hypnolibertarian

<!–[if !mso]&gt;

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } &lt;![endif]–> A familiar whine in politics is, “I was taken out of context!”  This complaint comes when some reporter believes that he or she has “caught out” the politician saying something that the public will not like, and often it is true.

In psychological areas, what “context” is in “out of context” is called a “frame”.   Frame is an entire set of assumptions, agreed presuppositions, and connotations assigned to words that are used during conversations.

We all share frames when we communicate.  Many arguments happen when the two speakers have mismatches between their frames.  Therapeutically, hypnotists and therapists manipulate the frames of their clients in order to produce beneficial change.

All of us are, to an extent, chameleons.  We change depending on the people around us.  Politicians do this more than others; it is important for voters to feel that a politician is “one of them.”  Thus, “out of context” is usually not just something as obvious and reprehensible as leaving out the “not” in a statement “I do not believe in flag burning.”  The frame is the entire situation.

If a politician, a candidate, or a business can control the frame of a discussion or subject, then he controls the vast majority of reactions to the subject.  Was the Exxon Valdez a simple accident, or the inevitable damage to the ecology from an oil based economy?

Frames of small groups differ from what might be called the “national frame.”  This is fodder for reporters; they take statements made in small groups and broadcast them in the more general national frame, with damaging results.  Suppose Obama had said, “The people in Pennsylvania have a hard life.  Their faith, their families, and their ability to feed themselves and protect themselves with their guns are what get them through.”  There would have been little controversy, except perhaps to the firearm statement.   Instead, in a frame shared by rich Democrats that don’t know the concerns of poor people in Pennsylvania, he spoke of “clinging” to religion and guns.

In the frame in which he was talking, the first statement would have seemed maudlin and emotional.  Obama used the language necessary to reach his audience.  However, that audience was a small one, and the statement in a national frame was offensive, to say the least.b

In later posts, we’ll discuss how frames can be changed, and how this can change the reaction of the public to various issues.  I’ll mention one now: when McCain talks about Iraq, he talks about the specific gains that have been met and the plight of specific people should the US pull out “too early.”  When Obama talks about Iraq, he talks about Afghanistan and North Korea and the necessity of meeting obligations there.  McCain wants the frame as small as possible, because he can point to specific results and specific dangers that people will react to.  Obama wants the frame as big as possible to point out just how small those gains are against our needs elsewhere.  Compare this to when casualties were higher: Bush did his best to expand the frame to the entire Middle East.

Control the frame and you control the thinking of the people around you.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS