> Dear Friends,
>
> Many of you have written expressing your thoughts and feelings about the
> events of September 11 and have asked me for my thoughts in return. Here is
> what sense I have been able to make of all this so far.
>
> If you find this of interest, please pass it on over the net to anyone you
> think might also be interested.
>
> Kathleen and I hope you and your loved ones are all safe and well.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> George Lakoff
>
>
> George Lakoff is Professor of Linguistics at the University of California at
> Berkeley and a Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute. He is the author of
> Moral Politics (U. of Chicago Press, 1996), a study of how conservatives and
> liberals see the world, and ìMetaphor and War,î perhaps the most widely
> distributed critique of the Gulf War, distributed over the Internet during
> its early days. He also studies language, metaphorical thought, and the way
> the mind is embodied.
>
>
>
> September 11, 2001
>
> By George Lakoff
>
>
> 1
>
> The Power of the Images
>
>
> As a metaphor analyst, I want to begin with the power of the images.
>
> There are a number of metaphors for buildings. We see features--eyes, nose
> and mouth--in their windows. The image of the plane going into South Tower
> of the World Trade Center is metaphorically an image of a bullet going
> through someone's head, the flame pouring from the other side blood spurting
> out. Tall buildings are metaphorically people standing erect. Each tower
> falling was a body falling. We are not consciously aware of the metaphorical
> images, but they are part of the power and the horror we experience when we
> see them.
>
> Each of us, in the prefrontal cortex of our brains, has what are called
> "mirror neurons." Such neurons fire either when we perform an action or
> when see the same action performed by someone else. There are connections
> from that part of the brain to the emotional centers. Such neural circuits
> are believed to be the basis of empathy.
>
> This works literally--when we see plane coming toward the building and
> imagine people in the building, we feel the plane coming toward us; when we
> see the building toppling toward others, we feel the building toppling
> toward us. It also works metaphorically: If we see the plane going through
> the building, and unconsciously we metaphorize the building as a head with
> the plane going through its temple, then we sense--unconsciously but
> powerfully--being shot through the temple. If we metaphorize the building as
> a person and see the building fall to the ground in pieces, then we
> sense--again unconsciously but powerfully--that we are falling to the ground
> in pieces. Our systems of metaphorical thought, interacting with our mirror
> neuron systems, turn external literal horrors into felt metaphorical
> horrors.
>
> Here are some other cases:
>
> Control Is Up: You have control over the situation, you're on top of things.
> This has always been an important basis of towers as symbols of power. In
> this case, the toppling of the towers meant loss of control, loss of power.
>
> Phallic imagery: Towers are symbols of phallic power and their collapse
> reinforces the idea of loss of power.
>
> Another kind of phallic imagery was more central here. The planes as
> penetrating the towers with a plume of heat. The pentagon, a vaginal image
> from the air, penetrated by the plane as missile.
>
> A Society Is A Building. A society can have a "foundation" which may or may
> not be "solid" and it can "crumble" and "fall." The World Trade Center was
> symbolic of society. When it crumbled and fell, the threat was more than to
> a building.
>
> We think metaphorically of things that perpetuate over time as "standing."
> Bush the Father in the Gulf War kept saying, "This will not stand," meaning
> that the situation would not be perpetuated over time. The World Trade
> Center was build to last ten thousand years. When it crumbled, it
> metaphorically raised the question of whether American power and American
> society would last.
>
> Building As Temple: Here we had the destruction of the temple of capitalist
> commerce, which lies at the heart of our society.
>
>
> Our minds play tricks on us. The image of the Manhattan skyline is now
> unbalanced. We are used to seeing it with the towers there. Our mind imposes
> our old image of the towers, and the sight of them gone gives one the
> illusion of imbalance, as if Manhattan we sinking. Given the symbolism of
> Manhattan as standing for the promise of America, it appears metaphorically
> as if that promise were sinking.
