I am glad of this awakening as I have regain both the thirst of knowledge and understanding of different perspectives, concepts and philosophies.
Thank you to all who have been willing to share their ideas, ideals and thoughts. Thanks to the online revolution that provides a platform for them.
This article is a long and deals with how we view things. Definitely open my mind on a better understanding and how I relate to things.
Enjoy!
https://www.facebook.com/notes/chee-han-lim/dont-think-of-an-elephant/10150178587569500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't Think of an Elephant
I was at Deyi secondary school on the morning of the 8th May 2011. When Chiam See Tong appeared at the gates after receiving news that he lost Bishan-Toa Payoh, many people cried.
I feel very sad to see him go too. I think he’s a hero.
I went back home and watched American Dad and philosophically panicked about the three articles on qigong that I need to submit by July. I thought I this time confirm dio dai ji, but I thought that I should make a statement about Tin Pei Ling becoming an MP, if anything, to lighten the mood:
“Tin Pei Ling’s entry into parliament is an indicator of progress. Because sibeh jialat people also need representation”
And so I started thinking about how the nation has been split into factions for this GE.
Besides the explicit grouping of people who are pro-PAP and pro-alternative parties, observers have also offered several ways of classifying them. These include:
1) Liberals vs. conservatives
2) Young vs. old
3) Idealists vs. materialists
4) Middle vs. working classers
5) Savvy vs. apathetic
6) Cosmopolitans vs. heartlanders
7) Mainstream vs. new media readers
8) Those who are concerned with national issues vs. those with constituency ones
9) Heart vs. head
10) Emotional vs. rational
After concluding that the statement about Tin Pei Ling was a ‘wisecrack’ rather than a ‘pun’, I thought about another way to look at the factions.
I thought that we could categorize one group as those who treat politicians as ‘leaders’ and another who treat them as ‘representatives’. The former would probably swing towards PAP and look at candidates who are highly qualified, while the latter would support alternative parties and look at candidates who are empathetic.
One of the interesting things about the entire discourse on politics in Singapore is the regular use of the term ‘political leaders’ rather than ‘politicians’. It’s quite unique because I don’t see the dominance of the former in political discourse in the West. I think people in more lao jiao democracies are more insistent on their abilities and rights to steer the directions in which the their countries move, rather than to let a small group of people do the work.
There are therefore all sorts of politicians that are popular in these countries. In Singapore, on a contrary, what we find is a demand among the electorate, almost at an exclusion of others, for candidates with university degrees, for managers, lawyers, doctors, ex-civil servants, etc.
If all Singaporeans see politicians as representatives, there should be candidates who are not university graduates, who are hawkers, technicians, taxi-drivers, etc., insofar as among Singaporeans, there are many people who are not university graduates, who are hawkers, technicians, and taxi-drivers. But there does not seem to be a room for them.
Compared to 'political leaders', the word ‘politician’ carries a much more negative connotation, which can be seen in the sort of jokes about them (and about lawyers too), because people in the West are skeptical about what politicians’ interests really are. In Singapore, many people carry a considerable amount of respect for and trust towards politicians, as authoritative figures - as 'leaders'.
This also explains why alternative parties are called ‘opposition’. And that ministers who have insulted the people continue to receive supporting votes. Something quite unique as well. I argue that, beyond propaganda, history, and tradition, there is a cognitive-linguistic explanation for these phenomena.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't Think of an Elephant!
This brings us to a discussion about George Lakoff’s book called “Don’t Think of an Elephant!”. A long discussion.
Lakoff is currently a professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley. I first came across his writings in 2004, when I read “Metaphors We Live By”. He argues that we do not have the vocabulary to express many things, particularly emotions, and hence we resort to using metaphors. For instance, war metaphors are used to describe arguments:
“Your claims are indefensible.”
“He attacked every weak point in my argument. His criticisms were right on target.”
“I demolished his argument.”
“You disagree? Okay, shoot!”
“If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out. He shot down all of my arguments.”
Some of us would probably remember the following dialogue from the movie Inception:
“Arthur: Okay, this is me, planting an idea in your mind. I say: don't think about elephants. What are you thinking about?
Saito: Elephants?
