The framing of

LANGUAGE AND POLITICS

L
anguage, as commonly
© iStockphoto.com

our language
understood, is primarily a
communicative device, despite
views to the contrary in mainstream

use, and its

linguistics, where language is said to be
an abstract manifestation of symbolic
notation. This fact, coupled with its
ubiquity, makes its study indispensable

relation to
when attempting to understand almost
any aspect of human nature.
It is through language that we are

politics
… conceptual metaphors form the basis of the
way in which we think. Once we understand
this, many things which would otherwise not
make sense now do.
By Suren Naicker
able to express intent, share what we
feel, communicate facts and create art
in various forms; this of course does not
imply that language is the only means
of doing so, but I give it precedence
here because it is indeed the most
widely used in the aforementioned
arenas. Without language, our ability
to conceptualise and categorise is
severely compromised.
When we wish to convince someone
of our viewpoint, we use language to
do so. In so doing, we may choose to
manipulate, lie, use words with speciic
connotations, designed to evoke a
particular mind-set in the listener, etc.
When trying to win someone over to
your side, so to speak (whether it’s a
child trying to get his parents to buy a
toy for him, or a political party trying
to convince you to vote for them),
you may share certain selected facts
with them, appeal to their emotions
in various ways, and so on. These are
some of the techniques used in spin
and propaganda.
Our predilection for metaphorical
thought is something that is not only
natural, but unconscious as well. A
very young child who has only just
acquired his language is said to have
hundreds of metaphors available as
part of his knowledge base. He does
this by mapping source and target
domains in various ways. For example,
when a child’s mother holds him to
her, he feels the sensation of warmth,
and associates the feelings of love/
protection/care with the sensation of
warmth. Metaphors formed in this
fashion are expected to be relected
universally in language. However, it is
clear that some metaphors are unique
in some way, perhaps to a particular
culture, a given society, or may even
be the idiosyncrasy of a family. For
example, being clean may be deemed
a good thing, and being dirty may
be deemed a bad thing. Hence, by

32 THE THINKER

association of having a dirty mind
would refer to the metaphor DIRTY
IS BAD, and as such would refer to
thinking something that is morally
wrong. However, this is something that
would have to be instilled in children
by the parents; if not, the concomitant
associations would be different.
Even though metaphors of the latter
kind are a result of conditioning, the
conceptual metaphor itself is acquired
unconsciously. We know this because
children use and understand various
metaphors without any problem, yet
would not be able to explain the usage
meta-linguistically.
Now, conceptual metaphors form
the basis of the way in which we think.
Once we understand this, many things
which would otherwise not make
sense now do. The metaphors that
we acquire slot in to various cognitive
schemas, which are continually
evolving, though we may assume that
there is a saturation point. We have
what we can call deeply ingrained
schemas, and supericial schemas. The
latter evokes the former. George Lakoff
uses the terms deep-framing and
surface-framing to describe this. For
example, when someone says, “You
are such a pig”, one would have to
have some knowledge of the negative
connotations associated with pig in
many cultures: they are unhygienic,
seen as potential disease-carriers, pork
is forbidden in many cultures for various
reasons, including its association with
black magic and evil, etc. The frame
that this word evokes would depend on
your understanding of it, but generally
such a statement would be meant as
an insult. This statement is a surface
frame, but depends on a deep frame,
which requires you to understand that
DIRT IS BAD/IMMORAL, and that
things associated with the dirt must also
be bad in some way; pigs (it is thought
by many people) like to roll in dirt, and
would eat anything, even rubbish, and
therefore they are dirty... .
Now imagine someone who grew
up on a farm in Bloemfontein. Imagine
that the farmer was a maize farmer, who
kept sheep and pigs as well. The sheep
are shorn twice a year, and the wool
is used for various things. The pigs are
kept more as pets, and not slaughtered
for meat. The child grows up watching
his father care of the sheep and pigs
very lovingly, and watches him playing
with the little piglets like you would
little puppies. The pigs, as is the case
when this species is not abused, keep
themselves extremely clean. Imagine
also that this child attends a local school
which caters for the children of farmers
from the surrounding farms. If this child
goes to Johannesburg on holiday for
the irst time at the age of six, decides
to eat the food at the restaurant with
his hands, making a bit of a mess, and
he overhears the child at the next table
saying, Look, he’s such a pig. Because
pig would evoke a different frame (cute
little animals whom he probably has
names for), he would not understand
what the statement means, insofar as its
intention is concerned. Our farm child
may not even have the deep frame
DIRT IS BAD on which to hang the
surface frame, because working in the
mud and dirtying himself by helping his
When a republican
accuses the democrat of
being weak and wanting
to surrender, the very
phrase has no meaning
within the nuturant
parent frame.
father may be associated with a virtue.
This child would understand that being
dirty is not always bad, whereas a
suburban child who was continually
chided for playing in the mud, would
associate it as such.
Note that this is just an example, and
possibly not a very good one. The point
is simply that we all have frames, which
are represented in our minds. We have
deep frames which surface frames draw
upon. Due to the way we go about
acquiring conceptual metaphors, the
resultant frames are generally the same
within a particular speech community,
but there are important differences and
these differences (or more importantly,
the consequences of these differences)
are what I would like the reader to take
cognizance of.
John Gray’s bestseller, Men are from
Mars, Women are from Venus, spoke
of the different ways men and women
LANGUAGE AND POLITICS
speak, and the miscommunication
that ensues when they speak to each
other. He refers to a myth at the
outset of the book, where men once
inhabited Mars, and women inhabited
Venus, and upon learning of each
other’s existence, agreed to tryst upon
earth. However, they had dificulty
communicating with each other, and
despite improvements over the years,
there is still much to be desired. The
book aims to bridge this gap. He
points out various instances whereby
both parties need to understand what
is actually meant when something is
said, instead of just taking what is said
at face value. For example, when the
wife says, “We never go anywhere
anymore”, she is usually confronted
with the retort, “But we went out last
week for dinner!” Then the wife gets
angry, and the husband gets confused.
Why does this happen? This seems
to happen because women in general
have the frame LANGUAGE AS
EMOTIONAL EXPRESSION, whereas
men have the frame LANGUAGE
AS CONVEYING ESSENTIAL
INFORMATION. This is, of course,
a gross simpliication, but it contains
a signiicant element of truth which
has visible impacts in our society. In
the former frame (female), expressing
your emotions to the people you love
is seen as a good thing, and in the
context of a relationship, is the primary
aim of communication; in the latter
frame, emotional expression is seen
as effeminate, a sign of weakness. In
this context, what is expressed should
not be counter-factual, and should be
preceded by a kind of brain-storming
session where you think about what
you’re going to say before saying it.
Once this is understood, many things
make sense that otherwise might have
just seemed unintelligible. Instead of
conceding that there’s something at
play that we don’t understand, we
villainise the other party, and attribute
our lack of understanding to stupidity,
callousness, etc.
George Lakoff speaks of two kinds
of families: the strict father family
