To: s-acc@yahoogroups.com
From: "Andrew Phelps" <starfish@northcoast.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:05:29 -0800
Subject: Re: [s-acc] Lakoff and behavior
Jln:
After I was hospitalized, I considered how to overcome the "programming" i.e. objectification as "the next rat."
Eventually I got a job working in a hotel in Washington DC making salads ("pantryman"). After that I was able to make a connection to a person who had taught "trade unionism" to workers in NYC in the 40s. She helped me to understand many things; one however was the role of the "study group" in building an effective movement.
I realize that your purpose was not to debate my thesis, although I wouldn't mind if you did. When you spoke of a "direction for study", I thought you were gently telling me that this is a research list rather than a more activist list.
No, it was a "trade union" based comment.
I am hoping to find practical ways to‚ reduce stigma by building a coalition of civil rights movements. If we can challenge stigma broadly, or promote an alternative, we are more likely to succeed than we are with identity politics.
You are "preaching to the choir," that was my point. When Dennis Budd and I and others started the NO-LIST in 2002, that was the premise of our national organizing project. [We are not ready to re-start that project now/yet, but I could make the archives available on a personal basis.]
Such an effort would be grassroots, but would also rely on Lakoff's and Chomsky's work to identify alternative frames, such as Buddhist ones. The most effective alternative world view may be the nurturant one, which appeals to me because of its emphasis on empathy and accountability. I am definitely open to other frames, especially more spiritual ones, because empathy gives me a more multidimensional view of reality.
What we found, however, was that while quite a few folks "got it," within the argument you make here, that some others were inclined to be radically obstructive. [That's kind of analogous to what's happening with Health Reform today in Congress.] We figured we needed more "grassroots advocacy" if we were to get past our "stuck" position.
As far as getting people out of institutions goes, that has been my primary focus for several years now, ever since I was in one. The problem is, we keep winding up back in them because of stigma and a lack of community supports, hence my emphasis on peer supports.
Have you ever asked Mr. Lakoff personally if he was willing to 'bend' and work on this problem with us? I don't think that's where he's at, even though I recall he and others invited Goffman himself to speak to the Cognitive Science seminar group. [!] Eventually I get tired of Amy Goodman treating "us" in an exclusionary manner, even though I've repeatedly asked her personally - with the help of others on this list - about having "us" represented occasionally on Democracy Now!
In other words, this "Freedom Train" problem is extensive and difficult. I'm personally involved in several levels of effort, in that regard. When we do "study" in this kind of "trade union" way, we stand to enrich our work process and to develop a strategy that will be worthy of an "action plan."
Jln, we had an engaging talk at the Social Accountability Work Group Caucus in Omaha. Glad you are taking a continuing interest.
Andrew