>
> Then there is the persistent image, day after day, of the charred and
> smoking remains: it is an image of hell.
>
> The World Trade Center was a potent symbol, tied into our understanding of
> our country and ourselves in a myriad of ways. All of what we know is
> physically embodied in our brains. To incorporate the new knowledge requires
> a physical change in the synapses of our brains, a physical reshaping of our
> neural system.
>
> The physical violence was not only in New York and Washington. Physical
> changes--violent ones--have been made to the brains of all Americans.
>
>
> 2
>
> How The Administation Frames the Event
>
>
> The administration's framings and reframings and its search for metaphors
> should be noted. The initial framing was as a "crime" with "victims" and
> "perpetrators" to be "brought to justice" and "punished." The crime frame
> entails law, courts, lawyers, trials, sentencing, appeals, and so on. It was
> hours before "crime" changed to "war" with "casualties," "enemies,"
> "military action," "war powers," and so on.
>
>
> Rumsfeld and other administration officials have pointed out that this
> situation does not fit our understanding of a "war." There are "enemies"
> and "casualties" all right, but no enemy army, no regiments, no tanks, no
> ships, no air force, no battlefields, no strategic targets, and no clear
> "victory." The war frame just doesn't fit. Colin Powell had always argued
> that no troops should be committed without specific objectives, a clear and
> achievable definition of victory, a clear exit strategy--and no open-ended
> commitments. But he has pointed out that none of these is present in this
> "war."
>
> Because the concept of "war" doesn't fit, there is a frantic search for
> metaphors. First, Bush called the terrorists "cowards"--but this didn't
> seem to work too well for martyrs who willing sacrificed their lives for
> their moral and religious ideals. More recently he has spoken of "smoking
> them out of their holes" as if they were rodents, and Rumsfeld has spoken of
> "drying up the swamp they live in" as if they were snakes or lowly swamp
> creatures. The conceptual metaphors here are Moral is Up; Immoral is Down
> (they are lowly) and Immoral People are Animals (that live close to the
> ground).
>
> The use of the word "evil" in the administration's discourse works in the
> following way. In conservative, strict father morality (see my Moral
> Politics, Chapter 5), evil is a palpable thing, a force in the world. To
> stand up to evil you have to be morally strong. If you're weak, you let evil
> triumph, so that weakness is a form of evil in itself, as is promoting
> weakness. Evil is inherent, an essential trait, that determines how you will
> act in the world. Evil people do evil things. No further explanation is
> necessary. There can be no social causes of evil, no religious rationale for
> evil, no reasons or arguments for evil. The enemy of evil is good. If our
> enemy is evil, we are inherently good. Good is our essentially nature and
> what we do in the battle against evil is good. Good and evil are locked in a
> battle, which is conceptualized metaphorically as a physical fight in which
> the stronger wins. Only superior strength can defeat evil, and only a show
> of strength can keep evil at bay. Not to show overwhelming strength is
> immoral, since it will induce evildoers to perform more evil deeds because
> they'll think they can get away with it. To oppose a show of superior
> strength is therefore immoral. Nothing is more important in the battle of
> good against evil, and if some innocent noncombatants get in the way and get
> hurt, it is a shame, but it is to be expected and nothing can be done about
> it. Indeed, performing lesser evils in the name of good is justified--
> "lesser" evils like curtailing individual liberties, sanctioning political
> assassinations, overthrowing governments, torture, hiring criminals, and
> "collateral damage."
>
> Then there is the basic security metaphor, Security As Containment--keeping
> the evildoers out. Secure our borders, keep them and their weapons out of
> our airports, have marshals on the planes. Most security experts say that
> there is no sure way to keep terrorists out or to deny them the use of some
> weapon or other; a determined well-financed terrorist organization can
> penetrate any security system. Or they can choose other targets, say oil
> tankers.
