Family Model as the Basis of Political Leanings Part II

Liberal thought arises from what he calls the "Nurturant Parent” family model. There are certain assumptions inherent in this model:

• The world is filled with evils that can harm
• It is the nurturant parent’s responsibility to protect children from harm
• Open, two-way communication is crucial
• It is the parent’s willingness to entertain questions about their authority that legitimizes it.
• By being respected, nurtured and communicated with children learn to develop respectful, open, caring relationships

Associated metaphors for this model are:

• Morality as empathy
• Morality as nurturance
• Compassion
• Moral Self-Nurturance
• Morality as social nurturance
• Morality is  happiness
• Morality as self-development
• Morality as fair distribution
• Moral growth
• The moral strength to nurture
• Moral self-interest
• Restitution over retribution

There are a multitude of implications deriving from these metaphors as described by Lakoff and summarized below.

The concept of empathy goes even further than the golden rule by saying “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.” Egocentric empathy, which can go no farther than ones own feelings, is contrasted with absolute empathy which might be characterized as feeling for others with not strings attached. The parent of a child who rejected certain values would still be shown empathy but with accompanying moral instruction.

Lakoff also cites what he calls the “wooden rule” : Do unto others as you would have them do unto you – providing you can afford it easily. This is directly related to an analogy of moral accounting that is common to both nurturant parent and strict father model except that in the nurturant parent model it is charity that accrues “moral credit” and makes one a better person.

With respect to political ideologies, the competition between this ideal and the notion that government can show no favor or require nothing more based on ability, as with graduated tax schedules, is familiar to us all.

Morality presupposes empathy, has associated rights and duties and as nurturance, extends beyond the family in the sense that the community is a family. Community members have a responsibility to see that people needing help in their community are helped.

Model differences for things held as public trust (i.e. the “ownership society”) and government funds spent for the social good or “where needed most” provide rich and starkly contrasted examples of how “sense of community” plays out.

Unhappy people are not likely to be compassionate so it is right to be as happy as possible as long as it does not harm others. The morality of happiness is a long-standing part of Buddhist tradition, often depicted as a smiling Buddha.

The nurturance of children is done in the service of moral growth, a central idea in religion and law. Sincere evidence of remorse has always been grounds for leniency in our legal system. Moral growth has always been associated more with progressive than conservative politics as exemplified in ideology-linked attitudes to our prison system and rehabilitation.

The nurturant parent must have moral strength since nurturing is hard work. However moral strength, common to both family models, has a much different meaning. It means that one should empathize and be nurturant towards people with different values rather than demonizing them. The notion of internal evils, for which there must be strength to resist, are also much different in the nurturant parent model, consisting of things that interfere with empathy, nurturance etc. Moral strengths include social responsibility, generosity, respect for others regardless of rank and status, openness, community-mindedness and self-respect.

Clearly this model includes an orientation to discipline so classic criticism of being “soft” or lacking toughness due to an unrealistic world-view is often leveled. Strength-with-sensitivity might be a more apt characterization, a merging of anima and animus, if you will.

With the nurturant parent model moral boundaries are not defined by prohibition of specific actions but in terms of prohibitions against actions having anti-nurturant consequences.

There is an inherent complexity in this concept, often a liability when it comes to our thumbnail-sized, sound-bite mode of communication so typical of the mainstream media. It is often much easier to cite a concise egregiously offensive or fearful anecdote to get across a point than to explain the consequences of action.

Parental response to a child’s violation of moral behavior is to require restitution rather than seeking retribution but parents should fiercely protect their children by seeking retribution against those who hurt them such as polluters, drug dealers and manufacturers of dangerous products.

The nurturant parent model minimizes hierarchical relationships because legitimate authority should be a direct consequence of the ability to nurture. There is a belief that interdependence is a non-hierarchical relationship and that authority should not come out of dominance. These tenets are the exact opposite of those in the strict father model.

This aspect of the nurturant parent model differs drastically from the metaphor of moral order implicit in the strict father model. Lakoff expresses this metaphor as:

• God has moral authority over human beings.
• Human beings have moral authority over nature.
• Adults have moral authority over children.
• Men have moral authority over women.

Though even a passing familiarity with these models starts the synapses firing these definitions only bring us to the doorstep of a house full of multi-sided issues from public life, each having markedly different prescriptions from each family model.

Luckily, Lakoff does not stop at the doorstep. He attempts to demonstrate the issues involved and the political ramifications. He is not without value judgment, as he takes great pains to illustrate when each model is suitable and their relative success or failure inasmuch as they are manifest in political prescriptions to a wide variety of social issues.

Lakoff’s writing did not impress me as being didactic or opinionated as he often cites examples inviting the reader to answer the question of “Who’s right?”  However, he is not without his own ideas regarding the effectiveness of liberal or conservative policies.

I found Lakoff’s analysis to be a remarkable and intellectually compelling blend of both research and rhetoric, high on pathos and logos and low on ethos. He both engages and challenges the reader to think but you will find that, depending upon your ideological bent, you will be more or less challenged. Undoubtedly, all will be stimulated to think past the label and engage themselves on crucial issues of the day at a much deeper level than before.

As for myself, social responsibility compels me to do so.

NEXT: The social implications of morality models