The Rhetoric of Now Part 2: Kairos

by kellogg
Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 04:07:02 AM EST

Cross-posed at paralepsis.  

This is the second in a series of posts on how concepts from rhetoric can be used to help transform the current political climate.  For a broader context, see the first entry (on stasis theory).  Today's  entry is on kairos.

Kairos is usually defined as something like opportunity.  James Kinneavy, who has done more than anyone in modern times to revive the concept, defines it succinctly in an interview as "the right time and due measure."  But kairos was also a minor god.  So take a moment, would you, to look at this bas-relief of the figure of kairos. Take your time; I'll wait.

From the diaries ~ whataboutbob


Back?  Great.  Look at him closely: he's got wings, and winged feet.  He's coming fast; if he's headed your way, you have a moment to grab his extended forelock.  But watch out!  Once he's past you you can't grab on, because the back of his  head is shaved.  Strangely, he's balancing a scales on a razor blade, weighting one pan of the scales with his hand.  Kairos, in other words, is not just opportunity; he is balance and dance, he is measure and cut, available only to those who face him right and grab when they can.  

While I was writing this diary, it occurred to me that kairos might be behind the name of Keyser Soze, the legendary criminal in The Usual Suspects.  As Verbal Kent says (before we find out who he is):

You think you can catch Keyser Soze? You think a guy like that comes this close to getting caught, and sticks his head out? If he comes up for anything it'll be to get rid of me. After that... my guess is you'll never hear from him again.  

Or, you know, maybe not.

As Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee explain, "The Greeks had two concepts of time.  They used the term chronos to refer to linear, measurable time, the kind with which we are more familiar, that we track with watches and calendars.  But the ancients used kairos to suggest a more situational kind of time, something close to what we call 'opportunity.'"  But it's a lot more than that.

In Christian theology, kairos is associated with a kind of ripeness of time, a moment when things are ready.  When Jesus says, "The kingdom of God is at hand," he's talking in kairos terms.  In the South African struggle against apartheid, this notion was essential to the Kairos Document:

The time has come. The moment of truth has arrived. South Africa has been plunged into a crisis that is shaking the foundations and there is every indication that the crisis has only just begun and that it will deepen and become even more threatening in the months to come. It is the KAIROS or moment of truth not only for apartheid but also for the Church.

We as a group of theologians have been trying to understand the theological significance of this moment in our history. It is serious, very serious. For very many Christians in South Africa this is the KAIROS, the moment of grace and opportunity, the favorable time in which God issues a challenge to decisive action. It is a dangerous time because, if this opportunity is missed, and allowed to pass by, the loss for the Church, for the Gospel and for all the people of South Africa will be immeasurable. Jesus wept over Jerusalem. He wept over the tragedy of the destruction of the city and the massacre of the people that was imminent, "and all because you did not recognize your opportunity (KAIROS) when God offered it" (Lk 19: 44).

In "Against the Sophists," Isocrates argues that oratory is quite different from mere literacy, in part because it relies on the contingency of kairos.  

I marvel when I observe these men setting themselves up as instructors of youth who cannot see that they are applying the analogy of an art with hard and fast rules to a creative process.  For, excepting these teachers, who does not know that the art of using letters remains fixed and unchanged, so that we continually and invariably use the same letters for the same purpose, while exactly the reverse is true of the art of discourse?  For what has been said by one speaker is not equally useful for the speaker who comes after him; on the contrary, he accounted most skilled in this art who speaks in a manner worthy of the subject and yet is able to discover in it topics which are nowise the same as those used by others.  But the greatest proof of the difference between the two arts is that oratory is good only if it has the qualities of fitness for the occasion, propriety of style, and originality of treatment, while in the case of letters there is no such need whatsoever. (Emphasis added)

I want to avoid a possible misunderstanding here.  This notion of "fitness for the occasion" isn't primarily about style, about shifting accents in different speeches; it has nothing to do with that kind of minor accommodation to an audience.  Kairos is more essential to discourse than this: it is about recognizing that different moments evoke different responses and then seizing the moment in its totality.  

