May 2005
One of the things that’s hard to get across about frames (in the linguistic sense) is that they talk about the interplay between ideas and the words that express those ideas. Political framing adds a third element: public discourse. I’d like to write a few posts about examples of frames, to clarify.
The first frame I’m going to look at is flip strength. You probably have no idea what “flip strength” means, even though you know what the words “flip” and “strength” mean. You’re certainly not alone–the term isn’t in public discourse either. I first read about it in a paper entitled Frame Semantics, by Charles Fillmore (1982). It set the foundation for the study of framing in cognitive linguistics.
Here’s an excerpt:
“Occasionally one comes upon a term whose motivating context is very specific. One such is the compound FLIP STRENGTH, used, I am told, in the pornographic literature business. Some publishers of pornographic novels instruct their authors to include a certain quota of high-interest words on every page, so that a potential customer, in a bookstore, while ‘flipping’ the pages of the book, will, no matter where he opens the book, find evidence that the book is filled with wonderful and exciting goings-on. A book which has a high ratio of nasty words per page has high flip strength; a book which has these words more widely distributed has low flip strength. As I understand the word, an editor of such a publication venture might reject a manuscript, requesting that it be returned only after its flip strength has been raised.
“With this last example, it is extremely clear that the background text is absolutely essential to understanding the [term]. It is not that that the conditions for using this word cannot be stated without this background understanding…but that word’s meaning cannot be truly understood by someone who is unaware of those human concerns and problems which provide the reason for that [term's] existence.
Now you have an idea to go with the words, whether you like it or not. You have a frame for “flip strength”, so you can understand the word and manipulate the idea behind it. Technically, “flip strength” is the per-page frequency of naughty words in a pornographic novel, but the lovely thing about human ideas is how flexible they are. You can imagine the producer of a TV show asking the writers to up the flip strength of an episode. They can use the term even though they’re not talking about novels. You can imagine reading a boring linguistics paper and wishing the author would up the flip strength–not by splicing pornography in with the bibliography, but by spicing it up somehow. Like turning paper into origami, you have enough working knowledge of the central idea of flip strength (keeping viewers’ attention by making media more interesting) that you can shape it in ways never imagined by the original coiners of the term, even though you just encountered it for the first time a minute ago.
Unfortunately, you can’t present your novel use of “flip strength” to the public, because the term “flip strength” isn’t in public discourse. If you write an op-ed about the flip strength of the Kenneth Starr report, no one will understand it unless you take the time to explain what flip strength is. You don’t have to do that when you write an op-ed about kittens or iPods. Everyone knows what those are, so you can write about them without any expository overhead.
Similarly, reframing political discourse is not as simple as referring to all Republicans as, oh I don’t know, “RepubliCan’ts”^1^. There needs to be a corresponding idea to go with the word, and that idea has to be in the public mind. What is it that RepubliCant’s can’t do? Gotta answer that question before you put a name on it. Framing liberal policy is even harder, because many of the foundational ideas just aren’t out there in public discourse. Everyone knows what the free market is, how it works and why it’s good. No one knows what the commons is, how it works or why it’s good. It’s like trying to understand what “flip strength” means without knowing what pages are.
^1^ I made this up off the top of my head. Please don’t use it, as it is awful.
« Hide it
May 23 2005 07:44 pm |
Framing |
trackback
|
2 Comments » The cover story of this week’s Weekly Standard: Against Rendition: Why the CIA shouldn’t outsource interrogations to countries that torture, by Reuel Marc Gerecht.
Way to go, guys.
The Weekly Standard, if you’re not aware, is an established and influential conservative magazine. Again, this is their cover story. I can imagine the scene in the editor’s office:
REUEL MARC GERECHT: Hey guys, here’s my piece for this week’s issue.
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: [Glances at title] Whoa, Reuel. Are you sure this “shouldn’t” ought to be there in the title? Shouldn’t it be a “should”?
REUEL MARC GERECHT: I’m taking a new angle on it.
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: You’re saying we shouldn’t send suspects to countries where they might be tortured? I mean, points for novelty, sure, but it doesn’t make any sense.
REUEL MARC GERECHT: Actually, it kinda does, if you think about it.
[EDITOR-IN-CHIEF thinks about it]
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Ohhhhhhhhh! I see now.
REUEL MARC GERECHT: Pretty crazy, huh?
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Yeah! Man, that’s a head trip. You know, I might actually make this the cover story. I’ll have to bump our think-piece on Why People Shouldn’t Eat Glass, but I think you’ve got something good here.
« Hide it
May 11 2005 11:05 pm |
Whoa. |
trackback
|
No Comments »
