Topic: Competition, Cooperation, and Connection: How These Metaphors Affect Child Advocacy
Pamela Morgan with Susan Bales for the FrameWorks Institute
"In order to pose the problem of choice among frames, we must already have stepped far enough outside our frame to see that our position is not self-evident and that other ways of framing the issue are possible. Once this happens, ....we face the question of the basis for a reasoned choice among possible frames."
We often talk about frames of meaning, and the values that inform Level One frames or meta-cultural frames, as some refer to them. But there are other ways that frames influence our understanding. The very structure of a frame can set up the way we see the world. By teaching us to think in terms of two sides, for example, the competition frame sets up habits of expectation that two - and only two -- sides will be found in many other situations in life. Politics is a fist-fight or a horse race that has narrowed down to the final finish. Balance can be achieved in a news article by representing the two extremes of debate. What are the consequences of this kind of structural frame, so common to American thinking? In this E-Zine, we asked cognitive linguist Pamela Morgan to explain, based on her research, what options we have in choosing between a number of important structural metaphor families, and what consequences come with reinforcing the competitive frame when we talk about children's issues. We added examples from other FrameWorks research, especially our work on children's issues, to bring home her important observations.
The resulting E-Zine explores three metaphor families: competition, cooperation and connection (or interdependence) in an effort to demonstrate how these metaphors set up different perspectives on the world. Why does this matter? Because these different perspectives, once in place, help people reason about how the world does and should work. When policies are being proposed and enacted within the competition frame, for example, it's hard to understand why a policy that explicitly excludes middle-class kids in favor of poor kids would have much popular support. After all, if governmental and other resources are considered to be finite, then middle-class and wealthy parents - who are the ones who control policy - want to make sure that their kids have just as much chance at them as poor kids. After all, from a competitive point of view, their kids' futures are at stake too.
In our work on foreign policy, FrameWorks found that when people were primed with competition-based reasoning, they tended to move toward a self-interested approach to international issues: Is the US doing more than its share? Why aren't other nations doing more? By contrast, when we could move Americans toward more cooperative thinking - "we're part of a team, we're partnering with other countries" - we were often able to overcome the fear that any intervention in another country was bullying, unwanted or inappropriate. And when primed with interdependent or connection thinking - "we're all on this planet together" - people were much more likely to want to invest in other countries' educational and social institutions.
The thoughtful advocate needs to be aware of these three metaphorical options and the baggage that comes with their usage. This E-Zine is designed to help direct that scrutiny.
* * *
METAPHOR FAMILIES
Our ways of thinking and talking about our social institutions, including those that affect children, are complex. Commonly we use words that are metaphorical, and the metaphors involved fall into three groups or "metaphor families." The first metaphor family is that of "Competition," the second that of "Cooperation," and the third "Connection." Each of the three groups is a worldview--an underlying belief or assumption about how the different elements of the world fit together. FrameWorks suggests that advocates pay attention to the moral ideals that people use as lenses to make choices about specific policies; for example, "responsibility" is often a lens on children's issues, forcing the efficient thinker to ask who is responsible for the child's problem and to conclude that parents are not doing their job. These three metaphor families further determine whether the moral lens we map onto a specific situation will indeed fit, and how it will drive our policy reasoning. Exactly how we approach even the "big ideas" like freedom, justice, or responsibility is structured by whether we believe the world is, by its very nature, "essentially" competitive, cooperative, or connected. Is freedom, for example, a matter of adjusting competing claims (Competition), or of voluntary association (Cooperation), or of interdependent necessity (Connection)?
COMPETITION
The first group, Competition, is characterized as having two separate "entities," a "goal" that both want to achieve, and a situation in which only one of the two entities can achieve the goal. This sets up a "win/lose" situation, and words such as "win" or "winner" and "lose" or "loser" are frame evokers for this most basic, shared model.
All metaphor families have "core" members, meaning those that inherently fit the basic requirements for the metaphor group and are likely to be broadly understood within a culture even if never personally experienced by a given individual. In the Competition family, the core members are: Hand-to-Hand Combat, War, (Team) Sports, Games, Races, and Predation. What do they have in common? Each typically has two competitors (two sides), a goal or prize (even if that is only "winning" itself), and a situation in which only one of the two sides can "win." That is, there is no way to have a "typical" fight, war, sports event, game, race, or predator/prey relationship without one side "winning."
Stepping out of the frame, we realize it doesn't have to be this way. Many areas of life that we commonly talk of as fights or war or sports, games or races, or predation are not in fact inherently so. But because our social and linguistic conditioning is very expected, very unexamined, and therefore very powerful, it works almost like blinders to prevent us from easily seeing other possibilities.
There are many areas that fall outside the core members of the competition metaphor family, which are frequently framed competitively. Business, politics, the law, marriage, the economy, society, and so on--even one's career and life--are all commonly talked about as competitive by Americans. With respect to politics, for example, the Competitive metaphors, especially those of war and horse races, are so strong in our society that they seem the normal and only way to talk about politics. But they are not inevitable. In many Native American societies, for example, one side does not "win" and the other(s) "lose" when issues are debated and a course of action decided upon. Rather, consensus is sought; discussion continues until a solution that is agreeable to all is reached. In these cultures, politics is conceptualized as part of the "Cooperation" metaphor family.