>
> Yet the Security As Containment metaphor is powerful. It is what lies behind
> the missile shield proposal. Rationality might say that the September 11th
> attack showed the missile shield is pointless. But it strengthened the use
> of the Security As Containment metaphor. As soon as you say "national
> security," the Security as Containment metaphor will be activated and with
> it, the missile shield.
>
>
> 3
>
> The Conservative Advantage
>
> The reaction of the Bush administration is just what you would expect a
> conservative reaction would be--pure Strict Father morality: There is evil
> loose in the world. We must show our strength and wipe it out. Retribution
> and vengeance are called for. If there are "casualties" or "collateral
> damage," so be it.
>
> The reaction from liberals and progressives has been far different: Justice
> is called for, not vengeance. Understanding and restraint are what is
> needed. The model for our actions should be the rescue workers and
> doctors--the healers--not the bombers.
>
> We should not be like them, we should not take innocent lives in bringing
> the perpetrators to justice. Massive bombing of Afghanistan--with the
> killing of innocents--will show that we are no better than they.
>
> But it has been the administration's conservative message that has
> dominated the media. The event has been framed in their terms. As Newt
> Gingrich put it on the Fox Network, "Retribution is justice."
>
> We must reframe the discussion. Susan Bales reminds us of Gandhi's words:
> Be the change you want. The words apply to governments as well as to
> individuals.
>
>
> 4
>
> Causes
>
>
> There are (at least) three kinds of causes radical Islamic terrorism:
>
> Worldview: The Religious Rationale
> Social and Political Conditions: Cultures of Despair
> Means: The Enabling Conditions
>
> The Bush administration has discussed only the third: The means that enable
> attacks to be carried out. These include: Leadership (e.g., bin Laden), host
> countries, training facilities and bases, financial backing, cell
> organization, information networks, and so on. These do not include the
> first and second on the list.
>
>
> Worldview: Religious Rationale
>
> The question that keeps being asked in the media is, Why do they hate us so
> much?
>
> It is important at the outset to separate out moderate to liberal Islam from
> radical Islamic fundamentalists, who do not represent most muslims.
>
> Radical Islamic fundamentalists hate our culture. They have a worldview that
> is incompatible with the way that Americans--and other westerners--live
> their lives. One part of this world view concerns women, who are to hide
> their bodies, have no right to property, and so on. Western sexuality,
> mores, music, and women's equality all violate their values, and the
> ubiquity of American cultural products, like movies and music, throughout
> the world offends them. A second part concerns theocracy: they believe that
> governments should be run according to strict Islamic law by clerics. A
> third concerns holy sites, like those in Jerusalem, which they believe
> should be under Islamic political and military control. A fourth concerns
> the commercial and military incursions by Westerners on Islamic soil, which
> they liken to the invasion of the hated crusaders. The way they see it, our
> culture spits in the face of theirs. A fifth concerns jihad--a holy war to
> protect and defend the faith. A sixth is the idea of a martyr, a man willing
> to sacrifice himself for the cause. His reward is eternal glory--an eternity
> in heaven surrounded by willing young virgins. In some cases, there is a
> promise that his family will be taken care of by the community.
>
> Social and Political Conditions: Cultures of Despair
>
> Most Islamic would-be martyrs not only share these beliefs but have also
> grown up in a culture of despair: they have nothing to lose. Eliminate such
> poverty and you eliminate the breeding ground for terrorists. When the Bush
> administration speaks of eliminating terror, it does not appear to be
> talking about eliminating cultures of despair and the social conditions that
> lead one to want to give up your life to martyrdom.
>
> Princeton Lyman of the Aspen Institute has made an important proposal--that
> the world-wide anti-terrorist coalition being formed address the causal
> real-world conditions as well. Country by country, the conditions (both
> material and political) leading to despair need to be addressed, with a
> worldwide commitment to ending them. It should be done because it is a
> necessary part of addressing the causes of terrorism--and because it is
> right! The coalition being formed should be made into a long-term global
> institution for this purpose.