Arthur: Right, but it's not your idea. The dreamer can always remember the genesis of the idea. True inspiration is impossible to fake.
Cobb: No, it's not.”
Some of us probably do not know that the lines were inspired by Lakoff’s book, “Don’t Think of an Elephant!” The point of both is: negating an idea also evokes the idea.
Lakoff considers himself a progressive. So when the republicans won the 2004 elections, he decided to take action. Some analysts believe that Obama’s victory was partially due to Lakoff’s contribution (yes academics do contribute to social change too).
Lakoff argues that it is time to debunk two primary myths propagated by the Enlightenment movement (myths that have also been challenged by cognitive scientists like Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize winner, and Amos Tversky):
1) The truth will set us free. If we just tell people the facts, since people are basically rational beings, they’ll all reach the right conclusions
2) It is irrational to go against your self-interest, and therefore a normal person, who is rational, reasons on the basis of self-interest
He argues, on the contrary, that people’s decisions and therefore actions, are guided by ‘frames’ rather than rational self-interests. Frames are invisible mental structures that shape the way we see the world. All words are defined relative to frames. When you hear a word, its frame is activated in your brain.
His advices to the democrats are:
1) When we negate a frame, we evoke the frame. (E.g. when Clinton said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”, thereafter everybody knew about his sexual relations with Lewinsky)
2) Truth matters only when presented within certain frames
3) People vote for their values and identities, not their interests
4) Know your values and identities, and present them well
5) Learn to reframe the debate and target the swing voters
~~~~~~~~~~
The Strict Father Frame
Republicans, in his view, succeeded because they knew how to evoke, using certain words, what he calls the ‘Strict Father’ frame. The frame, with a Singaporean flavor, includes the following characteristics:
- The world is a dangerous place
- The world is our competitor
- Only the strict father can lead the children safely against the world
- Father is competent, mature and rational
- Children are incompetent, foolish and impulsive
- Father disciplines children in order to teach them how to deal with the world
- Children must listen to father or will be punished for their own good
- The father’s task is to protect the family. It doesn’t matter who the children are.
- A healthy family is a family with a lot of savings
- Father deserves to get the major share of the savings
- He will give the children some pocket money according to how good they behave
- Without the father’s leadership, the family will cease to exist
The following is a list of words, which we often see in mainstream media, that evokes the Strict Father frame:
Evoking the strict father and his methods:
- ‘Rational’
- ‘tested’
- ‘talents’
- ‘qualified’
- ‘think long-term’
- ‘look at macro issues’
- ‘strong’
- ‘caliber’
- ‘track record’
- ‘leaders’
- ‘mature’
- ‘delivers’
- ‘put into perspectives’
- ‘move on’
- ‘careful and calm’
- ‘stable’
- ‘frugal’
- ‘system that works’
Evoking the dangerous world:
- ‘globalization’
- ‘China and India’
- ‘would result in a weaker system’
- ‘complacency’
- ‘stay vigilant’
- ‘stay competitive’
- ‘secure the future’
- ‘a period of uncertainties’
- ‘freak election’
- ‘nobody owes us a living’
- ‘racial and religious riots’
- ‘crises’
- ‘need foreign talents’
And who could forget the Minister Mentor’s ‘live and repent’ and the following:
"You know, the cure for all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government. You get that alternative and you'll never put Singapore together again: Humpty Dumpty cannot be put together again...and your asset values will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people's countries, foreign workers."
: -- Lee Kuan Yew (Straits Times, 5 April 2007)
The moment we use the word ‘political leaders’, the Strict Father frame is evoked, and images, feelings, thoughts about the following emerges:
“The PAP man is strong, calm and rational. Only he knows what is good for the family, the rest don’t. He is frugal, saves up for rainy days, and looks at things at the macro level and for the long term so that he can prepare for the uncertain future. Don’t interfere with his work, just let him do his job.”
Examples of how this frame has been carried in the Straits Times’ quotations of politicians include:
- “a small nation like Singapore needs to have the strongest possible team to compete globally”
- “We are small, we are vulnerable. With a mediocre government, other countries may muddle through and have to muddle through, but Singapore will fail.”
- “There were simply not enough people of calibre to perform key roles like that of Finance or Defence Minister”
- “Good governance brings about growth, good policies, good implementation programmes, which in turn gives you stability, and stability in turn gives you good governance. And this is a strong competitive advantage. To navigate this unpredictable world, we need to have the best crew we can get, the competencies, the strategies, the unity, and the will to overcome crises.”
- “If we succeed, as we have done in the last five years, $22 million a year for my team under the new formula to be implemented over several years is small beer. Measure the $22 million against the cost to you of having an incompetent and corrupt government.’
Examples of how the Strict Father frame is implied in the crafting and justifications of polices:
- Single-party system better than two-party system: because there can be only one father – two fathers will fight with one another for control over the family. (If we were to, however, see politicians not as father-figures but indeed, as servants, the 'deadlock' scenario would be more difficult to imagine because there are traditionally several servants working together to serve the master. A different scenario would also emerge if we were to see politicians as 'parents', who work together harmoniously for the good of the family)
- NMP and NCMP scheme: children can say all they want, but the father is the one who decides if he wants to listen and who he listens to. Children should not make decisions on how to renovate the house, because they will destroy it
- President as safeguard in case of ‘freak election’: because the children will ‘raid’ the piggy bank and blow it all on candies and toys. Elected president is the uncle who possesses the same ‘authority’ (is there a better translation for 辈份?) as the Father
- CPF contribution: children don’t know how to save for rainy days, father must therefore force children to put 20 cents in piggy bank out of every $1 of pocket money
- No to minimum wage (or any other non-welfarist policy): giving children too much will spoil them, better to put ‘spurs on their backs’, artificially if necessary
- Foreign talents and new citizens: there’s nothing we can do about the dangerous world, so father decides to get outsiders to come help us build a stronger wall. It doesn’t matter if the children can’t get along with the strangers, because the children’s identities and feelings don’t build walls
Together with the PAP-as-Strict Father, a following frame of the alternative parties and the masses-as-Impulsive Children is also evoked:
“Opposing voices are emotional and short-sighted. They want to spend all the savings. They are not trained, not experienced, and not credible. They have no idea what they’re talking about. If they were to determine how the family functions, they will destroy it.”
Examples of such include:
- “Mr Mah warned the WP's proposal would lower the value of Singapore's one million homes …he explained that the housing markets are interlinked…Lowering land cost…is tantamount to raiding Singapore's reserves, warned National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan on Saturday”(note how the father 'warns' the children)
- “Whatever emotions are aroused during the period, calm down, detach yourself, think carefully before you vote - which is why we now have a cooling-off day before polling day” – Lee Hsien Loong
- “Jurong GRC was considered 'hot' in 2001. We made tactical switches in candidates at practically the last moment. Tharman and Halimah hit the ground cold. But I did not think Chee Soon Juan was that credible. So we proceeded calmly. Then, Chee Soon Juan heckled Mr Goh Chok Tong. He shot himself in the foot. In both battles, it paid to stay cool, focus on what matters to the people.” – Lim Boon Heng
- “Unlike the printed word, video has long been viewed by the Government as a medium that can sway the emotions of the masses. The Government remains wary of film-makers who may seek to exploit the medium so as to stir people's feelings against controversial policies.” – Insight, Straits Times
~~~~~~~
Implications of Lakoff's arguments
In the quiet words of my ex-professor Chua Beng Huat, “So what?”
First, I’d like to believe that I have freewill, despite not being able to answer the “how do you know what you know” question. And therefore, I don’t like the idea that I’ve been manipulated unconsciously. So I think it’s important that I know what’s ticking at the back of my mind when I read something in the papers, and ask if I really agree with what I’ve read.
Second, for those of us who believe in the virtues of democracy, of a Singapore that would be stronger with a government that serves rather than leads, listens rather than commands, and is caring rather than arrogant, it is important that we remain deeply embedded in our beliefs, values, and identities, and not be swayed by frames that have been evoked in our minds unconsciously.
Last, in the words of Lakoff,
“In politics our frames shape our social policies and the institutions we form to carry out policies. To change our frames is to change of this. Reframing is social change”
When it comes to politics, framing is important because every time phrases like ‘rational’, ‘talent’, ‘credible’, ‘stability’, ‘track record’, ‘working system’, ‘globalization’ are used, the PAP frame is evoked and the debate will swing in its favor.
