A Justice Site
MIRROR SITES: CSUDH - Habermas - UWP
ISSUES AND CONCEPTS: Susan's Archive at UWP
Academic Resources - Daily Site Additions
Lectures - Notes - Texts - Self Tests - Discussions
Visual Sociology - Graduate Exam Study
POST TO: Tutoring - Learning Records - Transform-dom
SEARCH: Topics Index - Site Index - Issue Archives
Google Web Search - Google Site Search
California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: February 2, 2006
Latest Update: February 2, 2006
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu
Communication: PBS Interview with Frank Luntz on Republican PoliticsThis essay is based on information from a PBS Interview with Frank Luntz.
"A corporate consultant, pollster and political consultant to Republicans, Luntz's specialty is testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate. In this interview, he explains what it takes to communicate a message effectively, shares some of the advice that he gives clients, and explains why his testing and field research seeks words that move people to act on an emotional level: "It's all emotion. [Emphasis added.] But there's nothing wrong with emotion. When we are in love, we are not rational; we are emotional. When we are on vacation, we are not rational; we are emotional. When we are happy, we are not [rational]. In fact, in more cases than not, when we are rational, we're actually unhappy. Emotion is good; passion is good. Being into what we're into, provided that it's a healthy pursuit, it's a good thing." This interview was conducted on Dec. 15, 2003."
From Introduction of Luntz on PBS Interview with Frank Luntz.
Some of the comments made by Luntz in this interview emphasize the importance of emotion as the determinant of how we act. Lear says this in the Wolf Man section in which he explains that how we act is often not rational. Lear, Open Minded.
[Luntz:] "Politics is gut; commercials are gut. You're watching a great show on TV, you now come to that middle break, you decide in a matter of three seconds whether or not you're going to a) flip the channel; b) get up; or c) keep watching. It's not intellectual; it is gut."
[Interviewer:] "Is it the same for political decisions about power companies and politicians, though?"
[Luntz:] "We decide based on how people look; we decide based on how people sound; we decide based on how people are dressed. We decide based on their passion. If I respond to you quietly, the viewer at home is going to have a different reaction than if I respond to you with emotion and with passion and I wave my arms around. Somebody like this is an intellectual; somebody like this is a freak. But that's how we make up our minds. Look, this is about the real-life decisions of real-life Americans, who to vote for, what to buy, what to agree with, what to think, how to act. This is the way it is."
[Interviewer:] "You think emotions are more revelatory than the intellect for predicting these decisions?"
[Luntz:] "80 percent of our life is emotion, and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think. I can change how you think, but how you feel is something deeper and stronger, and it's something that's inside you. How you think is on the outside, how you feel is on the inside, so that's what I need to understand."
Starting about three-fourths of an inch down the screen at PBS Interview with Frank Luntz.
What Luntz is measuring is peoples' reactions to the images presented, the words used, to persuade people to make the choices his clients want them to make. That's called in sociology, the theory of attitudes and persuasion. This is why we are reviewing theory. Because it does tell us what we need to know about the choices and decisions we have to make every day of our lives.
"On Monday I will sit down with a Washington representative of Florida Power & Light and I will tell him that what he wants to do, his goal for his company, is the goal of America; that if he uses this language to explain his principles and his policies, not only will the company benefit, but the public will be appreciative of what they're trying to do. This is a good company, this is a clean company, but it's got all the baggage of every other electric company, of every other power company. We as Americans assume that big companies are bad, and big power companies are even worse. This language, what we saw tonight, is a demonstration that a single company can differentiate itself, can improve its public image."
In a world with what Republicans are calling a "free market," the power to persuade people to make the decisions you want them to make is crucial, and is not simple. If one wnats to succeed, one cannot afford to approach such persuasion problems naively, but with all the "quantitative data" we can get.
In this last comment I have included, what is the frame in which the language is set? What is the crucial language? Yeah, I highlighted if for you. The goal for his company is the same as the goal of America. Notice that these two cannot be related rationally. But the "goal for America" suggests patriotism for this nation-state. Patriotism is good. Therefore, we want to pair the goal for the company with patriotism. The company is patriotic. Notice that Luntz emphasizes the importance of "us[ing] this language." That's because the specific language chosen fits into the frame for patriotism, with which we identify strongly and in a positive light.
This leads me back to George Lakoff's don't think of an elephant!, in which Lakoff describes the theory of frames and persuasion.
