Language and politics.

I had heard an interview with linguistic professor George Lakoff related to the use of the language in politics. At that time, i found many important issues and I thought about writing something about it. Due to a lack of time, the idea was forgotten. After some time, I encounter something else about Lakoff and I decided to write something about his arguments.

Lakoff stated a very important principle: The structure of our brain is not neutral, it exist in a specific content that firstly includes our body. Therefore, to speak about rationality without an emotional load is abstract and non realistic.

The second argument states that once a person creates his mental structures, they are consolidate as reference where the experience and the information received are accommodated. As a consequence, the language is not neutral in itself but it is adjusted to a code system that are preliminarily defined. This two points might appear simple but they play a fundamental role in the comprehension of how the language works.

The second argument reflects the way any theory is constructed in mathematics. The natural road is to create axioms that are considered as “truth”, without previous demonstration. Afterwards, we construct our definitions which are used to form tools needed to operate our theory.

Using Lakoff’s arguments, we can understand that always the reference point will bring come together with an emotional aspect and there always be a feedback in the process. This ideas are applied directly into politics.

The first step to start a political project is the construct the framework. This frame should support the logics and therefore its language. His is the language used for the communication with the public and which is based on an axiom that you created before. If you would like your language to be assimilated, then you have to reinforce your framework.

A practical example can be seen in our country. Please think for one second the meaning of the word revolution. You will get immediately a series of symbols. In this case, the word is related to a leader. This is a clear example of a chosen framework.

One step further, and we should analyze until which point a framework constitute a static structure. Lakoff, in his reflections does not analyze this issue although for me it is essential. As he said, the brain is not an isolated structure, therefore, reality and emotions can be in conflict with the framework. This is the moment where ideologies collapse. When the reality conflicts with the logical structure, then the only choice is to create a new structure based in axioms that supports reality. Is like when you are not a children anymore and become an adult. The old logic disappears and the old evident arguments become naive or obsoletes. Therefore it is totally unhelpful to try to revive a collapsed frame . In the best case, there is a waste of time. Antonio Gonzalez-Rodiles
Translated by Jorge Calaforra

Leer en el Blog de Antonio Rodiles