For instance, ‘talent’ commonly refers to people with paper qualifications, worked in the civil service, doctors, lawyers. i.e. people with ‘good brains’. Trying to argue that one also has ‘talents’ is an act of catching up because the frame tells us that the strict father definitely has more 'brains' than his children. The same applies to using words like 'rational', 'big picture', 'long-term view', etc, anything that evokes the idea of a tough father 'leading' impulsive children on a long and dangerous journey.
(But the strict father does not have ‘good hearts’)
For instance, talking about dealing with ‘uncertainties’ also puts alternative parties at a disadvantage because the frame tells us that the strict father is an expert at that. The same applies to words like 'globalization', 'China and India', 'competition', etc. anything that evokes the idea of a dangerous world that we can do nothing about, and should thus just listen to the strict father who knows better because he has 'track records' and 'credibility'.
(But the strict father doesn’t consult and listen to his children)
The question is then, how do we re-frame the debate? Lakoff says we target the Orwellian languages (a homage to George Orwell of course!)
~~~~~~~~
Orwellian Languages
Orwellian languages or phrases contain the following three characteristics:
- They mean the opposite of what they say
- They are used to appease people so as to implement policies with less resistance
- Most importantly, they reveal weaknesses
Below is a list of Orwellian phrases I gathered throughout the GE period:
- ‘Workfare’ (sounds like 'welfare' but in practice, far from that)
- ‘ComCare’ (sounds very 'caring', but still an extension of non-welfarist self-reliance policies)
- ‘Grow and Share Package’
- ‘Debate’
- ‘No groupthink’
- ‘in touch with ground sentiments’
- ‘humble’
- ‘compassionate’
- ‘empathy’
- ‘diverse’
- ‘understands’
- ‘fully invested’
- ‘connected’
Examples of Orwellian statements:
“THE new candidates unveiled by the People's Action Party are diverse and those who come from humble backgrounds”
“Hard truths may have served us well, but it is time to fine-tune them into heart truths.”
And the most Orwellian statement of all, which I have never heard being uttered by PAP politicians before is:
“…we must also be in touch with people's sentiments and worries and address their day-to-day, bread-and-butter concerns. Never forget we're servants of the people, not their masters. Always maintain a sense of humility and service. Never lord it over the people we're looking after and serving.”
– Lee Hsien Loong, 18 April 2011
The PM has evoked what Lakoff calls the Nurturing Parents frame, a competing frame of the Strict Father one. Its characteristics are as follows:
- Nurturing parents are caring, empathic and understanding
- They listen to and provide for the children’s needs, aspirations, and feelings
- Family is healthy insofar as children are
- Each child is unique, but they must all be treated fairly
- Every single child matters to the family and the parents
- Parents do not always know what’s best
- Parents must live up to same expectations they have of the children
- Children’s happiness is the most important
- Children must be free to pursue their happiness
- Children’s happiness = parents’ happiness
- Communication and humility are critical to maintaining good relations with the children and therefore, the health of the family
~~~~~~~~
Practical Implications
Orwellian statements uttered by PAP politicians reveal weaknesses. They are used to appease the dissenters. And so democrats should make full use of them - by refusing to get involved in evoking the Strict Father frame, by building upon those Orwellian phrases, and by evoking the Nurturing Parents frame.
Below are a few examples of how we can do it in practice.
1) When someone talks about candidates’ talents by citing their qualifications, don’t say ‘I also got talents’. Talk about how their candidate’s background are too detached from the electorate and therefore direct attention to their 'elitist arrogance', their inabilities to 'empathize', to feel 'compassion', to 'connect', and to be 'in touch with' the ground sentiments
2) When someone argues that PAP candidates do not practice group-think, target the issue of what makes the candidates similar, and question how much can they contribute to diverse opinions. When someone argues for the NCMP scheme, talk about how effective can it be when ministers can choose not to listen
3) When someone talks about ‘security’ and ‘stability’, do not debate about how to ensure that, talk about care for the needy, concern for the poor, and empathy for those who find things unaffordable
4) When someone talks about leaders and credibility, do not argue about track records and qualifications, talk about people who are listeners and who are humble
5) When someone says there is rigorous debate in parliament, do not ask about the rigor, ask who are they debating with.