>
> What about the first cause--the radical Islamic worldview itself. Military
> action won't change it. Social action won't change it. Worldviews live in
> the minds of people. How can one change those minds--and if not present
> minds, then future minds? The West cannot! Those minds can only be changed
> by moderate and liberal Muslims--clerics, teachers, elders, respected
> community members. They need to be recruited to a worldwide full-time
> effort, not just against terror, but against hate. Remember that "taliban"
> means "student." Those that teach hate in Islamic schools must be replaced
> --and we in the West cannot replace them. This can only be done by an
> organized moderate, nonviolent Islam. The West can make the suggestion, but
> we alone are powerless to carry it out. We depend on good will and courage
> of moderate Islamic leaders. To gain it, we must show our good will by
> beginning in a serious way to address the social and political conditions
> that lead to despair.
>
> But a conservative government, thinking of the enemy as evil, will not take
> the primary causes seriously. They will only go after the enabling causes.
> But unless the primary causes are addressed, terrorists will continue to be
> spawned.
>
>
> 5
>
> Public Discourse
>
> The Hon. Barbara Lee (D, CA), who I am proud to acknowledge as my
> representative in Congress, said the following in casting the lone vote
> against giving President Bush full Congressional approval for carrying out
> his War on Terrorism as he sees fit:
>
>
> I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of
> international terrorism against the United States. This
> is a very complex and complicated matter.
>
> However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of
> restraint. Our country is in a state of mourning. Some of us must say,
> let us step back for a moment. Let us just pause for a minute and think
> through the implications of our actions today so that this does not spiral
> out of control.
>
> I have agonized over this vote, but I came to grips with it today and I
> came to grips with opposing this resolution during the very painful yet very
> beautiful memorial service. As a member of the clergy so eloquently said,
> "As we act,let us not become the evil that we deplore."
>
> I agree. But what is striking to me as a linguist is the use of negatives
> in the statement: "not prevent," "restraint" (inherently negative), "not
> spiral out of control," "not become the evil that we deplore." Friends
> are circulating a petition calling for "Justice without vengeance."
> "Without" has another implicit negative. It is not that these negative
> statements are wrong. But what is needed is a positive form of discourse.
>
> There is one.
>
> The central concept is that of "responsibility," which is at the heart of
> progressive/liberal morality (See Moral Politics). Progressive/liberal
> morality begins with empathy, the ability to understand others and feel what
> they feel. That is presupposed in responsibility--responsibility for
> oneself, for protection, for the care of those who need care, and for the
> community. Those were the values that we saw at work among the rescue
> workers in New York right after the attack.
>
> Responsibility requires competence and effectiveness. If you are to deal
> responsibly with terrorism, you must deal effectively with all its causes:
> religious, social, and enabling causes. The enabling causes must be dealt
> with effectively. Bombing innocent civilians and harming them by destroying
> their country's domestic infrastructure will be counterproductive--as well
> as immoral. Responsibility requires care in the place of blundering
> overwhelming force.
>
> Massive bombing would be irresponsible. Failure to address the religious and
> social causes would be irresponsible. The responsible response begins with
> joint international action to address all three: the social and political
> conditions and the religious worldview and the means with all due care.
>
>
>
> 6
>
> Foreign Policy
>
>
> I have been working on a monograph on foreign policy. The idea behind it is
> this: There are many advocacy groups that have long been doing important
> good works in the international arena, but on issues that have not
> officially been seen as being a proper part of foreign policy: the
> environment, human rights, women's rights, the condition of children, labor,
> international public health issues (e.g., AIDS in Africa), sustainable
> development, refugees, international education, and so on. The monograph
> comes in two parts.
>
> First, the book points out that the metaphors that foreign policy experts
> have used to define what foreign policy is rules out these important
> concerns. Those metaphors involve self-interest (e.g., the Rational Actor
> Model), stability (a physics metaphor), industrialization (unindustrialized
> nations are "underdeveloped"), and trade (freedom is free trade).
