Deep frames and surface frames

The frames that have been used as examples so far, such as ‘the war on terror’ are what Lakoff (2006) refers to as surface frames. Surface and deep frames work on different ‘levels’, where surface frames resonate with and activate deep frames. Deep frames are embedded deep in the core of humans, i.e. in their values. Deep frames are ‘[…] the most basic frames that constitute a moral worldview or a political philosophy’ (Lakoff 2006: 29). Crompton (2010: 42) defines frames as ‘cognitive structures held in long-term memory that contain particular values’. The deep frames one holds are the most basic value-laden frames, which are ‘stored’ in the cognitive unconscious. The result of evoking deep frames is then linked to evoking emotions. But there is a difference between deep frames and values. Crompton (2010: 46) explains the difference thusly: to ‘find’ one’s values one can ask the question

‘what is important to me?’, while to ‘find’ one’s deep frames one can ask the question ‘how do I understand the world?’. A successful deep frame appeals to a certain set of values while inhibiting opposing sets of values.

Surface frames evoke deep frames. For surface frames to be effective, they need to be linked to a deep frame. Surface frames are the frames that are evoked by the words that are used, while deep frames are the value-laden frames that the surface frames evoke. For example, a deep frame Crompton (2010) mentions is the SELF INTEREST frame. In this frame, which may be seen as a very common deep frame in American society, the importance of looking out for oneself and family is at the fore. The surface frame TAX RELIEF is one that evokes the SELF INTEREST frame. The word ‘relief’ evokes a schema where somebody is in a predicament, and needs to be helped from an affliction, which in this case is paying taxes (Lakoff 2004). This is a frame President Bush Jr. began using during his first term in office. At the surface level the term evokes associations to a ‘hero’, who helps the afflicted, where anyone who is against ‘tax-relief’ becomes the bad guy. Therefore, when Democrats spoke up against ‘tax-relief’, they had already lost the debate. Instead they should have

reframed the issue to evoke a deep frame in accordance with their values, e.g. the COMMON INTEREST frame, by framing the issue as cuts in public service for example.

Consequently, embedding deep frames in society that contain one’s values is important for politicians. Deep frames are deeply ingrained in people, but they are

changeable. According to Lakoff (2006) embedding deep frames is a long-term project. To do this one must repeat frames that resonate with people’s values and principles over and over again. Through repetition, words, phrases, and frames become ‘common sense’. If only one frame is perpetuated, with no alternative frame, it becomes ‘common sense’.

3.2.4.1 Nurturing parent vs. strict father model

Having introduced deep frames, focus will shift to what might be the most important deep frames with regard to American politics. Lakoff (2006) states that most people have an unconscious metaphor at the fundamental level with regard to America, and that is the NATION AS FAMILY metaphor. ‘… the nation-as-family metaphor structures entire worldviews, organizing whole systems of frames in our brains’ (Lakoff 2006: 49). This metaphor shows itself in words and phrases such as: ‘the founding fathers’, ‘motherland’, and

‘shipping or sons and daughters off to war’. The political beliefs people hold are structured by idealized representations of the family. Most people’s first encounter with being governed is in the family setting. Parents are there to protect their children, give them rules to abide by, keep them clothed and fed, teach them about the world, and in general make decisions on their behalf, because parents know best (Lakoff 2006). The NATION AS FAMILY metaphor forms the basic frame for how both Democrats and Republicans view the nation. Then why do Democrats and Republicans seem to differ on many issues regarding the nation, when the underlying deep frame is the same? According to Lakoff (2006), this has to do with different views of the family, i.e. the ‘nurturing parent’ and the ‘strict father’ models.

The nurturing parent model bases itself on the belief that parents’ primary duty is providing love and nurture to their children, which involves empathy and responsibility (Lakoff 2006). According to Lakoff (2006: 52ff) there are four core political principles that follow from the nurturing parent model:

[1] ‘The common good principle’ states that for individual well-being, the common good is necessary. Common wealth is pooled, through various taxations, to provide for everyone. This common wealth provides protection, allows for fulfillment of life, creates opportunities,

creates certain freedoms (such as freedom from want, e.g. social security), and promotes fairness and equality. The goal of the common good is then to create prosperity and foster community.

[2] ‘The expansion of freedom principle’ has traditionally led to the demand of fundamental freedoms, such as workers’ rights, voting rights, civil rights, public education, and so on.

[3] ‘The human dignity principle’ forms the basis for many political arguments. With ‘the human dignity principle’ as a basis one would feel that securing certain rights, food, shelter, education, and health care, is paramount. This leads to, for example, arguments against torture, arguments for programs to provide for the poor, and arguments for women’s rights.

[4] ‘The diversity principle’, is an ethic of diversity in communities, schools, workplaces, and the market. This principle has to do with the principles that are against the effects of

discrimination, which have at times (and to some degree still) been prevalent in American society. Market diversity has to do with providing protection in various market areas, where surplus or production in one area can make up for shortages in another area. This could be in the market of energy, agriculture, music, and so on.

These principles form the basis for many of the Democrats’ policies and programs, and can be seen in the way they speak about the world.

The strict father model is based on the assumption that the world is a dangerous place with many evils, and life is a constant competition with winners and losers. In this model moral right and wrongs are perceived as clear-cut, where the ‘strict father’ is the moral

authority of the family. Here being moral is being obedient to the father, while being immoral is disobeying the father. People are not born inherently good, but must instead be disciplined to learn right from wrong, i.e. ‘tough love’. The key points following this model are authority and control. According to Lakoff (2006: 57ff), there are four core political principles that follow from the strict father model:

[1] ‘The moral authority principle’ states that morality comes from being obedient towards legitimate moral authorities. Legitimate authorities can be God, the law, the president, parents, teachers, and so on.

[2] ‘The individual responsibility principle’ states that individuals are responsible for their own destiny. Those who succeed have deserved it, while those who fail have deserved to fail.

[3] ‘The free-market principle’ states that the free market is a mechanism of freedom, since wealth can provide many freedoms. Government should not interfere with the free market, since that would be constricting personal freedom. Following this principle regulation, workers’ rights, taxation, and class-action lawsuits interfere with the free market and are a problem in society.

[4] ‘The bootstraps principle’ states that everyone, no matter the situation, can pull themselves up by ‘their bootstraps’ with enough discipline. Those who have fallen behind can thank themselves and are not deserving of help from the government. Following this principle charity should be the responsibility of individuals and not the government.

These principles form the basis for many of the Republicans’ policies and programs, and can be seen in the way they speak about the world.

3.2.4.2 Biconceptualism

As noted above, the deep frames that form the basis for reasoning in the American political system stem from THE NATION AS FAMILY metaphor. The two different models of the family lay the foundation for the opposing worldviews of Democrats and Republicans. This is a simplification, as is most explanations of how people think and reason. In reality, people do not adhere to one clear-cut worldview. Many Democrats hold views that stem from the strict father model, while many Republicans hold views that stem from the nurturing parent model.

This happens in the cognitive unconscious, so people are largely unaware of this (Lakoff 2008).

To explain this further it can be said that one might live most of one’s life by one moral system, while employing another moral system in other areas of one’s life. The moral systems stemming from the worldviews discussed can exist in the same brain, where they inhibit each other and structuring different areas of experience (Lakoff 2006).

Biconceptualism does not only apply to voters, but also to politicians. Most American presidents, from both political parties, implement policies that stem from different moral systems. An example is President Obama’s continuation of President Bush Jr.’s policies regarding Guantanamo Bay, which can very much be seen as stemming from a worldview based on the strict father model, since it seems to be based on control and authority rather than empathy.