Edited by Gabriele Bammer
What are frames and framing? What roles do they play in making change happen? What are some essential principles of framing? Can framing be used to manipulate people?
This editor’s addition draws on the 2014 updated edition of George Lakoff’s classic work “Don’t think of an elephant.” Lakoff provided these ideas in the US context of the contest between progressive and conservative ideas, and here they are adapted to be more general, including highlighting issues relevant to dealing with complex problems.
What are frames?
There is no simple definition of frames, with key elements including that they are embedded in neural circuits, that they are linked to morals or values, and that they are evoked by language. Lakoff highlights that:
- “Frames are mental structures that shape the way we see the world. As a result, they shape the goals we seek, the plans we make, the way we act, and what counts as a good or bad outcome of our actions” (page 10).
- Frames “exist in physical neural circuitry in our brains, largely below the level of conscious awareness, and they define and limit how we understand the world, so they affect our actions in the world” (page 38).
- Frames result from ideas that have been ingrained in us, that have been “developed over time consistently and precisely enough to create an accurate frame for our understanding” (page 36).
- Central to “personal identity is a moral sense, a sense of what is right and wrong, what justifies our actions. That moral sense, like all that we believe and understand, is physical, built into the neural circuitry of our brains” (page 43).
- We “know frames through language. All words are defined relative to conceptual frames. When you hear a word, its frame is activated in your brain” (page 10). However, framing “is not just language. The ideas are primary—and the language carries those ideas, evokes those ideas” (page 10).
Important complex ideas may not have frames
Because frames result from ideas that have been ingrained in us, new complex ideas may not have frames, making them hard to grasp and act on. Lakoff provides the example of “systemic causation.” He argues that direct causation is well understood because it is a common experience from early childhood onwards, but that:
- “The same is not true of systemic causation. Systemic causation cannot be experienced directly. It has to be learned, its cases have to be studied, and repeated communication is necessary before it can be widely understood. … As a result, we lack a concept that we desperately need” (page 39).
Making change happen
Given that frames guide the way we think and act, change involves changing frames and this requires alterations in neural circuits associated with frames. Framing involves coming up with accurate ways of describing the desired goals of change and then communicating these new frames consistently over time, until they are accepted. Lakoff highlights that:
- “… framing is [not just] a matter of coming up with clever slogans … that resonate with a significant segment of the population. Those slogans only work when there has been a long—often decades-long—campaign of framing issues …, so that the brains of many people are prepared to accept those phrases” (page 36).
- “If you remember nothing else about framing, remember this: Once your frame is accepted into the discourse, everything you say is just common sense. Why? Because that’s what common sense is: reasoning within a commonplace, accepted frame” (page 125; italics in original).
Lakoff’s ideas about framing also explain why some ways of approaching change are unsuccessful. Two of these are (i) just relying on facts and (ii) repudiating the opposition’s arguments.
In relation to facts, Lakoff argues that:
- “Facts matter enormously, but to be meaningful they must be framed in terms of their moral importance. … you can only understand what the frames in your brain allow you to understand. If the facts don’t fit the frames in your brain, the frames in your brain stay and the facts are ignored or challenged or belittled” (page 12).
When it comes to dealing with the arguments of opponents, Lakoff argues that:
- “When you are arguing against the other side, do not use their language. Their language picks out a frame—and it won’t be the frame you want” (page 15).
- “Not only does negating a frame activate that frame [in the neural circuits], but the more it is activated, the stronger it gets. … When you argue against someone … using their language and their frames, you are activating their frames, strengthening their frames in those who hear you, and undermining your own views” (page 11).
Instead, dealing with opposition requires reframing. This is easiest when an alternative frame already exists, as developing a completely new frame can be very hard. The alternative frame may be unconscious, so that accessing it requires “making it conscious, and repeating it till it enters normal public discourse. It doesn’t happen overnight. It is an on-going process. It requires repetition and focus and dedication” (page 11). Successful reframing changes what counts as common sense.
Manipulative uses of framing
Frames and framing are inherently about explaining how humans understand the world. Ideally frames aim to be relatively accurate depictions of the world, and using framing and reframing to make change happen is carried out with honesty and integrity. However, as Lakoff says, “frames can also be used manipulatively” (page 115). He highlights spin and propaganda:
- “Spin is the manipulative use of a frame. Spin is used when something embarrassing has happened or has been said, and it’s an attempt to put an innocent frame on it—that is, to make the embarrassing occurrence sound normal or good” (page 115).
- “Propaganda is an attempt to get the public to adopt a frame that is not true and is known not to be true, for the purposes of gaining or maintaining political control” (pages 115-116).
Concluding questions
What’s your experience been with framing complex issues and problems? Are there complex issues other than systemic causation that you have found don’t have frames? How about your experience with framing and change processes? Do you have success stories or lessons learnt to share?
Reference:
Lakoff, G. (2014). The all new: Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing: White River Junction, Vermont, United States of America.
(The page numbers cited are from the online edition hosted at ProQuest Ebook Central.)
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)
A description of “Editor’s additions” is available in https://i2insights.org/index/integration-and-implementation-sciences-vocabulary/. This editor’s addition was produced by Gabriele Bammer using the reference above.
Gabriele Bammer PhD is Professor of Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S) at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at The Australian National University in Canberra. i2S provides theory and methods for tackling complex societal and environmental problems, especially for developing a more comprehensive understanding in order to generate fresh insights and ideas for action, supporting improved policy and practice responses by government, business and civil society, and effective interactions between disciplinary and stakeholder experts. She is the inaugural President of the Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity (ITD-Alliance; 2023-25).