and the nurturant parent family. With
the former, what the father says goes
without any question, just because he
says so, leaving no room for negotiation.
If you violate these rules, you will be
Volume 32 / 2011 33
 LANGUAGE AND POLITICS
punished. The circumstances which
preclude you from following these
rules are generally deemed irrelevant,
and often ignorance of the rules does
not sufice as an excuse to evade
punishment. This is tough love, so that
you will soon grow to be a responsible,
independent person. If they do not
learn within the required time-frame,
they are forced to go out and learn on
their own.
With the latter, rules are not rigid
and may not even apply in some
cases; punishment is tailored to suit
the wrong-doing, and children are
allowed to develop at their own pace.
If children do not learn or develop as
expected, they are given guidance and
assistance as long as they need, without
any pressure, but with the knowledge
that the parents will not always be
there. In reality, most families are a
combination of the two family types,
meaning that when it comes to one
kind of issue, parents would be
nurturant, and in another they would
be strict and impose a different set of
policies. The degree to which they
vary is more accurately viewed as a
continuum.
In American politics, there are two
main political parties, the Republican
Party and the Democratic Party.
The republicans are labeled as
conservatives, whereas the democrats
are labeled progressives. The labels
are self-explanatory, and we can
understand their policies by seeing this
too in terms of conceptual metaphor.
Here we have a NATION AS FAMILY
METAPHOR, with the republicans
adopting the STRICT FATHER model,
and the democrats adopting the
NUTURANT PARENT model. (This
spills over into their religious beliefs,
with the democrats being more tolerant
of other religions and cultures, and the
republicans not.) Again, generalisations
are made, whereas in reality there will
not be such a clear distinction between
the two frames. However, two frames
there are, and these very clearly
inluence the way the different parties
interpret the world and the information
they receive about it.
Let us consider the ‘war’ in Iraq:
The republicans believe they should
use violence, and attack all opposition
34 THE THINKER
with a take no prisoners kind of
attitude. Furthermore, they believe
they know what is best for Iraq, and
that Iraqis must obey, or else… Notice,
it is only within this frame that terms
like ‘war’ and ‘surrender’ have any
meaning. Here it must be known that
the ‘father’ is tough, and if you mess
with his ‘family’, he’s going to browbeat
you. Democrats see this as an illegal
occupation of sovereign territory, and
that leaving is precisely that: leaving
– withdrawing from a land they
invaded under false pretences. When
a republican accuses the democrat of
being weak and wanting to surrender,
the very phrase has no meaning within
the nuturant parent frame. If a nuturant
parent’s child gets beaten up, he
would irst ask the child what he did
to instigate the ight. After ascertaining
for sure whose fault it is, he would then
talk to the parents of the other child.
Likewise, a diplomatic understanding of
the underlying causes which instigated
9/11 would help in inding a holistic
solution, and a punishment which its
the crime, something like dealing with
it as a criminal act. What the Bush
administration did was tantamount
So when we talk
of the ‘war’ in Iraq,
we are already
presupposing a
republican frame:
we immediately
think of attack and
defence, good guys
and bad guys, state of
emergency, and fear
of espionage. When we
talk of ‘occupation’,
we frame the
American troops as
criminals!
to going and beating up the child
accused of beating up your own child
[Afghanistan] (no questions asked – you
messed with a member of my family,
now I will show you who’s boss), then
beating up your child’s friend, since he
has something your family could use
and beating him up for this reason will
give you an excuse to take what he has
[Iraq and its oil resources]. For those
who do not know, America is currently
setting up a number oil companies in
various parts of Iraq.
A strict father might also, after all
this, punish his child just to get the
point across that he should steer clear
of ights; America is punishing its own
citizens with moves to allow random
phone tapping and email hacking to
try and catch the Judas. With the war
powers Bush gave himself during this
occupation, he had the right to detain
without charge anyone accused of
terrorism. Many have been detained,
without even a doctored charge,
and tortured in various ways in the
notorious prison in Guantanamo Bay,
deliberately set up there so it would be
outside the world’s eye. Sami Al-Haj,
a camera-man for Al-Jazeera is an
example of this: he was held without
charge for six years, and underwent
extreme abuse and torture. Republicans
would say that these are terrorists, and
they do not deserve to be treated
normally, or with dignity. Torture is
necessary to gain ‘intelligence’ and to
get them to admit what plans they are
hatching, etc. Even if this were true,
they would have to explain why they
would torture someone who is arrested
with NO charge, even after six years. If
were told he’s accused of x, and that
admitting x would stop the torture, he
may have admitted it just to have some
solace, but as I said in many cases there
were NO charges! Indeed, many did
‘admit’ to crimes under torture, which
the republican politicians are delighted
with. This kind of policy seems
inhumane and barbaric, and it makes
us educated, civilised people wonder
how things can happen under the
auspices of such a developed nation.
When you see the frame as a kick-ass
‘father’, like Rocky, going to some kid
and saying, “Are you the one who’s
messing around with my kid?” He says
no at irst, until he is pushed around
a few times, followed by a few slaps,
etc.; then he comes around to see the
light, apologise, and ‘admit’ guilt; this is
their idea of victory.