Here are some examples of expressions and images that evoke the Competition metaphor family by using "trigger" words or pictures:
- The incumbent beat the challenger. (Politics is Hand-to-Hand Combat)
- An article on computer prices called "Computer Wars." (Business is War)
- The prosecutor threw the defense a curve ball. (The Law is a Team Sport)
- The cover of the December 2001 Wired magazine, which illustrates stories on the changing nature of war with the phrase "The new rules of engagement" and two chess pieces. (War is a Game)
- The presidential election is a real horse race this time. (Politics is a Race)
- It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. (Life is Predation)
COOPERATION
The second metaphor family available to us is Cooperation. The core members of the Cooperation metaphor family are Family, Friends, Partners, Community, Working Groups (including Sports Teams and Military Units), and Animal Groups. The basic form of Cooperation is again one involving two entities and a goal, but in this model the entities choose to work together to gain the goal.
We can use terms of Cooperation to talk about many of the same issues that we addressed above with the Competition metaphor family, although often we do not. And sometimes we use both metaphor families to characterize different aspects of the same entity. For example, we may talk about the relationship of similar businesses in terms of Competition, such as war ("computer wars") but about the internal structure of a company in terms of a Cooperative "team" ("We're all on the same team here"). Similarly, when we talk about internal structure in terms of military groups--speaking of the workers as "the troops," for example--we are still in the Cooperation family, since a military unit is a kind of Working Group.
Here are some Cooperation examples:
- The boss is a real father figure. (A Business is a Family)
- We know who our friends are in the world. (Foreign Affairs Relationships are Friendships)
- Marriage should be a true partnership. (Marriage is a Partnership)
- Canada and Mexico are good neighbors. (World Affairs Relationships are a Community)
- Everybody at work is a good team player. (A Business is a Sports Team [a kind of Working Group])
- The lieutenant governor is really the top dog around there. (Political Relationships are an Animal Group)
In our culture, treating domains of our experience and society as if they are Competitive rather than Cooperative is much more common. It is almost impossible to find a way to talk about the electoral system Cooperatively, and adversarial law still far outweighs mediation. For more about the habits and effects of our society's over-reliance on the Competition metaphor family, you might enjoy reading Deborah Tannen's book, "The Argument Culture." Look to sports and many of the new age business manuals for examples of the team and partnership language that exemplify the Cooperation frame family.
CONNECTION
Finding ways to talk about these areas of our society in Cooperative terms is seen as an improvement over the Competition family, and of course it is. But it does not always let us arrive at the full set of policy and social changes that we desire. For these, we need to recast things in terms of the third, "Connection," metaphor family. Put simply, in the Connection or "systems" metaphors, the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and all parts are necessary to achieve wholeness.
What makes the Connection metaphor family distinct is the sense of equality that is built into it. All of the subparts, no matter how similar or how distinct, are equally important to the stability or functioning of the system. Remove one part, and the system fails: it comes apart, or it stops working. That equality of parts that form the whole is the basic form or idea of this metaphor family.
There are differences in perception within this metaphor group depending on whether emphasis is put on the structural relationship of the parts to each other (static) or on regular changes that occur cyclically or interactively (dynamic). For example, people may be seen as consisting of heads, hearts, hands, and so on (static) or as living beings that start out as babies and grow, that have health and illness, that die, and so on (dynamic). The core members of the Systems family are Living Creatures (People, including Children; Animals; and Plants) that have bodies and lives; Natural "Objects/Events" (Landforms and Bodies of Water; Weather; and Days and Seasons); and Constructed Objects (Buildings; Machines; and "Fabrics," including "webs" and "networks").
In focus groups and personal interviews conducted by FrameWorks to discern how people think about early childhood development, we've seen again and again that many people refer to a "foundation" that is established early on, using the Child as Building metaphor. This easily leads to the conclusion that, without a sound foundation the building will eventually collapse, i.e., the child will not be a success in later life. At other times, people describe very young children as clocks - they are wound up on an "automatic" course that will end when they are deposited at the door of their first real school. This is the Child as Machine metaphor. Just as most people don't understand how machines work, so what goes on inside the child is invisible, or a "black box," as Cultural Logic has called it. Furthermore, generally the users don't need to "tinker" with the machine; in fact, if they do, they may damage it. At other times, people will gravitate to more dynamic Connection metaphors in which the child is a plant, needing stimulation, love and play the way a plant needs food and light. As should be evident, the choice of metaphor even within the Connection family foregrounds certain aspects of the child and conceals others.
