those steps, like the imperative to dramatically cut flying, represent a step backward. They represent a rejection of the many joys and benefits brought by human progress, which, as you point out, should rightly be celebrated.

But your article is also worrying in its lack of reference to science. Are you suggesting the liberation experienced by some through flight outweighs the oppressive drought, flooding, food shortages and mass migration which climate change will inevitably bring? Or, do you dispute the science, and on what basis? I’m not a scientist, and I don’t believe you are, Mr. O’Neil. I don’t pretend to fully understand the complexities of the global climate any more than you do. However, what I do know is that there are 300 scientists from across the world, from a huge array of disciplines and backgrounds, who not only agree we’re in trouble, but are 90% sure of it. I also know that kind of agreement is unprecedented. Are you saying you know better than those guys?

The fact of the matter is, we’ve reached the stage where attention will begin to shift from climate change, to its possible implications. Those implications constitute the most severe and direct threat to Britain since 1939. I expect that, when it comes down to it, similarly drastic measures will be necessary to deal with the mass migration of the entire Mediterranean region, the disruption and stretching of global food supplies, the wars as the superpowers carve up the dwindling resources for themselves. That’s not scaremongering or disaster movie fodder, those are the predictions of the IPCC, and are already happening to some extent, albeit on a limited basis.

So stop whining like a little boy who wants to be allowed to play with his toys whilst sitting on the edge of a cliff. The human ingenuity you wax lyrical about is responsible for this mess, there’s no doubt about it. However, this is not a call to crawl back into our cave.

Those of us with sufficient vision, not to mention true, rather than romanticised faith in humanity don’t waste our time bemoaning necessary sacrifices. Instead, if you wish to celebrate the liberation of human progress and its benefits, instead explore, believe in, and celebrate the role human ingenuity has to play in getting us out of this mess.

Where once the middle class strove to keep up with the Joneses, we’d now much rather prove our worth by asserting our individualism. The high street, at one time the peddler of a kind of homogenous, identikit fashion for the masses, is now all about finding a new look for ourselves, defining ourselves and marking out who we wish to be, by what we buy. Neurotic middle-aged control-freaks with no sense of humour buy PCs, whilst savvy, young, laid-back creative types use Macs, remember?

And so we’ve been pigeonholed accordingly. Are you a ‘Metrosexual’, ‘BME’, ‘Yuppie’, ‘NEET’, ‘Chav’, ‘Punk’, ‘Hippie’, ‘Emo’, ’Goth’ or one of the others? In the old days, a ‘Green’ was someone who typically recycled their bottles, had a compost heap or womery, didn’t own a car, avoided flying, wore knitted woollen jumpers and bought suspect looking organic veg from a tin shed on the outskirts of town. Often they were vegetarians too, and in their younger days had been caught up in things like the CND or Greenpeace, more often than not still receiving their monthly newsletter in the post. In the day of the ‘New’ Green, on the other hand, anyone can do it. You just have to drive the right car, have the right energy supplier, switch your 60” flat screen off at night and ensure the holiday home in Tuscany has been fitted with solar panels.

Of course, very often such people don’t exist beyond the pages of marketing manuals or the studies of sociologists or demographers, and few would doubt that being some shade of ‘green’, New or Old, is better than no green at all. Equally so, a lot has been said and written about the Old Greens and their uncertain relationship to the vastly more numerous New Greens as it is they, rather than the Old, who now set the environmentalist agenda. That’s a debate for elsewhere, and indeed, this article is a broader analysis of the current state of the environmentalist movement, just as applicable to both as we approach what may prove to be some of the most critical decades of modern history.

The first bitter pill for both to swallow is that if ‘green’ is regarded a little more than a lifestyle choice, we’re toast. It’s easy, having put our own houses in order, to enter into a guilt-free comfort zone. We’re doing our bit, and exhort others to do the same. For the New Greens, many of whom now dominate Britain’s establishment, the environmental lifestyle is in danger of being a political carrot; the kind of lifestyle the pollsters know middle England aspires to, and thus the one the politicians promise to deliver by way of symbol, speech and gesture.

For the ‘Old’, environmentalist hardcore, the situation is slightly different. Whilst their issue now tops the political agenda, the majority hold out against the political mainstream, for fear of being co-opted into a social and economic agenda of which they (perhaps rightly) want no part. Instead, many judge their time better spent as part of local and national interest groups and NGOs, or within smaller, more radical political parties. Some even chose to disengage altogether, sectioning themselves off onto the smallholding, content in the knowledge that they’re doing all they can to insure themselves and their family against the apocalypse they know is coming.