Here is an important question: Is kairos responsive or inventive?  That is, is kairos a matter of grabbing hold of opportunities inherent within situations, or of creating opportunities out of situations?  

The former, narrow reading is understandable.  It views the rhetorical actor in the passive terms of response.  In the current American political scene, most candidates seem to take this kind of posture, expending most of their energies on situations that we already recognize as urgent: how to get out of Iraq, how to correct the recent acceleration of economic injustice, how to stem the tide of corruption. These are obvious questions.  

A more capacious reading of kairos suggests that opportunities are made, not just recognized.  This kind of reading was crucial to the civil rights movement.  For example, in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Martin Luther King, Jr. responds to those who think his protest is ill-timed:

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. (Emphasis added)

If we view kairos in this fashion, as something we invent and imagine together rather than simply a situation to which we respond, what are American politicians today missing?  What can they learn, not just from Dr. King's actions, but from his imagination?  

I'm sure we can all think of some.  I'll just mention a few.  These may seem unrelated to the earlier content of the diary,  but that's kind of my point.  Apologies if, after all this time, this post now hurtles toward its close.  

First, increased foreign aid and debt relief as part of a security strategy.  American politicians hate to talk about foreign aid, but I think they're missing a lot here.  Discussion of immigration tends to resolve into predictable camps defined by xenophobia on the one hand and compassion on the other.  But to my knowledge, nobody has seen fit to emphasize how improving conditions in countries that send immigrant labor to the U.S. could make conditions more tolerable in the home countries, and relieve some of the pressure that drives them north in the first place.  This in turn could make the job of border security less impossible and might have the knock-on effect of reducing the depressive influence of undocumented labor on American wages.  

Second, how to respond to the imminent housing collapse.  This isn't that big yet, but it's likely to get big, and I haven't seen any of the candidates out in front of it.  The first candidate to grab hold of this issue in terms of protecting low-income homeowners (not real estate agents or lenders) will change the shape of debate.  

Third, how to rehabilitate public transportation.  In American politics, highways are big, and trains are boring.  But the climate change crisis demands radical solutions, and I'm amazed that nobody has come out with a radical transportation proposal that will help decrease our dependence on highways in an environmentally friendly manner.  

Well, these are a few of my unaddressed issues.  I'm just an English teacher; other people, who know something about economics and such, will have much better ideas.  The point is that we have to quit simply responding and start creating.  The time is ripe.  But we need politicians who can imagine a plausible future, and challenge us to imagine it with them.  We need politicians who are capable of seizing the moment by making it.  

So let me invite others to submit your favorite unrecognized issues.  Let's create a list of possibilities together -- things that aren't on anybody's radar yet.  

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
I'm hoping that some of you will help me to think about the European context of issues like these.  I'm especially interested in -- though admittedly ignorant of -- how opportunity is grasped (or not) in the current French election.
by kellogg (kellogg[dot]david[at]gmail[dot]com) on Mon Apr 30th, 2007 at 08:29:05 PM EST
I wish I could say there are good examples of seizing time's forelock in the French election debate. We can always hope Ségolène Royal will do so in tomorrow's televised face-to-face.

But this kind of electoral process seems to favour cautious position-taking (at least for the front-runners). Royal did have a promising theme about participative democracy - involving citizens more directly in decisions that concern them - but I don't think she got up steam with it as she might have. The result is that now, in terms of what has played during the campaign, it feels a bit like a discarded gadget.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue May 1st, 2007 at 08:31:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm taking it there's a typo in your quote from Isocrates:

applying the analogy of an art with art and fast rules to a creative process

"hard" in place of the second "art"?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue May 1st, 2007 at 08:37:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was copying from a hard copy text.  
by kellogg (kellogg[dot]david[at]gmail[dot]com) on Tue May 1st, 2007 at 10:53:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So far, it is easier for me to perceive "Kairos" as soemthing independent of rhetorics. Is this a universal idea of seizing an opportunity, or something more specific, like:

  1. Seizing opportunity in a debate?
  2. Seizing an opprotunity for your personal gain (but possbily at great expense for others)?
  3. Seizing a collective opportunity?
  4. Is this cooperative or confrontational opportunity?
  5. Anticipating adverse change and "seizing" opprotunity to counteract it?

