rain_and_snow (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
rain_and_snow) wrote2010-03-15 11:40 pm
rain_and_snow) wrote2010-03-15 11:40 pm
(no subject)
Likely to drop Family Law. Not sure yet, will probably decide on Wednesday next week.
I've given up on pants for nearly everything. I've always hated the way they make my hips look a long way beyond reasonably proportioned. Skirts, on the other hand, do not! Therefore pants for the extreme cold, and working in a deli.
Got to do a fantastic reading for Critical Social Work, it was on 'framing' (think : Great Big New Tax; Tax Relief; Boat People Flooding Australian Shores.) The framing part was really good, the comparison of right and left party spending in the US was interesting (it seems to be mirrored here as well, on a somewhat smaller scale,) but the part I found most useful was the way he attempted to explain the origins of the different beliefs of the right and left. Summary
as:
Right: Strict Father Model.
Assumptions - the world is dangerous, because there is evil in it; the world is competitive, and there will be winners and losers - so the world is both dangerous and difficult; the absolute right and absolute wrong exist; children are born bad (because they do what feels good, not what is right), and need to be taught to be good/do right
So, our strict father must protect, support, and teach right from wrong.
The child must be obedient to the father, as the father is moral, and knows right from wrong. Another assumption is that the only way to teach what is wrong is through punishment. This usually includes painful physical punishment. This teaches children not repeat the wrong behavior, and so they develop internal discipline. This way children grow up to act morally, and to be obedient. "Without such punishment, the world will go to hell. There will be no morality."
That's the teaching part - but because the child also gains internal discipline, they will be able to deal with the "difficult competitive world". They will pursue their own self interest. They will "become prosperous and self reliant". So prosperity and morality are linked. Yay,
Unless you have no opportunity, because you are disciplined, if you pursue your own self interest, you will prosper. According to Adam Smith, pursuing your own self interest turns out to be best for everyone. So it's moral to pursue it! People who don't do this are called "do gooders". "Do gooders screw up the system". This is because they try to help someone else rather than themselves.
So, good children grow up to be disciplined, moral, to do what is right, and they prosper, and they DON'T try to help other people. Bad children do the opposite, and are not able to prosper because they are not disciplined. They become dependent because they are unable to look after themselves. Once children are grown, the strict father will meddle no longer - they have learned how to prosper, or they have not. This is where the small government idea fits in
So - it's immoral to make people dependent (and immoral) by giving them something they have not earned (for example, welfare) Best way to do this - budget cuts! Big enough that there is no room for social programs, and enough to lessen tax for the top bracket, because they prosper, and are therefore moral! And, yes, this logic makes deficit MORAL. And cutting these programs is great because it stops the immoral people, and rewards the moral! Subsidies for corporations are good, because they reward the good people. There's nothing wrong with the Defense, Justice, and Commerce government departments, because they help to protect, reward/punish, and prosper. "They are against nurturance and care. They are against social programs that take care of people. That is what they see as wrong. That is what they are trying to eliminate on moral grounds. That is why they are not merely a bunch of crazies or mean and greedy - or stupid - people, as many liberals [liberals being the political left in this context] believe. What is even scarier is that conservatives believe it. They believe it is moral. And they have supporters all around the country. "
So, for example, foreign policy. A father to his children. He tells. One way communication from the father to the child - the child does not have the right of response. "If you are a moral authority you know what is right, you have power, and you use it. You would be immoral yourself if you abandoned your moral authority". That's how we get the US, being the most powerful and moral, knowing the right thing to do, and not caring about asking anyone else. According to Dubya, the US does not need "a permission slip". And there we have framing. Permission slips are something from school. It places the US as the higher moral and powerful authority, and as those who issue the slips.
And now bed. Possibly the summary on the progressive's ideas and assumptions in the next post.
Source is Lakoff (2004), Don't think of an elephant : Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green, USA.
I've given up on pants for nearly everything. I've always hated the way they make my hips look a long way beyond reasonably proportioned. Skirts, on the other hand, do not! Therefore pants for the extreme cold, and working in a deli.
Got to do a fantastic reading for Critical Social Work, it was on 'framing' (think : Great Big New Tax; Tax Relief; Boat People Flooding Australian Shores.) The framing part was really good, the comparison of right and left party spending in the US was interesting (it seems to be mirrored here as well, on a somewhat smaller scale,) but the part I found most useful was the way he attempted to explain the origins of the different beliefs of the right and left. Summary
as:
Right: Strict Father Model.
Assumptions - the world is dangerous, because there is evil in it; the world is competitive, and there will be winners and losers - so the world is both dangerous and difficult; the absolute right and absolute wrong exist; children are born bad (because they do what feels good, not what is right), and need to be taught to be good/do right
So, our strict father must protect, support, and teach right from wrong.
The child must be obedient to the father, as the father is moral, and knows right from wrong. Another assumption is that the only way to teach what is wrong is through punishment. This usually includes painful physical punishment. This teaches children not repeat the wrong behavior, and so they develop internal discipline. This way children grow up to act morally, and to be obedient. "Without such punishment, the world will go to hell. There will be no morality."
That's the teaching part - but because the child also gains internal discipline, they will be able to deal with the "difficult competitive world". They will pursue their own self interest. They will "become prosperous and self reliant". So prosperity and morality are linked. Yay,
Unless you have no opportunity, because you are disciplined, if you pursue your own self interest, you will prosper. According to Adam Smith, pursuing your own self interest turns out to be best for everyone. So it's moral to pursue it! People who don't do this are called "do gooders". "Do gooders screw up the system". This is because they try to help someone else rather than themselves.
So, good children grow up to be disciplined, moral, to do what is right, and they prosper, and they DON'T try to help other people. Bad children do the opposite, and are not able to prosper because they are not disciplined. They become dependent because they are unable to look after themselves. Once children are grown, the strict father will meddle no longer - they have learned how to prosper, or they have not. This is where the small government idea fits in
So - it's immoral to make people dependent (and immoral) by giving them something they have not earned (for example, welfare) Best way to do this - budget cuts! Big enough that there is no room for social programs, and enough to lessen tax for the top bracket, because they prosper, and are therefore moral! And, yes, this logic makes deficit MORAL. And cutting these programs is great because it stops the immoral people, and rewards the moral! Subsidies for corporations are good, because they reward the good people. There's nothing wrong with the Defense, Justice, and Commerce government departments, because they help to protect, reward/punish, and prosper. "They are against nurturance and care. They are against social programs that take care of people. That is what they see as wrong. That is what they are trying to eliminate on moral grounds. That is why they are not merely a bunch of crazies or mean and greedy - or stupid - people, as many liberals [liberals being the political left in this context] believe. What is even scarier is that conservatives believe it. They believe it is moral. And they have supporters all around the country. "
So, for example, foreign policy. A father to his children. He tells. One way communication from the father to the child - the child does not have the right of response. "If you are a moral authority you know what is right, you have power, and you use it. You would be immoral yourself if you abandoned your moral authority". That's how we get the US, being the most powerful and moral, knowing the right thing to do, and not caring about asking anyone else. According to Dubya, the US does not need "a permission slip". And there we have framing. Permission slips are something from school. It places the US as the higher moral and powerful authority, and as those who issue the slips.
And now bed. Possibly the summary on the progressive's ideas and assumptions in the next post.
Source is Lakoff (2004), Don't think of an elephant : Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green, USA.