« back to main

Bringing a Better Future Into Frame

by Jason Louv on May 1st, 2007   Comments [2]

In a world of infinite availability of information, context is king. The age-old truism that it’s not what you say but how you say it has never been truer than it is now.

The generals of the language wars are men like Frank Luntz, on the right, and George Lakoff, on the left. Luntz is the Republican strategist famous for rephrasing global warming as the more tepid “climate change,” and changing the “estate tax” to the “death tax.” Lakoff is a cognitive linguistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley who has become a guiding philosopher for the Democratic Party, suggesting that the left has fallen far behind in taking on the persuasive language strategies of men like Luntz.

Though a jello-wrestling match between both men would make for an entertaining and lucrative Pay-Per-View event, the language wars extend far beyond such figureheads and into our daily communicative strategies. The concept of “reframing” has become a regular fixture of political and business discourse. In the world of communication, facts are much less important than the context they are used in.

These are strategies that can and should be used to communicate socially responsible ideas, especially in a time when the socially irresponsible seem to be the most willing to use language to persuade people astray.

The proponents of environmental responsibility, for instance, have long appealed to negative emotions like fear and guilt to push people into supporting green causes. The underlying mythology that “if we don’t all stop polluting, we will all die” communicates little but a sense of hopelessness and the feeling that even positive efforts will have no effect in the long run.

Why not appeal to people’s sense of pride, of belonging, of sense of security? Why frame a healthy environment as an impossibility instead of a baseline reality that should be a universal, and universally attainable, human right? Hopeful people take action; scared people hide.

What are the destructive frames lurking in the communication landscape? How can ecological, humanitarian and other crucial issues be framed in a way that promotes positive action instead of fearful inaction? What advertising firms and campaigns should be particularly commended for constructive use of framing and language for positive change?

Comment on this article

« back to main