>
> Second, the book proposes an alterative way of thinking about foreign policy
> under which all these issues would become a natural part of what foreign
> policy is about. The premise is that, when international relations work
> smoothly, it is because certain moral norms of the international community
> are being followed. This mostly goes unnoticed, since those norms are
> usually followed. We notice problems when those norms are breached. Given
> this, it makes sense that foreign policy should be centered around those
> norms.
>
> The moral norms I suggest come out of what I called in Moral Politics
> "nurturant morality." It is a view of ethical behavior that centers on (a)
> empathy and (b) responsibility (for both yourself and others needing your
> help). Many things follow from these central principles: fairness, minimal
> violence (e.g., justice without vengeance), an ethic of care, protection of
> those needing it, a recognition of interdependence, cooperation for the
> common good, the building of community, mutual respect, and so on. When
> applied to foreign policy, nurturant moral norms would lead the American
> government to uphold the ABM treaty, sign the Kyoto accords, engage in a
> form of globalization governed by an ethics of care--and it would
> automatically make all the concerns listed above (e.g., the environment,
> women's rights) part of our foreign policy.
>
> This, of course, implies (a) multilateralism, (b) interdependence, and (c)
> international cooperation. But these three principles, without nurturant
> norms, can equally well apply to the Bush administration's continuance of
> its foreign policy. Bush's foreign policy, as he announced in the election
> campaign, has been one of self-interest ("what's in the best interest of
> the United States")--if not outright hegemony (the Cheney/Rumsfeld
> position). The Democratic leaders incorrectly criticized Bush for being
> isolationist and unilateralist, on issues like the Kyoto accords and the ABM
> Treaty. He was neither isolationist nor unilateralist. He was just following
> his stated policy of self-interest.
>
> The mistaken criticism of Bush as a unilateralist and as uncooperative will
> now blow up in his critics' faces. When it is in America's interest (as he
> sees it), he will work with other nations. The "War against Terrorism" is
> perfect for changing his image to that of a multilateralist and
> internationalist. It is indeed in the common interest of most national
> governments not to have terrorists operating. Bush can come out on the side
> of the angels while pursuing his same policy of self-interest.
>
> The mistake of Bush's critics has been to use "multilateralism" versus
> "unilateralism" as a way categorizing foreign policy. Self-interest crosses
> those categories.
>
> There is, interestingly, an apparent overlap between the nurturant norms
> policy and an idealistic vision of the Bush administration's new war. The
> overlap is, simply, that it is a moral norm to refuse to engage in, or
> support, terrorism. From this perspective, it looks like Left and Right are
> united. It is an illusion.
>
> In nurturant norms policy, anti-terrorism arises from another moral norm:
> Violence against innocent parties is immoral. But Bush's new war will
> certainly not follow that moral norm. Bush's military advisers appear to be
> planning massive bombings and infrastructure destruction that will certainly
> take the lives of a great many innocent civilians.
>
> Within a year of the end of the Gulf War, the CIA reported that about a
> million Iraqi civilians had died from the effects of the war and the embargo
> --many from disease and malnutrition due to the US destruction of water
> treatment plants, hospitals, electric generation plants, and so on, together
> with the inability to get food and medical supplies. Many more innocents
> have died since from the effects of the war. Do we really think that the US
> will have the protection of innocent Afghanis in mind if it rains terror
> down on the Afghan infrastructure? We are supposedly fighting them because
> they immorally killed innocent civilians. That made them evil. If we do the
> same, are we any less immoral?
>
> This argument would hold water if the Bush War on Terrorism were really
> about morality in the way that morality is understood by
> progressives/liberals. It is not. In conservative morality, there is fight
> between Good and Evil, in which "lesser" evils are tolerated and even seen
> as necessary and expected.
>
> The argument that killing innocent civilians in retaliation would make us as
> bad as them works for liberals, not for conservatives.