In being steadfast, the republicans
want to be perceived as being tough.
However, they are not as resolute in
their policies as they would like to be.
For example, they do not speak to or
work with terrorist organisations, and
of course what counts as a terrorist
organisation is left to their discretion,
and by the oficial deinition, the USA
falls under a terrorist state as well, in
addition to actively supporting alleged
dictators like Saddam Hussein. South
Africa’s ANC was listed as a terrorist
organisation all along, until July 2008
(this was George Bush’s ‘gift’ to
Mandela on his 90th birthday!), yet
the USA has always had good relations
with South Africa ever since sanctions
were lifted in the early ’90s.
There was a successful rescue
mission conducted in the middle
of 2008 by the Columbian army on
the Farc rebels, who held many high
proile hostages, including two US
army oficials and a former Columbian
presidential candidate (she was
campaigning when she was taken
hostage) for many years. This was only
made possible because they entered
into negotiations with the rebels, and
executed the rescue on that premise.
Without this intervention, the hostages
would still be in captivity, including
the US oficials – this is further proof
that conservative policy does not make
much sense.
However, republicans are so
successful because they own all the
major media houses in the States,
and they invest millions in setting
up think-thanks, which churn out
publications in non-peer-reviewed
journals. Hence, they create their
own frames, which are instilled in the
minds of the people all over the world,
and things that they hear outside this
frame is either incorporated into this
frame or not recognised as making
any sense – you call them bigoted, or
biased, or closed-minded, but really
they are just trapped in a conservative
frame. So when we talk of the ‘war’
in Iraq, we are already presupposing
a republican frame: we immediately
think of attack and defence, good guys
and bad guys, state of emergency, and
fear of espionage. When we talk of
‘occupation’, we frame the American
troops as criminals! This is why the
conservatives repeat over and over
again WAR ON TERROR, so that this
frame gets inculcated in your minds,
not the liberals’ (more accurate) frame.
When Obama
suggested talking
unconditionally to
Iranian leaders, he
was merely referring
to a willingness to
understand things
from their point of
view, to understand
their frame of
reference before
assuming anything,
then making their
frame clear to Iran,
and then inding a
way forward.
If we talk of war, we are entering into
a debate on republican turf. Liberals
need to frame the debate in their
terms, and like the republicans, repeat
it and use surface frames that hinge on
the deeper frame.
It makes no sense to say that Bush
is an idiot, the Americans are evil, etc.
because they know very well what
they are doing, and they are good at
it – which means they’re not so stupid
after all.
When Obama suggested talking
unconditionally to Iranian leaders, he
was merely referring to a willingness
to understand things from their point
of view, to understand their frame of
reference before assuming anything,
then making their frame clear to Iran,
and then inding a way forward. This
is at least better than unilaterally
declaring that America will attack
unless all alleged nuclear plants are
blown up in public. The republicans
will not speak to them as they are
the enemy. Instead they will issue an
ultimatum: do what we tell you or we
will attack you. From Iran’s point of
view, this is bullying. Just as Iraq had
LANGUAGE AND POLITICS
no “weapons of mass destruction”,
they say they have none either, and
that they have the right to develop
nuclear technology, which they say is
for peaceful purposes. America is seen
as a ickle yet dangerous threat, a state
which once supported Al-Qaeda and
Saddam Hussein when it suited them,
and now turned against them as show
of strength and virility to show the
American people that their ‘father’ is
tough. Hence, the difference in policy
regarding Iran.
There is a younger generation of
neo-conservatives who understand
the problems with the status quo, and
are trying to make their policies more
reasonable. Their critics say they are
just taking some liberal policies and
calling themselves neo-conservatives,
but it remains to be seen what comes
of this.
In American politics, the frames are
fairly clear, and we can more often
than not predict which policies will
appeal to which party.
In applying this theory to the South
African context, it gets a bit more
complicated. In using the NATION AS
FAMILY metaphor, we need to bear in
mind that there are other family types,
including:
1. “single mother” families;
2. “abusive parent” families; and
3. “all are equal”, families.
Surely there are other family
structures, but these seem to be the
most prominent. I’ll call these type 1,
