"Robert Link" <[email protected]> wrote: To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 12:40 PM Subject: Re: Arguments against privileging the competition narrative
> > 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 > Good points, Robert, and I see your point about our different interpretations. As you say, it's important for everyone to recognise the meta-frames and I understand the short-coming of liberals in the context you cite. Let's hope they get a bit smarter in future! cheers John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