>
> The idealistic claim of the Bush administration is they intend to wipe out
> "all terrorism." What is not mentioned is that the US has systematically
> promoted a terrorism of its own and has been trained terrorists, from the
> contras to the mujahadeen to the Honduran death squads to the Indonesian
> military. Indeed, there are reports that two of the terrorists taking part
> in The Attack were trained by the US. Will the US government stop training
> terrorists? Of course not. It will deny that it does so. Is this duplicity?
> Not in terms of conservative morality and its view of Good versus Evil and
> lesser evils.
>
> If the administration's discourse offends us, we have a moral obligation to
> change public discourse!
>
> Be the change you want! If the US wants terror to end, the US must end its
> own contribution to terror. And we must also end terror sponsored not
> against the West but against others. We have made a deal with Pakistan to
> help in Afghanistan. Is it part of the deal that Pakistan renounce its own
> terrorism in Kashmir against India? I would be shocked if it were. The Bush
> foreign policy of self-interest does not require it.
>
> The question must be asked. If that is not part of the deal, then our
> government has violated its own stated ideals; it is hypocritical. If the
> terrorism we don't mind--or might even like--is perpetuated, terrorism
> will not end and will eventually turn back on us, just as our support for
> the mujahadeen did.
>
> We must be the change we want!
>
> The foreign policy of moral norms is the only sane foreign policy. In the
> idea of responsibility for oneself, it remains practical. But through
> empathy and other forms of responsibility (protection, care, competence,
> effectiveness, community development), it would lead to international
> cooperation and a recognition of interdependence.
>
>
> 7
>
> Domestic Policy
>
> I have a rational fear, a fear that the September 11 attack has given the
> Bush administration a free hand in pursuing a conservative domestic agenda.
> This has so far been unsayable in the media. But it must be said, lest it
> happen for sure.
>
> Where is the $40 billion coming from? Not from a rise in taxes. The
> sacrifices will not be made by the rich. Where then? The only available
> source I can think of is the Social Security "lockbox," which is now wide
> open. The conservatives have been trying to raid the Social Security fund
> for some time, and the Democrats had fought them off until now. A week ago,
> the suggestion to take $40 billion from the Social Security "surplus" would
> have been indefensible. Has it now been done--with every Democratic senator
> voting for it and all but one of the Democrats in Congress?
>
> Think of it: Are your retirement contributions--and mine--going to fight
Bush's "war"? No one dares to talk about it that way. It's just $40
> billion, as if it came out of nowhere. No one says that $40 billion dollars
> comes from your retirement contributions. No one talks about increasing
> taxes. We should at least ask just where the money is coming from.
>
> If the money is coming from social security, then Bush has achieved a major
> goal of his partisan conservative agenda--without fanfare, without notice,
> and with the support of virtually all Democrats.
>
> Calling for war, instead of mere justice, has given the conservatives free
> rein. I fear it will only be a matter of time before they claim that we need
> to drill for oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge for national security
> reasons. If that most "pristine" place falls, they will use the national
> security excuse to drill and mine coal all over the country. The energy
> program will be pushed through as a matter of "national security." All
> social programs will be dismissed for lack of funds, which will be diverted
> to "national security."
>
> Cheney has said that this war may never be completed. Newt Gingrich
> estimates at least four or five years, certainly past the 2004 election.
> With no definition of victory and no exit strategy, we may be entering a
> state of perpetual war. This would be very convenient for the conservative
> domestic agenda: The war machine will determine the domestic agenda, which
> will allow conservatives to do whatever they want in the name of national
> security.
>
> The recession we are entering has already been blamed on The Attack, not on
> Bush's economic policies. Expect a major retrenchment on civil liberties.
> Expect any WTO protesters to be called terrorists and/or traitors. Expect
> any serious opposition to Bush's policies to be called traitorous.
>
> Who has the courage to discuss domestic policy frankly at this time?