type 2 and type 3 for ease of reference.
I would imagine a type 1 family to have
a strong, sturdy, resolute yet caring
mother – who strives not to show her
love too blatantly; perhaps Margaret
Thatcher’s government would have
fallen into this category.
A type 2 parent would not care for
his children, and intimidate them to
make himself feel more important. He
would tell them things to make them
believe that he is a great man, even if
he knows this to be counter-factual. He
would like to control who his children
hang out with, and what information
they are receiving, for if they become
too educated and street-wise, they may
rebel. You can see this as strict father
gone wrong. One obvious example of
this kind of government is the ZANU-PF
currently ruling Zimbabwe.
Volume 32 / 2011 35
 LANGUAGE AND POLITICS
© iStockphoto.com
Imagine a type 2 parent who abuses
one child, and favours the other.
One could draw an analogy with this
government and that of apartheid
South Africa, where White people were
the favoured ‘children’, and the others
were treated badly for being different.
Now when the abused child takes
over, they decide that we must all now
be equal, but decides to surreptitiously
get back at those who beneited in
the old days [afirmative action] and
so on. The parallels we can draw are
endless, but now we have a type 3
parent, who decides that he needs to
make things right by apologising to the
abused children, and declares that all
are equal, and all should work together
as a collective to make the nation a
better one and serve the government
who now sees them as all equal. This
type 3 parent feels that if one child gets
a sweet, the others must get a sweet as
well. Hence, the communist ideology
of equal distribution of wealth, as so
often bandied about in the ANC.
36 THE THINKER
frame was too deeply embedded in the
minds of the denizens, and it is nothing
other than their failure to eradicate that
type 2 frame that led to the downfall
and dissolution of the party.
When the Democratic Alliance
(or the then Democratic Party) won
the second most seats in parliament,
deposing the NP, they slotted right
into that type 2 frame without even
asking for it. To make matters worse,
they also accepted the label OFFICIAL
OPPOSITION PARTY, as if it were
a good thing. Now, in addition to
unknowingly itting into a type 2 frame
(remember that this is something
unconscious yet indelibly burnt into
people’s minds), they hang on that
frame the surface frame of “opposition
party”. Now, the ANC, being a type 3
family, is known to promote equality,
justice, freedom and a better life for
all. They are also the ones who fought
the oppressors with the iconic Nelson
Mandela at its helm. If you are the
party opposing the ANC, followers
of the ANC are going to see you as
opposing freedom, justice, etc. This is
a direct upshot of slotting into a type
2 frame, and then accepting the label
‘opposition party’. This is precisely why
the current ANC youth league believes
that the DA is the enemy and needs
to be wiped out – what’s wrong with
Now, the National Party, the
eradicating someone who stands in the
archetypal symbol of apartheid and
way of all those things all South Africans
the concomitant abuse that went with
hold so dear? This is just taking the
it, was the opposition party during
vengeance condoned by his ‘parent’
the elections in 1994, when we had
one step further. With this also comes
our irst truly democratic elections.
the stigma of being perceived as the
Though the leader at the time was a
party who would oppose everything the
“courageous and honourable man,“
ANC says and does on principle. When
in Nelson Mandela’s own words and
Tony Leon (the then leader of the DA)
a Nobel Peace Prize winner, few
visited my university just under 10 years
forgot what they stood for during the
back, some students were shouting at
apartheid days, and the horror and
him, telling him that he’s the “devil
pain they inlicted on their ‘children’.
incarnate”. Having listened to his talk,
The NP was soon to be deposed,
and listened to him answering (some
but still had the stigma of being a
very antagonistic) questions on policy
type 2 abusive parent, and now they
very eloquently, and very reasonably,
were to be relegated to the MAIN
and having shaken his hand afterwards,
OPPOSITION PARTY, and therefore
and observing him meet with students
still a threat. The NP recognised this,
and chat with them in a very friendly
and eventually changed their name to
manner, I did not understand why
the NNP, the NEW National Party, one
the animosity was so rife. My brother
that has realised its mistakes, and was
cites Tony Leon’s father as being an
prepared to make amends for the ills
apartheid judge as his reason for hating
of the past by becoming a nurturant
Tony Leon and the DA; this being said
parent under its new leadership. But
without any knowledge of the kind of
this did not work, because the type 2