And, just as with the Competition and Cooperation Metaphors, Connection metaphors can also be used to describe such aspects of life as business, society, economics, and so on. Examples include the following:
- It's a May-December marriage. (People's Lives are Seasons)
- The real head of the business is the boss's secretary. (A Business is a Body)
- The fabric of society is unraveling. (Society is a Fabric)
- The flow of events swept us along. (Events are a Flood)
- She wrote a book called The Twilight of America. (Duration of Existence or of Excellence is a Day)
- The growth of the company surprised everyone. (A Business is a Living Creature)
- The collapse of the company surprised everyone. (A Business is a Building)
- The foundations of that change were laid a long time ago. (An Idea or Event is a Building)
- My car died. (A Machine is a Living Creature)
To learn more about Connection thinking, you may want to pick up Fritjof Capra's excellent book "The Web of Life."
PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Now--what effects do these metaphor families have on policy discussions? Why do they matter?
It should be clear that there are actually important differences between the apparently similar and positive Cooperation and Connection families. While the problems with the Competition family are obvious--pitting one person or group against another, having "winners" and "losers," and so on--the problems with the Cooperation family are not so clear.
Perhaps "problems" is too strong a word. Certainly Cooperation is a good thing, there is no doubt about that--especially when compared with its evil twin. But both Cooperation and Competition are based in a worldview that sees not equal parts of a whole, but separate individual entities. Sometimes this reflects the emphasis you want. But sometimes it does not.
When the issue you are trying to affect does not arise from separate individuals choosing to work together or against each other, but rather from something that is an inherent part of a complex whole, the Connection metaphor family provides the desired emphasis. If you want to discuss child poverty, for example, as an outgrowth of aggregate or institutionalized economic, social, or political decisions rather than as something over which individuals have the greatest control, you will be better served by talking about the fabric of society than by talking about partnerships. If you want to emphasize social interdependence, you will want to talk about heads, hands, and hearts, for example, as all part of one body, or networks (a kind of "Fabric") that must rely on each other for optimal functioning. If you want people to understand why "other people's children" matter to society, or why low-wage workers need to be paid a decent living wage, you need a Connection metaphor.
Of course, people who are strongly authoritarian or hierarchical, or who are strongly pro-individualistic, may strongly dislike the Connection metaphors. Connection "trumps" hierarchy. At the same time, even Conservatives view "the economy" as a system. But, when talking to Conservatives about the environment, for example, we find it is better to talk about "stewardship" (a Cooperative metaphor) than about ecosystems, since the Cooperation family maintains the idea of separate, individual actions.
Using a Connection metaphor does not admit of the possibility of things not working out, since all parts are absolutely necessary for the survival and functioning of the whole. The environmental groups realized this when they framed the ozone hole as a "hole in the roof" - making it virtually impossible for people to chose to postpone action, or to fall for the "jobs first, environment later" attack. If you have a hole in your roof, it makes no sense to go out and do your job, and then come back to the rubble. In this way, environmental groups used the integral nature of the House metaphor to underscore a Connection frame.
Each member of these metaphor families thus has associated with it a culturally stereotypical frame, with its own set of emphases and blind spots. Each highlights some things, and hides others. It is important to bear these in mind, since they are part of the reasoning process that will be set in motion when you use a metaphor. For example, Wars and Predation involve death, but Sports and Games do not; Games and Sports have explicit and rigid rules that can't be broken, but Predation and War normally do not. Cooperative Working Groups often have at least a boss-worker hierarchy, but Partners stereotypically do not. In the Connection group, Machines, for example, can evoke an impersonal, even inhumane frame that even Buildings usually do not; but Machines also have a strong functional component (on/off, "working" or not), which may be important (a bureaucracy may be handling its affairs as well as "a well-oiled machine" operates). Forming an "Alliance for Children," for example, would place the involved parties in a Cooperative voluntary association, roughly equal in status, which preserves autonomy but also therefore allows the possibility of dissolving the partnership if things don't work out.
Furthermore, there are also roles to be filled in every frame. That is, when we apply a frame to a situation, we align the stereotypical elements of that frame to the elements of that situation, even if we have to force them to match up. Since Wars have "enemies," for example, the "War on Drugs" also has to have enemies. But, as people have pointed out, who exactly are the enemies? The drug growers or manufacturers? The street sellers? The users? The social and economic situation? Disagreement on these correspondences will cause disagreement about policies and other tactics, and leave advocates metaphorically vulnerable to opposition arguments.
So what are the lessons of these three metaphor families?
- Ask yourself what you are trying to do - do you want to emphasize hierarchy, everyone voluntarily working together, or interdependent equality? Did you use the right metaphor family to get at this?
- Did you inadvertently slide into the dominant metaphor family - Competition - when you could have/should have used Cooperation or Connection?
- Remember that frames force correspondences. Make sure that you are clear about which aspects of the stereotypical frame will naturally be associated with which aspects of the real-world situation. Whom did you define as the enemy in the Competition metaphor? Did you leave yourself open to dissolving the partnership in the Cooperation metaphor? What happens if education is the foundation and it collapses; whom did you assign to pick up the pieces in this Connection metaphor?
This E-Zine asks you to be aware of the American tendency toward over-reliance on Competition metaphors and to ask yourself if a Cooperation or, better yet, a Connection metaphor might not serve as well - and help educate us toward a greater appreciation for our mutual contributions and social interdependence.
