Don't Think, Period

I sat through a little lecture by George "Don't Think of an Elephant " Lakoff on Book TV last night, which inspired my dear wife to confront me about my inability to find a "language" with which to more effectively connect with people about radical politics. In his theoretical construction (he is a linguist and cognitive scientist) , my style of argumentation and debate is so"18th century Enlightenment", and instead I need to incorporate the findings of new cognitive research which stresses "framing" and emotive response. In other words, (in Lakoffian- speak) , reason and logic are passe and repetitive, subliminal, subconscious programming technique is in. As he defines success, this is what the right-wing found "35 or 40 years ago" to be so effective. My wife thought this scientific approach could help me get the revolution into gear a little faster than my "talking over peoples heads". I have heard this sentiment expressed on numerous occasions of late.

She is a smart lady but I still think both her and George, though very sincere, are totally wrong. If we accept that communicating is simply the nuerological act of shortening synapses in the brain between relating concepts (framing) , we have reduced communication to marketing. Are humans susceptible to brainwashing, to pure stimulus response manipulation? Certainly, but this is hardly news. Nor is it a way to develop revolutionary consciousness that is confident and determined and committed for the long haul. Talking someone into buying dishsoap and talking them into seeing the need for deep societal change are two totally different processes and I think this is why the "Reagan revolution" has always been so shallow and fragile. Dumbing people down and destroying historical memory is possible for a hegemonic power which controls education, culture, and media, no question, but to insist the Left can compete on that front by simply out- selling the Right with glossier ads (perhaps large breasted spokespeople?) is to succumb to a short term solution which is as condescending as it is frightening.

I know , I know (Lichanos, Char, others) Debord is a tad obtuse and the New Left Review is not something most waitresses are going to pick up after working a ten hour shift but at what point in this "talking to the masses" are we simply caving in to the dominant paradigm that people will only consume "easy" information? Is my job to make my critique more comforting? Was Nixon right that only "effete, elitist, intellectuals" do theory, are smart, read three syllable words? Fuck no. If I have to become less radical to become more palatable, I automatically concede that discursive territory I had hoped to expand. I lose before beginning.

If you have to read a sentence twice it aint no thing. If you have to look a word up in the dictionary, it did you good. We want to stretch the mind by having folks ponder new concepts, to understand dialectics, to get good and practiced at logic and not to just repeat jingoes like mantras but to discuss and debate and express themselves well. Workers can do all this just as they can manage society far better than it's being managed right now.