judge he was, or the kind of person he
was. But things like this make sense if
we understand that his party fell into a
trap, so to speak.
At the time of writing, the ANC has
reason to be rather concerned, as some
of their leaders face corruption charges.
The DA’s criticisms are brushed off and
seen as inciting hate, and feelings of
retaliation are justiied as they were the
ones who condoned the oppression
of black people during apartheid –
this is not true, but it its in with the
frame that the DA has unknowingly
embraced. In reality, the DA adopts
a nurturant parent frame, and bases
its philosophy on the principles of an
open society, in the Popperian sense.
This is relected in their policies, the
way they reason things through, and
the things they say when given the
opportunity. This is only evident when
you listen to what is said with an open
mind, without shackling yourself into a
frame. However, this is not easy as we
unconsciously create frames based on
various conceptual metaphors, so the
“facts” only make sense within a frame.
If a fact does not suit a frame, it is seen
negatively, as treason, reversion to
oppression and so on. A type 3 family
owes allegiance to the father, who is
ighting for their equality; in return,
they are prepared to wipe out, kill and
die for that leader. This is part of the
type 3 frame, and if it is not understood
as such, this can be as confusing as it is
distressing.
Helen Zille, the current leader of
the DA, has criticised the government’s
Black Economic Empowerment
policy (BEE), which is a way of giving
preferential treatment to those who
belong to previously disadvantaged
communities. (It has more recently
being upgraded to Broad Based
Black Economic Empowerment, to
ensure that more currently poor and
disadvantaged people beneit rather
than a small number of successful Black
businesses). Contrary to what we would
expect, she does NOT criticise the fact
that this policy is a kind of reverse
discrimination, where a White person
would not be considered for a job over
a Black person, who actually might be
less qualiied. In fact, she points out
that the policy is meant to assist the
masses, who – before 1994 – have
never had equal access to education
and other resources. However, in
practice the policy is only being used
to assist the middle-upper class Black
population, and she thereby feels the
term Black Elitist Enrichment would
be a more appropriate label, which is
a clever spin on the now hackneyed
abbreviation, BEE. Her point here is
that the poor Black people, who this
policy is meant to help, and who it
was designed for in the irst place,
are no better off as a result of this
policy. Instead, already afluent Black
businessmen are getting deals and
tenders they would otherwise have to
compete for in the free market.
Surely this point is not a criticism
What the DA
should have done,
and should be doing
still is not picking
on particular issues.
They should do what
Barack Obama is
doing in the States
and work on changing
the frames that are so
indelibly burnt into
the minds of
the nation.
against the ANC per se, but a point
made on behalf of the majority of the
South African population. It is criticism
which any member of the ANC should
accept in principle, as it points to the
failure of government implementation,
and merely reminds them that their
supporters are suffering as result of this.
However, common sense plays no
role here, and the actual facts do not
matter in the grander scheme of things.
The fact is that Helen Zille represents
the DA, who its into a frame that
on principle opposes everything that
the ANC stands for, and therefore
must oppose a better life for all. This
fact cannot be over-emphasised, as
the inluence of cognitive frames are
deeply embedded in our minds and
unconscious. It takes conscious effort
LANGUAGE AND POLITICS
to understand these frames, and
then change them appropriately in a
responsible manner.
This explains why people are not
able to just look at the facts objectively,
and use their common sense. Common
sense does not exist, in that it is not
common. We only have frames, and
many of these are common, but many
are not. If you talk about an issue that
is embedded in a frame to another
person who espouses another frame,
your conversation will get nowhere;
a DA supporter talking to an ANC
supporter about Jacob Zuma’s trial
will not get anywhere, just as many
conversations between a woman and
the beloved males in her world are
heading for communication failure.
What the DA should have done, and
should be doing still is not picking on
particular issues. They should do what
Barack Obama is doing in the States
and work on changing the frames that
are so indelibly burnt into the minds
of the nation. It is only then that the
people who count will listen, and of
course I don’t just mean swaying voters
in your favour. The stigma of being the
NP’s replacement should be wiped
out, and the DA should stop labeling
itself the opposition party, because
they do not oppose what the ANC
stands for in THEORY. They stand up
for what is right, and they stand up
for the people whose tax money is
being squandered unlawfully by the
GOVERNMENT, of which the DA is a
part. They should frame themselves as
part of a whole, a part which is there to
help care for the nation. If a member
of the Independent Democrats does
something wrong, it should be brought
to the fore; if a member of their own
party goes astray, it should be brought
to the fore, and they should be dealt
with.
This would be the irst step in
changing the negative frame that is in
the minds of so many South Africans,
people would listen more attentively,
and they would earn the respect of
their rivals. Without action based on
an intelligent understanding of the
situation, there is no communication,
one party sees the other as being idiotic
or rebellious, or whatever, when really
what they are doing is quite consistent
within their frame of reference. 
Volume 32 / 2011 37