Reframing Moral Politics

In: Journal of language and politics, Band 6, Heft 3, S. 459-474

Abstract

An appraisal of George Lakoff's Moral Politics (2002) draws on insights of critical discourse analysis to address an issue common to both approaches: the possibility of incorporating a discussion of values into the academic study of cognition & discourse, respectively. It is argued that the traditional ideal of achieving impartiality be replaced as a goal of research by a concept of balance, a criterion that is violated both by Lakoff & by many practitioners of critical discourse analysis, as shown by Bar-Lev's (2007) analysis of critiques of the political discourse of George W. Bush by Paul Chilton (2001) & David Butt et al (2004). In Lakoff's case, the cognitive models of the Strict Father & the Nurturant Parent, proposed as metaphors for conservative & liberal thinking respectively, are framed by Lakoff in terms such that his additional concept of demons, exemplified by conservatives' demonization of Hillary Clinton & liberals' demonization of Newt Gingrich, is congruent with Lakoff's Strict Father logic & has no place in his Nurturant Parent model. Adapted from the source document.