Your examples suggest objectively problematic situations, yet perceived lightly or "egoistically" so far. What is Kairos supposed to do here? Are these generally the only situations for Kairos?

For the concrete examples, the problem is that the frame of public perception is very inadequate to probably objective risks or problems. How to force inadequate public frame to change? Is the only option to wait for a moment when the problems are very obvious? How can Cassandras do a better job?

If so, Winston Churchil must be a good example. He was ridiculled for anti-fascist concerns for many years, until the Nazi danger was plain obvious. He was then the obvious choice for leadership. And yeah, Churchil's rhetorics was outstanding.

by das monde on Tue May 1st, 2007 at 02:29:10 AM EST
"Carpe diem" is the first phrase that comes to mind.

The "diem" being what Pirsig calls "the cutting edge of Reality".

I am with Das Monde here, in that I see kairos as independent of Rhetoric.

It is the fleeting moment at which we ask our questions of Reality, answer them intuitively by making "Value Judgments", and describe our answers using Rhetoric.

As J A Wheeler said

Reality is defined by the questions you put to it


Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Galbraith
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue May 1st, 2007 at 03:18:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Having addressed kairos generally I think to address your specific questions we are at a point at which we must create a Rhetoric to address an existential crisis, and not on purely European terms, but upon global terms.

The difference between approaches was brought home forcibly to me by my current "Technocracy" Diary and observation of the huge difference between the approaches of the US - "Technocracy Incorporated" - and the European - "Network of European Technocrats".

Technocracy being a 1920's and 30's approach to Reality.

Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Galbraith

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue May 1st, 2007 at 03:30:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's all of those things.  What I was hoping to stress it that political discourse almost always focuses on the obvious but needn't.  

A good example of a creative seizing of kairos is Gandhi's salt march of 1930.  A protest of this sort was, I think, quite literally unimaginable to the British authorities.  Its success came in part from this bold visionary stroke, partly from the way others spontaneously joined the march.  In some very narrow sense it was a response to a tax on salt, yes.  But it worked because it was more than a response.  In creating a new reality of protest, the salt march refigured so many things: salt, taxes, colonialism, labor, gender (gathering salt was generally considered women's work), and so forth.  (I'm relying, by the way, on my dim memory of a book I read about twenty years ago -- The Intimate Enemy by Ashis Nandy.)

by kellogg (kellogg[dot]david[at]gmail[dot]com) on Tue May 1st, 2007 at 11:30:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ho!  I just lost a comment about forcing Gordon Brown to take magic mushrooms in public and then comment on War, Economics, Environment, Transport, Housing...

But I forgot education, so, well...

Seriously, though, I was thinking of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

A less salubrious (for me) example of kairos would be the UK fuel protests.  Unexpected; used novel means; caught the national mood (of some--enough: those who felt they were being marginalised/ignored)...govt. frightened of a repeat; same thing threatened over other car issues: the car driver fought back!

Boo!

They used kairos.

Double boo!

My examples of possible kairos moments are two:

  1. The rise of international trades union (hat tip to afew for the 1 May refs in the news today): they could suddenly change a LOT of things, if they can get organised...across the globe

  2. The middle classes (the intelligent middle classes) making the move to the countryside, spending their cash on renewables (and shotguns?); reading up on perma-culture; growing crops to bio-fuel their 4x4s...running slowly (just a quick walk!) from the cities, back to the land...the unexpected consequence of the move to "green"...  Hunkering in for the possible collapse (but keeping a townhouse in central...Big Town...for visits etc...coz it's best to keep your options open...)

Sorry, your Ghandi example made me see a downside...I imagine there are lots of unhealthy (to my mind) kairos moments happening between members of far-right organisations as I type.

So...synthesis!  And, yes, mushrooms!  Mushrooms are good for kairos moments...

