On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:26:07PM -0000, John Bunzl wrote: > Interestingly, this could have a bearing on your comment about conservatives > framing the issues while liberals fail to do so, and let me try to explain. > My suggestion would be that all the while there is an ABSENCE of global > governance (the cooperation transaction), economic and many social and > environmental issues are necessarily framed against the backdrop of that > reality. That means policies/issues/arguments which one way or another > require people, corporations and nations to remain "internationally > competitive" to survive in the global market (i.e. broadly conservative > policies/issues/arguments) will generally prevail. > > Liberals will only gain the upper hand when they finally recognise that the > problem is not free markets, capitalism, or whatever, but the over-riding > need, now, for global governance; the over-riding need, that is, for us to > complete the global competitive market with globally cooperative governance. > We need to complete the competition transaction by campaigning for and > ultimately implementing the cooperative transaction!
I wonder if we might not be using terms differently based on coming from different contexts. You, quite rightly, look to a global context, where my paradigm is U.S. mass media. On the global scale we see something closer to a giant free market, in that there is no central government to regulate the global market. Is that a fair statement? Because of historically normal in-grouping and out-grouping, combined with the dominating competition narrative, we see arguably more destructive competition and inequity at this level than we might under a) an effective global government, or b) an elevation of cooperation narratives and a decrease of rigid in-grouping/out-grouping. Back to my smaller, narrower focus, when some well meaning U.S. liberal goes on a television show like Fox New's "The O'Reilly Factor" that person might well conceive the exchange in terms of dialectic and what is sometimes sold as "the democratic process". But the folks running things at Fox news will conceive the exhange as a means to reassure viewers, largely semi-literate self-identified "conservatives" that only Fox can protect them from the "dangers" of liberalism. To that end bullying and other rhetorical shennanigans are quite acceptable to the Fox programmers and viewers, so visiting liberals inevitably get the feces coated end of the stick simply by refusing to believe the game is rigged. But my original point was that from one angle this can be viewed as a failure to recognize a meta-frame of competition and the existence of concurrent games, in which an O'Reilly is perfectly content to "lose" on debate class criteria so long as he wins with ratings and brand loyalty. I think this failure to recognize extant concurrent games is the primary failing of advice such as provided by Lakoff in discussion of framing. What ties my narrow example to your larger one is the need to recognize what meta-frames exist and how each act pays in each of the payoff grids for each of the concurrent games for which such an act is relevant. Looking forward to any thoughts this might inspire, rl --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CooperationCommons" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CooperationCommons?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