Continued on Monday 16/7/07

Remember the bad old days of the late 1980s and early 90s? McDonalds was a novelty, few had heard of GAP, Starbucks or Top Shop, and things like Nike caused wars in shoe shops. On the political side of things, the country was still run by old men with comb-overs and thick glasses. I remember watching them, as a toddler, during a particularly boisterous session of PMQs which happened to have been left on, slightly bemused when told these men ran the country. The slick pr-managed smile had barely been invented yet. Neither, I think, had environmentalism entered the mainstream. Even the arrival of the messiah, ‘pretty straight guy’ Tony Blair didn’t really do that; his climate change promises tended to be regarded by commentators as electoral garnish. A pleasant, if not particularly filling, addition to New Labour’s juicy promises to rebuild hospitals and get the trains running on time.

Of course there were the occasional middle-class one-family crusaders who did their bit, composting food scraps, cycling the kids to school and recycling their bottles, just as there’s always been those who took it further, downsizing to the Shetlands to grow organic veg. But these people on the whole went against the mainstream, not with it. Next Door was by no means hostile; ‘Nice people’ ‘lovely family’, but nonetheless, slightly eccentric. Harmless enough, mind you, but following a different lifestyle choice to the rest of us. They had to put up with the same kind of warm-hearted ignorance and inadvertent condescension that might greet the first black or gay family to move into a sheltered English village. Although, even in todays enlightened times that’s still the reality in many places, ‘the establishment’ view, arguably, has changed substantially. Today even the party of combovers and thick glasses pays homage to Mother Earth.

In 2007, everyone wants to be green just as ardently as everyone wanted a pair of Nikes back in 1990. If you’re in the public eye, it’s not really a choice, it’s an electoral imperative. Green toilet paper, green cars, green wellies, everything in green, even if it isn’t really, and the marketing men can hardly keep up. It’s never been easier to be green as it is now, while you’re hard pressed to find anyone who doesn’t possess at least some form of awareness of climate change. For those who have been at the forefront of this movement, that’s a real victory. With David Cameron wily having picked up on it, and every other political party out there scrambling to outbid them for the green vote, ‘green’, sets the agenda like never before. For fear of being lynched, however, I think it’s high time we questioned whether, having brought the debate this far, being ‘green’ is really where we need to be.

Part II on Friday 13th

Smog in Hong Kong © Greenpeace / Leo Chan 2004

Given that the day before the Conservatives reportedly started making positive noises about meeting that 80% target, it’s worth throwing just one more statistic at you: if the UK was to stop all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, the drop would be made up for by China alone within three years. Add into that equation the other massive developing countries such as India and Brazil, and it’s clear that us switching to energy efficient light bulbs isn’t going to be enough.

That begs the question of what we, here in the suddenly impotent anglosphere can do about it. Obviously, the old solution of keeping them poor and agricultural, reserving for ourselves the bulk of emissions isn’t going to be workable for much longer. It would also be an incredibly hard sell to convince these nations to curb their own growth for the sake of a problem which we, through pioneering a flawed pattern of development, have created. Yet, if this is allowed to continue, old, recently developed and developing countries alike will face catastrophe.

Neither saving the World by ourselves nor forcing others to follow our lead are options available to us as they too often have been in the past. Instead, our best hope of saving ourselves, it seems, lies in proving that it is possible to combat this problem, reducing the risks in other, larger countries adopting our model voluntarily. If we want to make real progress in these areas; it’s down to us to prove that it is possible, and even beneficial, to have a sustainable, ethically accountable society and at the same time, enjoy the benefits of economic development.

Changing your light bulbs won’t make any difference unless all of China or India does it too, but that’s no argument for not putting in place here in the UK the relevant laws, regulations and programmes to make it happen. As a smaller nation with a highly-skilled workforce and a history of resourcefulness and innovation, we are ideally placed to prove that a modern, prosperous zero carbon economy is possible, unlike larger nations where it can take far longer to mobilize public and political opinion.

Clout on the world’s stage which has historically far outstripped our size is something almost unique to this country. Instead of writhing in apathy or in staking everything on efforts to lever larger countries into ‘doing something’ on our behalf, it seems to me that the opportunity is there to take the lead in a second industrial revolution, providing that model for sustainable development which the world so clearly needs.