And my post is bent sideways...ach....!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue May 1st, 2007 at 12:18:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Far-right moments, you bet.  Every rhetorical tool is available to all sides, if they can make use of them.  
by kellogg (kellogg[dot]david[at]gmail[dot]com) on Tue May 1st, 2007 at 01:11:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Mind opening ... and leaving me thinking ... thus, to start, thank you ...

Many examples come to mind.

How about failures? ... such as GWBush's failure to seize the potential unification of the world post 9/11 ... or America's failure to join/lead the League of Nations ... or ...

Recent headlines ... Has Gore created the moment? Exploited it? Irrelevant?

And, taking the discussion to another domain, isn't Tipping Point all about creating Kairos & figuring out how to seize it?  Fad marketing is a (low) form of Kairos, no?

Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!!

by a siegel (siegeadATgmailIGNORETHISdotPLEASEcom) on Tue May 1st, 2007 at 11:49:16 PM EST
such as GWBush's failure to seize the potential unification of the world post 9/11

Excellent point.  I think he did seize that moment, he just used it for something other than unification.  That's the thing when those moments happen (rather than are created) -- someone will use them for something.  It's heartbreaking that it wasn't used for the potential good.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 2nd, 2007 at 12:25:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But in doing what he did, he created another moment...

Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Galbraith
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed May 2nd, 2007 at 02:55:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And, yours is an excellent point as well.  He seized the moment and the Cheney-Bush administration hasn't let it go.

Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!!
by a siegel (siegeadATgmailIGNORETHISdotPLEASEcom) on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 06:18:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Remember this from the Ron Suskind article, quoting the Bush aide?

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

If you leave out the sociopathic and/or narcisistic level of hubris in there, I think there's a real nugget of truth that the blogs have largely missed or overlooked by mocking "reality based" as though the alternative was "unreality based" or "faith based."  I don't think that's what the guy meant.

when we act, we create our own reality

I've always interpreted it to mean basically what you're saying here.  In a way, this is what politics and leadership are.  If our leaders tell people to be afraid, they can start wars from nothing.  If they give people hope, they can open worlds of possibility.   That's the very essence of power and, unfortunately, the right seems to understand that better than the left at the moment.  Moments can't just be siezed, they can be created.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 2nd, 2007 at 12:15:04 AM EST
What the aide (presumably Feith) said is simply correct. We all create our reality through action, especially political action. And we create reality in the political arena, while we're on the subject, through Rhetoric's arts.

Empires do create plain facts, or better "accomplished facts," that we are brought to reckon with.

But facts are contingent as Hannah Arendt points out in "Lying in Politics." Facts don't stand around screaming unequivocal truths, they just hang around to be used, abused, hidden- or ignored as much as possible. When facts get in the way they're often dismissed as opinions. It's a tough job for the more judicious to chase truths out of facts. It's a backroom job, far from the action.

So the aide missed a caveat. Rude facts can get in the way. It may be a fait accompli that the US is deeply involved in Iraq or that Saddam is undisputedly dead. But creating the conditions- or seizing the opportunity (e.g. 9/11)-  to get there involved a massive disinformation campaign that far exceeded the bounds of Rhetoric. Basing an empire's actions on confidence tricks, overwhelming propaganda and the verbal diarrhoea of over-motivated wingnuts has its drawbacks.  Basing action entirely on a lie drives the liar to dismiss, even remove, the simple truths he wishes to distort. He ends up believing in a "reality" no longer based on perceptible facts. Pigs looking at a wristwatch, as Tyler Drumheller described it. Unfortunately with misguided empires we all suffer the consequences. Throwing a Libby or two in the dungeon is no comfort for the damage.

Creating solutions based on the judicious study of discernible reality, that is plain facts, would have done the empire better.

Moments can't just be seized, they can be created.

I think you've hit on the core of rhetoric here: hèuresis, inventio, creativity. What makes the difference in speaking is the inventive capacity of the speaker, her capacity to invent and order notions yet conceal her craft, heighten interest and empathy, persuade and convince the audience.

