N E W S • F R A M E S • • • • •

About media framing • (written by Brian Dean)

Essentials of framing – Part 1

This is a new, longish intro to the topic of framing – based on key themes in the work of cognitive scientist George Lakoff (who is widely recognised as probably the leader in the field).

“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups,
parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”

– Friedrich Nietzsche

“It’s because they’re stupid. That’s why
everyone does everything.”
– Homer Simpson

Frames are mental structures which shape our worldviews. They’re largely unconscious, but are revealed by the language we use. For example: “time is money”. This isn’t just a figure of speech – we conceive of time as a commodity, and the frame is activated by common phrases: “don’t waste my time”, “spending time”, “borrowed time”, “running out of time”, “I’ve invested a lot of time in it”, etc.

“Time is money” ↔ anxiety

This metaphorical conception of time isn’t universal – it doesn’t exist in all societies. Some cultures have no conception of “efficient use of time”.

The “time is money” frame has certain negative consequences (stress, insecurity, short-termism, etc) – in addition to the positive things claimed for it by business managers and orthodox economists. In fact, most anxiety seems to result from how we metaphorically conceive of our projected future. More on this later.

“Time is money” is a fairly obvious metaphorical frame. Less obvious is that morality is also routinely framed in terms of money transactions. We say that a person is “discredited” (their moral “credit” is withdrawn) when shown to be untrustworthy. We speak of “profiting” from good (ie moral) experience; we ask if a given course of action is “worth it”. The qualitative realm of morality is transformed into a quantitative one by conceptualising it in terms of accounting. If someone does you harm, you “pay them back”; if you treat me well, I am “in your debt”, etc.

Getting revenge

This type of framing has everyday implications. Suppose you are harmed or disadvantaged by someone’s “immoral” (or inconsiderate) actions. We may not see ourselves as the type of people who seek revenge, but it’s likely we think in terms of “paying someone back”. As a “balancing of the books” this can be seen as a moral good – a legitimate punishment. The morality of retribution is usually associated with conservatism, but it’s generally understood (ie accepted) because of the accounting framing. The fact that you “automatically” think along these lines may cause anxiety and cognitive dissonance if you don’t regard yourself as “that kind of person”.

Framing “work”

There are two common metaphors for work: as obedience and as exchange. In the work-as-obedience frame, there’s an authority (eg the employer) and there’s obedience to the commands of authority (ie work). This obedience is rewarded (pay). In the work-as-exchange frame, work is conceptualised as an object of value which belongs to the worker. This is exchanged for money.

Different consequences apply depending on the type of framing. In the obedience frame, the worker is expected to make personal sacrifices out of “loyalty” to the employer. This may help to explain why workers are giving £29 billion in unpaid overtime to their companies each year.

Why do so many workers tolerate a situation in which income is dependent on obedience? Perhaps it’s because their family upbringing involved the same kind of situation – eg they were expected to perform tasks out of obedience to parents. In other words, the work-as-obedience frame is a familiar part of their neurology, even though it may be disadvantageous in job/business settings.

‘Strict father’ syndrome

Lakoff argues that different types of family upbringing explain many moral and political frames. He makes the case that conservative values are based on a “strict father” upbringing model, and liberal (or “progressive”) values on a “nurturant parent” model. We all seem to have both models in our brains – even the most “liberal” person can understand a John Wayne film (Lakoff uses Arnold Schwarzenegger movies as examples of the ‘strictness’ moral system).

An adult might lean towards strictness in raising her own children, while demonstrating nurturant values in her professional life, or vice versa. Conservative politicians talk about “family values” all the time – even when there are more important issues (eg war, economy) to be addressed. What do family values have to do with these bigger issues? One suggestion is that by repeatedly talking about family values (to certain audiences – eg working-class Christians, in the US), the radical-right manages to activate the strictness frame for other domains (eg economy, welfare, crime, foreign policy, etc) – where it might not “naturally” (or traditionally) apply.

Frame semantics & fear

“Fear triggers the strict father model; it tends
to make the model active in one’s brain.”

– George Lakoff, ‘Don’t think of an elephant’, p42

In the ‘strict’ frame, the world is regarded as fundamentally dangerous and competitive. Good and bad are seen as absolutes, but children aren’t born good in this worldview – they have to be made good.* This requires that they are obedient to a moral authority. Obedience is taught through punishment, which, according to this belief-system, helps children develop the self-discipline necessary to avoid doing wrong. Self-discipline is also needed for prosperity in a dangerous, competitive world. It follows, in this worldview, that people who prosper financially are self-disciplined and therefore morally good.

This framing complements, in obvious ways, the ideology of “free market” capitalism. For example, in the latter, the successful pursuit of self-interest in a competitive world is seen as a moral good since it benefits all via the “invisible hand” of the market. In both cases do-gooders are viewed as interfering with what is right – their “helpfulness” is seen as something which makes people dependent rather than self-disciplined. It’s also seen as an interference in the market optimisation of the benefits of self-interest.

*Note: In some Christian versions of strict-father framing, children are believed to be born bad – not just “no good”, but “evil”, ie tainted with Original Sin. St Augustine (according to Bertrand Russell) “really believed new-born children to be limbs of Satan”. All the more need for punishment.

Strictness Morality & competition

A ‘reward & punishment’ type morality follows from strictness framing. Punishment of disobedience is seen as a moral good – how else will people develop the self-discipline necessary to prosper in a dangerous, competitive environment? Becoming an adult, in this belief-system’s logic, means achieving sufficient self-discipline to free oneself from “dependence” on others (no easy task in a “tough world”). Success is seen as a just reward for the obedience which leads ultimately to self-discipline. Remaining “dependent” is seen as failure.

[You may want to pause here. Can you see things differently from the strictness scheme? Or do no logical alternatives seem immediately obvious to you?] 

Competition is an important premise of Strictness Morality. By competing in a tough world, people demonstrate a self-discipline deserving of reward, ie success. Conversely, it’s seen as immoral to reward those who haven’t earned it through competition. By this logic, competition is seen as morally necessary: without it there’s no motivation to become the right kind of person – ie self-disciplined and obedient to authority. Constraints on competition (eg social “hand-outs”) are therefore seen as immoral.

‘Nurturant’ framing doesn’t give competition the same moral priority. ‘Progressive’ morality tends to view economic competition as creating more losers than winners, with the resulting inequality correlating with social ills such as crime, deprivation and all the things you hope won’t happen to you. The nurturant ideal of abundance for all (eg achieved through technological advance) works against the primacy of competition. Economic competition still has an important place, but as a limited (and fallible) means to achieving abundance, rather than as a moral imperative.

While nurturant morality is troubled by the fear of “not enough to go around for all”, strictness morality is haunted by the fear of personal failure, individual weakness. Even the “successful” seem haunted by this fear.

‘Moral strength’

Central to Strictness Morality is the metaphor of moral strength. “Evil” is framed as a force which must be fought. Weakness implies evil in this worldview, since weakness is unable to resist the force of evil.

People are not born strong, the logic goes; strength is built through learning self-discipline and self-denial – these are primary values in the strictness system, so any sign of weakness is a source of anxiety, and fear itself is perceived as a further weakness (one to be denied at all costs). Note that these views are all metaphorically conceived – instead of a force, evil could (outside the strictness frame) be viewed as an effect, eg of ignorance or greed – in which case strength wouldn’t make quite as much sense as a primary moral value.

It’s usually taken for granted that strength is “good” in concrete, physical ways, but we’re talking about metaphor here. Or, rather, we’re thinking metaphorically (mostly without being aware of the fact) – in a way which affects our hierarchy of values. With “strictness” framing, we’ll give higher priority to strength (discipline, control) than to tolerance (fairness, compassion, etc). This may influence everything from our relationships to our politics and how we evaluate our own mental-emotional states.

That might sound a little dramatic and a bit academic – until we see what’s happening in the real world on Fox News.

See also:
Part 2 of this article
Part 3 of this article

Graphics by NewsFrames

Written by NewsFrames

April 19, 2012 at 8:18 am

9 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I’ve just noticed an excellent new piece from the Overweening Generalist blog – ‘Moral and Political Thought’ – it sheds light on a lot of the same areas that I cover above:



    April 19, 2012 at 10:03 am

  2. Great post! Thanks.


    April 19, 2012 at 10:04 am

  3. I have rarely read a more negative, one-eyed, biased, left wing review of morality, together with supporting pictorial illustrations. This is distorted framing at its worst.


    April 19, 2012 at 10:52 am

    • Thanks for your input, Patrick. Biased? Certainly it is. I’ve never encountered an “unbiased” view in my life. Negative? Not to my mind – not remotely. Distorted? What does the undistorted version look like?

      My artwork is not to everyone’s taste (although a recent exhibition of it in a Bristol gallery was well-received).


      April 19, 2012 at 11:10 am

  4. Patrick’s reply is full of nothing except what I term “shield phrases”. These are what an authoritarian will produce (like a shield) when threatened by a critique that they cannot respond to rationally. They have a hat-full of these. They are usually of a type that purports to demonstrate that the critique of the critic is evidence of nothing except their alleged “poor character”. For example: “It’s all just your victim mentality; you have a chip upon your shoulder; it’s all just, ‘Ah, poor me!’; you’re a conspiracy theorist; it’s all just the politics of envy” etc, etc… I’m sure that you could think of many, many more. My favourite, however, has to be, “No one said that life was meant to be fair”; to which my standard response is, “Great. I’m very glad that you feel that way as then you won’t mind that I’m seeing your wife…” ( Although it’s not supposed to work that way around, is it?) The shield phrase having then been deployed, this is then meant to signal an end to the discussion. Capitalists will always utilize this method as a defence against the fact that this economic system cannot be defended by reason as it is simply a faith. And, I don’t think that I need to remind anyone that in the bad old Soviet Union anyone who argued against the alleged “scientific truth” of communism was adduced to be suffering from schizophrenia and carted off to a mental institution. Such overt actions are not possible in our society (one hopes) but the same inference is implied in order to marginalise anyone who questions the alleged “inevitability” of our economic system.
    As for, “You have a chip upon your shoulder”, I recall the film director Alan Parker once commenting that this phrase is what a “middle class person say’s to a working class person when they have just had the temerity to point out that they are talking bollocks…”.


    April 19, 2012 at 2:01 pm

  5. Wow, I definitely automatically think this way, and it’s obvious that I judge myself and others from this frame…

    Very Interesting!

    It is interesting to notice all of the little underyling assumptions about ourselves and how we should be, and how these make up the greater part of who we are and how we live. It’s scary to think about, but also kind of relieving to consider that we might not be who we think we are!

    Tyler W

    April 19, 2012 at 9:01 pm

  6. […] The essentials of framing – great introduction. h/t Guppi Bola. […]

  7. A fine entry and a worthy post. Rather than demand more frequent posts that might cause to dilute the content may I ask News Frames for suggestions for further reading?


    April 25, 2012 at 1:05 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: