Lakoff's Moral Politics: How Liberals And Conservatives Think

In the essay “Family Values” Author Richard Rodriguez opens up on a subjective note as he labels himself a middle aged homosexual male in San Francisco, getting ready to tell his parents about his sexuality. The idea of ‘family values’ is presented through the Republican Party and its definition of relating to the large population of immigrants living inside of America. Rodriguez says that “only a society so guilty about its betrayal of family would tolerate the pieties of politicians regarding family values” (Family values, par 5 pg. 221) With that being said He then outlines the understanding of the term family values, as it takes on various meanings based on the country of origin. He then clarifies that the American idea of ‘family value’ is based on children living on their own and learning ways to make themselves distinguish differently. America is a country that takes the concepts to question authority and

Many Americans believe that family values are only upheld when individuals belong to a “traditional family”, which consists of a working father, stay-at-home mother and their biological children. Any fluctuation from this ideal family model is considered “non-traditional”. In Barbara Kingsolver’s, “Stone Soup”, she shares her perspective about society’s negative vision of the non-traditional family. As a divorced single mother, Kingsolver suggests, “To judge a family’s value by its tidy symmetry is to purchase a book for its cover.” Similarly, Richard Rodriguez’s, “Family Values” also addresses the subject of family. However, his theme focuses on how immigrants and politicians view the family dynamic. Rodriguez believes that America severely

Summary: In chapter 1 of Moral Politics talks about that politics is about your own world view. The political division between republican and democrat is based on morality. Morality is based on the type of family backgrounds you have or family model you have such as strict father and nurturing father. And these models explain what “common sense” you have in mind, which you may not even aware of. Chapter two talks about the personal worldview problem for american politics, it will bring the questions that either you're more conservative or liberal. Both sides have their own views. It talks about why do conservatives think that morality should be their agenda. Liberals also have a paradoxical position even they also hold a moral position on

Traditionally, the U.S. family begins with a marriage, cohabitation and finally, children. However, the “typical” family is beginning to evolve very rapidly, just as in France and Quebec. In Quebec, it is more common to find couples living together that aren’t married than to find married couples living together. Surprisingly, only 3 in 10 families in Quebec are married couples with children under 25 living with them. In France, children tend to live with their parents until they’re in their early to mid-twenties. Quebec and the United States are generally evolving together. It is more common in present day to find couples living together that aren’t married, yet may or may not have children. However, in France, couples generally won’t marry until they’re in their thirties. My family is composed of the traditional American family: marriage, creating a home together, creating a family together. Although I was raised in an orthodox household, I was also raised seeing and learning from unorthodox living and parental situations. The role of family in the U.S., Quebec, and France nowadays are all transforming to purposefully cease all structure. Same-sex marriage is now legal in these areas, and this change has definitely produced the question of what is a “typical family” anymore. There is not a typical family anymore, there is only the family one was brought up in and one creates.

This essay, The Myth of the Model American Family, is a discussion of the concept of an ideal family in the different perspective specifically social, cultural and economic. This is also an attempt to identify the structural changes in relation to the global development and the international economic crisis that immensely created impact on their lives. However, the discussion will limit itself on the different identifiable and observable transformations as manifested in the lifestyles, interrelationships and views of family members and will not seek to provide an assessment of their psycho-social and individual perceptions.

Talcott Parsons’ (1956, pg. 309) believed that “the nuclear family is a social system” which consists of a straight married couple and around two to five children, “can be distinguished, and does function as a significant group” (1956, pg.308). Parsons believed that the family benefitted society in ways such as the teachings of gender roles and the overall structure of society: the male going to work and being the breadwinner, while the wife stays at home and cooks and nurtures the children. After the Second World War, the nuclear family was the most common type of family making the structure easily “distinguishable”. However, when we look at the postmodern society, we can see that there are many different types of families nowadays such

In the past, plenty of issues were concealed instead of confronting them, which is no longer the case nowadays. Coontz has noted, “There are plenty of stresses in modern family life, but one reason they seem worse is that we no longer sweep them under the rug” (96). We talk candidly about controversies now, no longer hiding issues. We straighten out the problem instead of hiding or ignoring it. There are two disputing narratives about American families. One

Lakoff and Johnson’s analytical tools consist of linguistic evidence and highlighting and hiding. When using linguistic evidence, the writer is providing the reader with words associated with their metaphor that is used in both parts. For example, Lakoff and Johnson use the metaphor “argument is war” (4), and they give the readers linguistic evidence like “I demolished his argument” (4) and “I’ve never won an argument with him” (4) to present the readers with evidence on why this metaphor works. When a writer uses the highlighting tool, they are pointing out the obvious areas that thought of with the metaphors. When a writer uses hiding, they are doing the exact opposite. Here they point out the areas that are not thought of with the presented metaphor.

George Lakoff has a very unique was of looking at moral politics. He attempts to dissect the views of the liberal party and the views of the conservative parties in today’s society. Liberals believe that the government should take action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. The liberal party claims the duty of the government is to alleviate social problems and to protect civil liberties and human rights. Also, they believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. The need for the government to solve problems is what the liberal party emphasizes on. On the other hand, Conservatives believe in a system made of personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. A conservative generally believes the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals but to not get in the way of personal freedom. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems on their own. Both sides being so completely opposite raises the question of which of the two views is correct for handling different aspects in society such as taxes, abortion, capital punishment etc? Lakoff’s two models known as the strict father model and the nurturant family model strive to relate the conservative and liberal views to explain how a conservative and liberal would

The families in America are steadily changing. While they remain our most valued and consistent source of strength and comfort, some families are becoming increasingly unstructured. In the past, the typical family consists of a working father, a stay at home mother and, of course, well-rounded children. Today, less than 20 percent of American families fit nicely into this cookie cutter image. American households have never been more diverse. Natalie Angier takes stock of the changing definition of family in an article for the New York Times.

Times have changed; the nuclear family is no longer the American ideal because family needs have changed since the 1950's. This American convention of a mother and father and their two children, were a template of films and early television as a depiction of the American family life. Now seen as archaic and cliché by today’s standards, but the idea is common throughout many of the first world nations in the world. This ideal was a vast departure from the past agrarian and pre industrial families, and was modeled and structured as the ‘American dream’ father working, mother maintaining the household and children molded to be simulacra of the parents. This portrayal was not the standard; many communities throughout America had a different

Falicov, C.J., & Brudner-White, L. (1983). The shifting family triangle: The issue of cultural and

In this paper, I will use the sociological imagination to connect my personal experiences of growing up in a nuclear family to comparison of growing up in a divorced family. I’m from a nuclear family and my best friend is from a divorced family. “Some people still think the average American family consists of a husband who works in paid employment and a wife who looks after the home, living together with their children” according to Giddens, Anthony pg. 447. That’s not the case in many households. There are many differences, from values, financial issues, and how having one parent opposed to, two parents growing up. Growing up in a nuclear family household has given me the opportunity to have both parents supporting me and always being there, having both parents at special events, giving me the guidance from both perspectives man, and women, love, and financial aid. My best friends parents have been divorced for over 19 years, her living style is much different. She has to make certain days available to visit her father, and her mother has financial difficulties.

Indeed, they help to explain why family structure is such an explosive issue for Americans. The debate about it is not simply about the social-scientific evidence, although that is surely an important part of the discussion. It is also a debate over deeply held and often conflicting values. How do we begin to reconcile our long-standing belief in equality and diversity with an impressive body of evidence that suggests that not all family structures produce equal outcomes for children? How can we square traditional notions of public support for dependent women and children with a belief in women's right to pursue autonomy and independence in childbearing and child-rearing? How do we uphold the freedom of adults to pursue individual happiness in their private relationships and at the same time respond to the needs of children for stability, security, and permanence in their family lives? What do we do when the interests of adults and children conflict? These are the difficult issues at stake in the debate over family structure.

Family is one of the hardest words to define. There are many definitions and thoughts of what a family consists of. When one accepts the definition of the census family given by Statistics Canada then a family becomes “a married couple and the children, if any… a couple living common law and the children, if any… a lone parent with at least one child living in the same dwelling… grandchild living with grandparents but no parents present… Census families can be opposite or same sex and children may be adopted, by birth, or marriage and all members must be living in the same dwelling” (Baker 2014). With family being such a difficult term to agree on, the creation of a complex study of family life emerges. The factors that influence family life are put into three theory categories; Social Structure, Interpersonal Factors, as well as Ideas, Global Culture, and Public Discourse.