Of course timing is of supreme importance whether it be the best moment to put forward a theme or the best moment to win over the audience. Successfully seizing the moment involves technique and mastery, foresight and wiliness, courage and strength.  

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Wed May 2nd, 2007 at 04:05:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Creating solutions based on the judicious study of discernible reality, that is plain facts, would have done the empire better.

I couldn't agree more.  I've said basically the same thing in many arguments, mostly about framing.  These ways of communicating effectively should not be conflated with lying, propaganda, or spin.  You can effectively tell your side of the story without it being manipulative.  And when you have discernible fact on your side, people will know that.  

Right now in the US, many people are still falling for spin, but I think it's because they're only being told one side of the story.  We need rhetoric, framing, narrative, all those things, because it's the only way to effectively communicate facts, which sometime speak for themselves, but not very damned often with big issues that the average person can't observe or hasn't studied.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 2nd, 2007 at 04:44:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is a great thread, with a lot to ponder.

I remember how people responded to Suskind's article; it seemed to confirm the image of the neo-conservative as a sort of right-wing Trotskyite, exporting a vision of free-market revolution and damn all else.  But there is a sense in which the statement itself is right.  (The scary thing is not how creative imagination is trumpeted but how "reality" is dismissed.)  

I'm reminded of something Bruno Latour wrote about science: that it is because facts don't speak for themselves that facts need the scientist, who acts as the facts' spokesperson, lawyer, mouthpiece.  And also of a line from Barbara Herrnstein Smith: that in the battle between belief and evidence, "belief is no pushover."  

by kellogg (kellogg[dot]david[at]gmail[dot]com) on Wed May 2nd, 2007 at 07:20:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I love those quotes and have never heard either of them!

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 2nd, 2007 at 08:49:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Latour is from, I think Science in Action (though it might be Laboratory Life).   The Smith quote is from Belief and Resistance, the title essay/chapter.  
by kellogg (kellogg[dot]david[at]gmail[dot]com) on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 09:57:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was just listening to a radio program on the teaching of Israel's history in Israel. According to the reporter, there is hardly a mention of the Palestinians in any school books.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 05:21:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's interesting.  In the States, we hear a lot from pro-Israel sources about the biases of Palestinian textbooks, but the subject of Israeli textbooks never comes up.  That's American political discourse for you.
by kellogg (kellogg[dot]david[at]gmail[dot]com) on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 09:55:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the responses was also very related to Kairos. The neo-conservatives had just branded their opponents "reality-based", and the leftwing blogosphere used this to the maximum.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
by A swedish kind of death on Fri May 4th, 2007 at 08:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Right now in the US, many people are still falling for spin, but I think it's because they're only being told one side of the story.  We need rhetoric, framing, narrative, all those things, because it's the only way to effectively communicate facts, which sometime speak for themselves, but not very damned often with big issues that the average person can't observe or hasn't studied.

The problem isn't so much the size of the issues- I agree that if democracy depends on all of us being experts on all the issues, we're lost.
It's the death of the crap detector that's the real problem---and the solution.---and an understanding of these two excellent posts can really help. An understanding of some of the common rhetorical devices is an integral part of the crap detector.

 The decay of U.S. education into a parrot factory project has created a situation where we fail to provide students with a skill- the skill of identifying the lies- or the liars.

I watched the Royal/Sarko debate in English for more than half of it, and it was hell. On France 24 the interpretation was so horrible for Royal that I turned it back to French (at which I am barely mediocre) and---shazam! Sarko was babbling like an overdosed speed freak.
Suddenly the entire scene changed, and I was aghast. After ISOLATING MYSELF FROM HIS VERBAL CONTENT, what an obvious liar Sarko appeared. Personal response, sure--but it was my crap detector going off loud and clear, irrespective of whether I knew the real unemployment data, or the real results of the 35 hour week. Thanks to Jerome, Mig and many others here, I do have a fair idea, but the striking thing was that I did not need to know chapter and verse- just have a functioning crap detector. In this case, an ability to hear and see when a BS artist is trying to sell me by telling me what he thinks I want to hear.
Good discussion here. Will reread it all.
Thanks, Kellog.  


Grabbing what you can, as John Ruskin said, isn't any less wicked when you grab it with the power of your brains than with the power of your fists.

by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 06:03:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
With the exception of what's on the net I haven't read Lakoff on framing. So I'll only raise some questions on what little I've read. (I recall commenting on Lakoff in the past here at Eurotrib.)

Lakoff starts off with the example of asking or telling someone not to think about elephants. Of course, the listener is going to have a hard time not thinking about elephants. He then points this out as framing- but a very coercive framing.

Actually that sort of injunction is known as a double bind, such as ordering someone, "Be spontaneous!" Basically it's a self-contradictory statement that offers no exit. It's common to pathological communication in schizophrenics as Bateson and Haley sought to demonstrate in "The Pragmatics of Communication." I really can't see it as hitting the nail on the head when it comes to framing within the debate.

Lakoff's framing appears to me to be a petition of principle. It's an error in logic but perfectly acceptable in rhetoric in so far as it is efficacious (especially in an audience that is not aware of this rhetorical device). Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca give the simple example of a maid who has broken a vase and tells her employer that bad things like that always happen to her on Friday. Her employer replies that the vase was broken on Thursday.

How is this a petition of principle? Well, the employer is not contesting her superstitions, that is her premise, but is simply accepting it a priori to counter her own statement. In other words he accepts the way she framed it whether or not he is superstitious. In this case we have an argumentum ad hominem in so far as the verbal exchange is based exclusively on her personal frame. He's talking to her on her grounds. Were there a larger audience perhaps he might have pointed out her superstition, shared it with the audience, or to put it plainly, changed the framing.

But changing the frame can be problematic when there's a surreptitious trap. Take for example the invention of emotionally charged neologisms that are hard to counter. Such terms as "pro-life" or "the unborn" carry strong emotional contents that make it difficult to debate abortion. By qualifying the fetus as "unborn", the fetus surreptitiously acquires the status of a human being in potenzia that may be denied a right to be born. The word itself instils a bias in the debate, a petition of principle. Without flat out contesting arguments loaded with crafty neologisms one has to resort to a different vocabulary, such as countering with neologisms like "pro-choice". But in the end there is no debate, no common ground, no common vocabulary, on which to turf. What counts is who has the louder voice. Which brings me to another consideration.

Mass communication. A means of framing "discourse" that has little to do with rhetoric. Communication means giving a message, a slogan or a jingle maximum exposure. It's done with props, staging, the sheer domination of the means of communication. Citizens become spectators- consumers who get to play at the opinion polls. Pocinko! And cheap thrills.

A famous Bush jingle was launched in September 2002. One morning Judy Miller invented the "mushroom cloud" metaphor to falsely accuse Saddam of vying for nuclear weapons. Con delizia Rice repeated it at breakfast time. Before the day was over Cheney had used it too. An emotionally charged new brand was on the opinion market itching to sway Congress to grant war powers. All was needed was a Bernay front cashing in on the reputation of the New York Times front page, plus two seemingly independent authorities aping objective dialogues with the press. Whatever rational dissenting voice there was, it had no place to express itself outside of its designated function as a target for derision and outrage.

It's a frame you really can't deal with. It's the media that decides for you. Step in line or shut up. Did a single American news source, for example, carry the protests of the Niger government on Christmas eve 2002 against State's base innuendo that they were selling yellowcake illegally?

In effect winning American consumers to war was a culinary event: mushroom clouds with a generous side of freedom fries. Too bad they spilled all that good wine.

In conclusion it appears to me that Lakoff points out at least two types of framing: one that involves double binding, a psychological inhibitor, and another based on the petition of principle as used in rhetoric. Framing in mass communication depends on who's manipulating the control booth. But just as well the capacity of spectators to act as citizens and turn the damned tube off, frame and all.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 11:29:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually that sort of injunction is known as a double bind, such as ordering someone, "Be spontaneous!" Basically it's a self-contradictory statement that offers no exit.

It reminds me of the way I felt when I was told to "be creative" in School.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 11:30:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]