KPFA in Berkely has a wonderful radio show called Against the Grain. Tuesday’s show had an interview by the host C.S. Soong with William Irvine, a philosophy professor at Wayne State University. The talk fouced on Irvine’s new book “A Giude to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy.” The book focuses on the anicent Greek/Roman philosophy of Stoicism. In the interview, Irvine notes that the goal of the Stoics was “tranquility” or the moderation of passions and desires which often lead us towards emotional higs and lows. He claims the stoics did this through reasoning. If you want a brand new car that you don’t need, the Stoics prescribe that you think about your current car being stolen and how that loss would make you feel. That in turn would make you appreciate your existing car more.
My policy class is looking at metaphors and symbols in politics and how they are used to frame debate about issues. A growing consensus in emerging on our biological predispositions to become vulnerable to frames. Matt Bai has a good New York Times Magazine article that describes the Democratic party’s love affair with George Lakoff and his theories of framing. But listeinging to Irvine’s description of the stoics makes me think about how much we’ve allowed ourselves to succumb to emotion and desire in political discourse. The Greek conception of man (people) was that they were half animal and half god. The animal was the impulsive, irrational side and the god was the reasoned, logical side. I contend that our politics have drifted towards appealing to our “animal side.” See Frontline’s great documentary The Persuaders for an example of emotional appeals.
Of course politicians have always appealed to lower instincts in making claims to power. But do we have a responsibility to create a “push back” from the “god side.”
What are the consequences of policies that are sold to us using strong emotional appeals? Should we as a society demand that our citizens work to cultivate virtues like tranquility and reason? Or has the train left the station… message makers have become much too sophisticated at pushing our emotional buttons that reason’s not making a comeback, and it hasn’t been here for years (apologies to L.L. Cool J).
Comments 6
Allison Wachtel — February 27, 2009
One of my English professors told our class that an excess of plot summary in a literary paper often indicates the absence of a substantial argument. I think it's a valid observation and one that can be translated to emotion in politics - often, if I'm listening to a speech or reading a political piece that is heavy on the emotion and idealism (although I do consider myself an idealist, for the most part), I have to wonder what is beneath the imagery and emotional charges. Personally, when I'm writing and I don't really know what to say, I get all flowery, so when I sense that in someone else, it sends up red flags. I don't think emotional appeals should be eliminated from politics completely; I think they serve a purpose in that they can expedite the communication process and can actually, believe it or not, reflect the politician's genuine feelings. But I do think that we as citizens have the obligation to question beyond pretty words - we're the ones affected, and if we don't take responsibility for our own actions and reactions, no one will.
Tyler Lee — March 1, 2009
I think it is our responsibility to take from a political speech, the important content. Of course the politician is going to thicken it with emotional appeal. That just their way of try to connect with the individual. I don't think its wrong that they do this. Sometimes it's authentic and sometimes it isn't. It is our job to figure this out. We don't have to believe everything they say or appeal to all they say, but instead, it is our job to hear it and then decide if we agree or not, and to be logical about it. If you aren't logical and just succumb to the emotional appeal, without actually getting the content needed, then it is the fault of the individual.
Kirsten Nilsson — March 1, 2009
perhaps a society that demands that our citizens work to cultivate virtues like tranquility and reason would be better than the one we live in now. Maybe taking yoga classes could become tax deductible to push people to "find their center." Today too many people are wrapped up in the things around them, so much that they have little time for themselves, thus leading to a lack of phycological growth. I think people who have worked a lot on them selves have more control over their emotions. When we make decisions in politics based on emotions, there may be regrets down the road. An emotional decision has little to do with the facts, and so having more people with control over their emotions could lead to better decision making all around in the Polis.
Scott Bergemann — March 2, 2009
I have come to believe that politicans appeal to the masses using the lowest common denominator strategy, meaning they communicate and manipulate their message in a manner that reaches the largest amount of people. Most Americans are stupid, therefore politicians rely less on intellectual arguments to convey their point. It is simply to complicated and time consuming for the average voter to understand and analyze each issue and make an educated vote based on their reasoning. It is however, much easier and effective to sway people with plain, emotionally charged symbols. politicians know this and they are just using the most efficient method to get elected; appealing to the highest number of people using vague, broadly defined symbols to gain support. I for one, am of the opinion that it is the voters job to be reasonable and see through all the bullshit politicians throw at us, if they can't then they're sucker's and you deserve what's coming. It's democracy---the people are responsible for digging their own grave.
Adam Hayes — March 2, 2009
First off i just woul like to say that my computer sucks!! THis is my second time writting this!
I beleive that it is the peoples problem to decide what is true and what is false that come out of a politician mouth. Many politicians tell the truth but many dont. Most of the things that they talk about are covered with lies. They tell the truth for the first part and then they try to hit the emotional card so they can get votes from the people. If a politician could actually promise everything that they tell the people they would win in a heart beat. No poltician has been able to keep there promises to the people. People shoud research topics before thy vote on them so they wont get cheated.
Mike Tobin — March 5, 2009
What is a political policy that doesn't have strong emotional appeals? I do understand the midset and would have to somewhat agree with the arguement, but our lives are completely controlled by our emotions. A policy would not become a policy unless there is a group of emotionally active people backing the policy willing to appeal to the emotions of others to get them to jump on the band wagon. However, if decisions are made just because our emotions were stirred up and a person or two did some handy work with how they spoke their words, then there isn't going to be a whole lot of strength and committment behind the policy once the emotional high wears off. If someone can get a hold of your emotions and pull you in one direction, then what is keeping someone else from getting a hold of your emotions and pulling you in the exact opposite direction? There needs to be a mix of emotion and a mix of true belief and heart. Emotions can be transformed in a split second, but if someone is gluing themselves to the floor on their position because of their beliefs and they firmly have heart over the policy, that is when real sucess with that policy will start to shine through.
Our society has so many different directions, a demand such as cultivating tranquility and reason is too far out of the box for a society as a whole to reach. Maybe a few will be able to venture off and pull others with them, but getting an entire country or society to shift their lifestyles and ways of thinking, is too far fetched even for a politian that can do some handy work with his words from a podium.