In other words, use words that evoke the Nurturing Parents metaphor.
~~~~~~~
Post-script:
Even though I've spoken about all the above before, I didn't write a note about it because re-framing is a skill that takes time to hone. Because frames are invisible and work at the subliminal level, it takes practice to detect and explicate them. In the short span of a few weeks, this is hardly possible. We have now, five years ahead of us, within which we could all learn to, in Lakoff's words, take back the discourse.
Re-framing is one way, out of many, in which we could go about making the playing field much more level. I am aware that the Worker's Party was able to wrest a GRC from the PAP not because it played the Nurturing Parent frame game only, but through various permutations of tactics and strategies. However, the ways in which it goes about presenting its "Towards a First World Parliament" slogan does contain several elements that depart from the Strict Father frame (e.g. Chen Show Mao's Wizard of Oz metaphor). It is also notable that the many metaphors that PAP candidates use, are derivations of the Strict Father frame, e.g. Lui Tuck Yew's awful 'Trees (father) vs. Mushrooms (children)' metaphor, or PM Lee's argument that there can only be one driver (father) for a bus.
Both Strict Father and Nurturing Parents frames are present in our schema. I’m not saying that one frame is superior to the other, but rather, I am advocating the importance of knowing which frame we identify with and subsequently, know how to think and act in accordance to our values, ideals, and interests.
The Strict Father frame is probably much more salient in the minds of the older generation. After all, most of them were indeed brought up in families with strict fathers, and were taught that children are to be seen and not heard. For those of us in our 30s and beyond, we probably remember what ‘din diao 藤条’ is, i.e. The Cane. It’s interesting that the sale of canes increases during examination periods. I have one in my room, a gift from a friend, to remember my childhood by. The stuff of nightmares.
However, with a changing demography, younger electorates’ voices are becoming louder and will get louder. I’m sure that many of these young Singaporeans were brought up and will be brought up by nurturing parents rather than strict fathers. For crying out loud, my brother has never used corporal punishment on his children before; he employs his faculty of reason and lots of love. And my nephew and niece are one of the nicest kids I’ve ever met dammit.
The 'fact' that ministers apologized and acknowledged that they've been too arrogant shows that the Nurturing Parents discourse is gradually edging out the Strict Father. Perhaps in a few decades, the Nurturing Parents frame will begin to dominate, both in people’s schema and in political discourse. In the meantime, we need to remind people that there are always contending frames out there and within us, and if we believe in forming independent opinions, it is necessary to know what they are and how they work.
Yes for some of us, the results were below our expectations. I kinda expected it, although my wager was placed on Holland-Bukit Timah than Aljunied. I guess I over-estimated George Yeo's appeal and under-estimated Aljunied-ers' commitment towards the democratic ideal.
I feel that change will take time; it will definitely take place in my lifetime. Perhaps for some, the online fervor got to them, raising their expectations beyond what is possible. Perhaps for some, they feel that by writing notes, sharing articles and video clips, talking to their relatives and friends, Singapore will experience a mini-revolution. History has shown that it's gonna take much more than that!
Some of us feel sad about the results of this GE, and are discouraged to the extent of wanting to give up. By all means feel sad, for it is what makes us humans. The ability to feel sad for those who deserve it, is that which distinguishes us from unfeeling Fathers. But do not let it consume us, do not spread the sadness and let it infect others. I feel sad too, but I also remind myself to remain hopeful. I believe that the worst sort of soldier is a pessimistic one. And the best, are those that remain hopeful.
There is much work to do; there are five years of work ahead of us. As Sylvia Lim said, “Democracy doesn’t happen only during elections. It happens between them”
Let not the fire die. Remember all who have fought for democracy in Singapore: they have been jailed, bankrupted, and exiled, and they have never given up – while we sit in our air-conditioned room typing away. I have no doubt that these people will become heroes in the re-written history of Singapore.
Here’s something from one of these heroes:
"We shall be moving forward from here... We will never surrender. In the end, we shall win the battle."
: -- Chiam See Tong
No comments:
Post a Comment