DOCSLIB.ORG

Trump's Portrayals of Latin American Immigrants in the 2016 Election

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trump's Portrayals of Latin American Immigrants in the 2016 Election PINEDA 1 Yessica Pineda PSC 393 Professor May March 1, 2020 Trump’s Portrayals of Latin American Immigrants in the 2016 Election The 2016 Election in the United States was seen to be drastically different from any past elections simply due to the fact that for the first time in history, one of the candidates did not have any experience within the political field. The Republican candidate, Donald Trump, was nothing more than a businessman and television personality before he was elected as the forty- fifth president of the United States in 2016. One of the biggest aspects of his overall campaign was the creation of a said wall along the Southern border to decrease and possibly put an end to mass incoming immigration from Mexico. Through his use of language, President Trump portrayed the Mexican immigrants to be a sort of plague that the United States had to immediately get rid of. Due to this proposed policy, President Trump received mass votes which won him the election. Although this seems to be quite irrational, when analyzed through George Lakoff’s, Moral Politics, it begins to make sense. In George Lakoff’s, Moral Politics, Lakoff pursues to articulate the cognitive linguistics framework through his theory of metaphor. According to Lakoff, “ One of the most fundamental results in cognitive science…most of our thought is unconscious…In recent years my work has centered on two components of conceptual systems: conceptual metaphors and categories” (Lakoff, 4). Through this statement, it can be seen that PINEDA 2 Lakoff’s theory of metaphor revolves around the fact that individuals tend to think in metaphor form unconsciously. Furthermore, when analyzing President Trump’s rhetoric in his 2016 campaign through George Lakoff’s structured models of the Strict Father and Nurturant Parent, his negative portrayal of Latin American immigrants in the United States could be explained to be a tactic used to persuade and divide the nation. In Lakoff’s analysis, Lakoff portrays the Strict Father model to resemble closely to the conservative Republican party. According to Lakoff his ideal Strict Father Model is made up of, “ A traditional nuclear family, with the father having primary responsibility for supporting and protecting the family as well as the authority to set overall family policy. He teaches children right from wrong by setting strict rules for their behavior and enforcing them through punishment” (Lakoff, 66). This statement furthermore speaks on the structure of the model to be based on the idea of self-discipline and moral strength. To Lakoff, this model furthermore creates a sense of respect and obedience to the nation itself. On the other hand, the Nurturant Parent model is mostly associated with the Democrat party and the more liberal political spectrum. According to Lakoff, the Nurturant Parent Model is made up of “ A family of preferably two parents, but perhaps only one… The primal experience being this model is one of being cared for and cared about, having one’s desires for loving interactions met… Children become responsible, self-disciplined, and self-reliant through being cared for and respected, and through caring for others” (Lakoff, 109). This narrative furthermore enhances the idea of ultimate happiness and moral respect between a community. Unlike the Strict Father model, the Nurturant Parent model is seen to be structured in a way in which there PINEDA 3 are communication and no hierarchy between child and parent. Furthermore, there is no sort of punishment but rather aid and care coming from the parent’s part. For the methodology part of the analysis, Lakoff’s method of the Strict Father and Nurturant Parent will be applied to certain campaign speeches and electoral debates. The main focus will revolve around President Trump’s main proposed policy, the wall. By applying the Strict Father guidelines to President Trump’s rhetoric, one will be able to discover his reasoning behind his negative portrayal of Latin American immigrants in the United States. By portraying Latin American immigrants as a danger to society, President Trump manages to receive support from his audience since as stated prior, he is seen to be the strict father who protects his family from danger and in this case, immigrant intruders. The history of Latin American immigration in the United States has been long and extensive due to the simple reason of the proximity between both countries. From its founding to the 1880s, the United States had an open-door policy with virtually no federal regulation of migration. Individual states sometimes regulated passenger ships and cities enforced residence requirements in poor laws. Both affected migrants’ ability to enter or live in particular places, but in general, people were able to migrate easily in which millions did. The national origin quota laws of the 1920s and the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, created the third period of “non- migration.” This law had a huge impact on Latin Americans as “in just 40 years, increased from 9.6 million people and 5 percent of the population to 51 million people and 16 percent of the population” (Massey et. Al). Few migrants were able to enter the United States, so the proportion of immigrants in the country declined dramatically. After World War II, refugees from Europe and from countries in which the PINEDA 4 United States had a foreign policy interest were given entry outside the quotas. The U.S. government also entered into agreements, known as the Bracero program, with Mexico and Caribbean countries starting in World War II to 1964 to in order to bring in temporary migrants to fill labor shortages. By the 1970s, special refugee admissions would explode, and with the end of bilateral labor agreements, temporary migration would transform into clandestine migration. In 2008, nearly a third of all immigrants, 30 percent, had entered the United States in 2000 or later; barely two-fifths had lived in the country for more than two decades. Today, Europeans constitute a small minority of the total, while over half of all immigrants were born in Mexico, Central or South America, or the Caribbean, with Mexicans the largest group. A majority of U.S. residents think most immigrants in the country are illegal. The common belief among the public and many policymakers is that more border control is the best way to deal with undocumented migration, through aspects such as more border patrol officers, more fencing, and more high technology surveillance. Border enforcement was already a priority of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) before the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, but since 2003, when immigration and enforcement were transferred to the new Department of Homeland Security, policing borders have become deeply intertwined with national security. Although Latin American immigration has always been regarded to be majorly beneficial to the United States through its collaboration of cheap labor and raise in the economy, that perspective is seen to change through President Trump’s rhetoric. Being a major key player to the Republican party, President Trump is a perfect fit for the Strict Father model as mentioned above. The majority of President Trump’s campaign in the 2016 Presidential Election revolved PINEDA 5 around the idea of building a wall along the Southern Border. The reason for this being was simply since he wanted to keep Mexican immigrants out of the United States. Two of the main reasons for this being is that they posed a great threat to the overall American Identity and that they increased violence in the United States. According to President Trump, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists” (Washington Post). When analyzing this through Lakoff’s Strict Father model, President Trump’s use of metaphor is emphasized. To begin, Trump begins every single one of his sentences with the word ‘they’re’. This is a great use of his language as by doing this, he creates the idea of an ‘other’. By doing this, President Trump instantly creates a sense of fear of the unknown and by using the word ‘us’ he furthermore manages to include the reader in order to feel protected under his leadership. To furthermore continue, he repeats the words of ‘bringing’ and associates it with the following word such as ‘drugs’, ‘crime’, or ‘rapists’ which all have obvious negative connotations and impose a negative feeling upon the reader. Also, by placing the word ‘bringing’ before each negative word, President Trump creates the idea that the reason for those crimes in the nation can be blamed on the people bringing them in from their country. When placing all of these pieces of analysis together and analyzing them under Lakoff’s Strict Father model, it can be inferred that President Trump’s creation of the other and his association of Latin American immigrants to negative connotations such as drugs and or crime creates a fear of the ‘other’. It clearly shows that President Trump is pursuing this path of PINEDA 6 metaphor to portray himself as the father who will guard the nation against harm. By portraying Latin American immigrants as a massive threat who could potentially bring in crime and drugs, President Trump is seen as a leader and ‘strict father’ who will protect the nation from this threat. Furthermore, this type of rhetoric and use of metaphor brings more supporters to his campaign as he is seen to be a figure who can deal with threats and keep the individuals in the nation safe.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Critical Discourse Analysis of Childhood Resilience and the Politics of Teaching Resilience to "Kids at Risk
    REWRITING RESILIENCE: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF CHILDHOOD RESILIENCE AND THE POLITICS OF TEACHING RESILIENCE TO "KIDS AT RISK by SHEILA MARTINEAU BA, The University of Toronto, 1993 "V A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Educational Studies) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April 1999 © Sheila Martineau, 1999 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Educational Studies The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date: y 11 ABSTRACT HIS STUDY IS A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DISCOURSE ON CHILDHOOD RESILIENCE and the politics of teaching resilience to "kids at risk" in inner-city schools. Resiliency research is Trooted in the early psychology studies of children's coping and competence. By the 1970s, researchers were observing children who appeared invulnerable to traumatic events. These children were later described as resilient, and resilience was defined as bouncing back from adversity. Today, resilience has become an ideological code for social conformity and academic achievement. My analysis problematizes "childhood resilience" and "teaching resilience" and examines two dangerous shifts in the mainstream resiliency research over the past several decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Warwick Economics Research Papers ISSN 2059-4283 (Online)
    Narratives and the Economics of the Family Robert Akerlof & Luis Rayo (This paper also appears as CAGE Discussion Paper No: 503) August 2020 No: 1299 Warwick Economics Research Papers ISSN 2059-4283 (online) ISSN 0083-7350 (print) Narratives and the Economics of the Family∗ Robert Akerlof† Luis Rayo‡ August 6, 2020 Abstract We augment Becker’s classic model of the family by assuming that, in addition to caring about consumption, the family wishes to further a subjective story, or narrative, that captures its deeply held values. Our focus is on two stories that in many ways are polar opposites. The first one—the protector narrative—gives rise to a type of traditional family where gender roles are distinct, men and women are pushed towards “separate spheres,” and men are expected to be tough and authoritarian. The second one—the fulfillment narrative—gives rise to a type of modern family where roles are less distinct, family members have greater latitude in their decisions, and marriages are based to a greater extent on romantic love. We derive a rich bundle of behaviors associated with each story, and using survey data, we show that our findings are consistent with a variety of empirical patterns. JEL Classification: D10, Z10 Keywords: family, narratives, gender norms, marriage ∗We are especially grateful to Ceren Cibik, Shantanu Singh, and Miguel Talamas for their superb research assistance, and Paul Collier for early and inspiring conversations. We also wish to thank George Akerlof, Nava Ashraf, Sascha Becker, Jean-Paul Carvalho, Alexandra Cieslik, Mirko Draca, Paola Giuliano, Willemien Kets, Rachel Kranton, Hongyi Li, Sharun Mukand, Muriel Niederle, Martin Rotemberg, Chris Roth, Dennis Snower, Janet Yellen, Peyton Young, and seminar participants at Oxford, Frankfurt, Uppsala, Warwick, Stirling, Strathclyde, and ERINN for helpful discussions.
    [Show full text]
  • Lakoff's Theory of Moral Reasoning in Presidential Campaign
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Papers in Communication Studies Communication Studies, Department of 11-2013 Lakoff’s Theory of Moral Reasoning in Presidential Campaign Advertisements, 1952–2012 Damien S. Pfister University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Jessy J. Ohl University of Mary Washington, [email protected] Marty Nader Nebraska Wesleyan University, [email protected] Dana Griffin Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstudiespapers Part of the American Politics Commons, and the Rhetoric Commons Pfister, Damien S.; Ohl, Jessy J.; Nader, Marty; and Griffin,a D na, "Lakoff’s Theory of Moral Reasoning in Presidential Campaign Advertisements, 1952–2012" (2013). Papers in Communication Studies. 53. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstudiespapers/53 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Communication Studies, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers in Communication Studies by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in Communication Studies 64:5 (November-December 2013; Special Issue: Consistency and Change in Political Campaign Communication: Ana- lyzing the 2012 Elections), pages 488-507; doi: 10.1080/10510974.2013.832340 Copyright © 2013 Central States Communication Association; published by Tay- digitalcommons.unl.edu lor & Francis Group. Used by permission. Published online October 18, 2013. Lakoff’s Theory of Moral Reasoning in Presidential Campaign Advertisements, 1952–2012 Jessy J. Ohl,1 Damien S. Pfister,1 Martin Nader,2 and Dana Griffin 1 Department of Communication Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2 Department of Political Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Corresponding author — Jessy J.
    [Show full text]
  • {Replace with the Title of Your Dissertation}
    Case Studies in Compassion: Need Interpretation, Gender, and Family in an Era of Faith-Based Provision A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Danielle E. Docka-Filipek IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Advisors: Dr. Penny Edgell; Dr. Kathleen Hull August, 2013 © Danielle Docka-Filipek 2013 i Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without the assistance of the individuals working in the organizations profiled. The leaders I followed push themselves and those around them to work towards surmounting at least a small portion of the barriers faced by the individuals they have dedicated significant amounts of their lives to serving. They gave their time, insight, and support generously, allowing me a window into the absolutely vital work they do in their communities. I do not take such gifts lightly, as those working in the non-profit sector face ever-increasing demands and constraints on their time and resources. Despite these limitations, all made time for my incessant questioning and prying observation, and for that I am eternally grateful. Many of my relationships with these individuals grew into close and cherished friendships that will extend far beyond the reach of my dissertation research. Obviously, I cannot list their names, but those of them with time and interest enough to read the acknowledgments page will know exactly to whom I’m referring. As well, the clients and participants in the programs I followed deserve a good amount of my gratitude. They shared many intimate details of their lives, and in some cases, did so with a woman who wasn’t much better than a complete stranger.
    [Show full text]
  • AAPOR Program 07.Indd
    American Association for Public Opinion Research 62nd Annual Conference Of Polls and Policy Hyatt Regency Orange County May 17-20, 2007 Anaheim, California 62nd Annual Conference May 17-20, 2007 Hyatt Regency Orange County 11999 Harbor Boulevard • Garden Grove, CA 92840 Phone: 714.750.1234 • Guest Fax: 714.971.1721 • www.hyattoc.com TABLE OF CONTENTS AAPOR Schedule of Events . 3 General Information AAPOR & WAPOR Executive Councils . 47 AAPOR Executive Offi ce Staff . 49 Chapter Presidents . 49 Past Presidents / AAPOR Honorary Life Members . 50 Committees . 51 Awards . 54 Conference Sponsors . 55 Technology & Software Exhibitors . 57 Publishers / Book Exhibitors . 57 Contributors . 58 Conference Abstracts . 63 Index . .175 Ads . 185 Maps . inside back cover / back cover Registration/Information Desk Badges/Tickets The AAPOR registration and information desk is located Name badges are provided for all registered meeting in the Royal Ballroom Foyer. All attendees must check in at attendees, exhibitors, speakers and staff. Badges are the registration desk to pick up their conference program, required to gain admittance to all sessions, social events, name badge, and other meeting materials prior to attending and the exhibit hall. Tickets will be collected at each core sessions or social events. Tickets for admittance to the meals meal function. Be sure to bring your ticket with you to are included in the registration packet. the door for admittance. Registration hours are as follows: Wednesday, May 16 . 12:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. Thursday, May 17 . 7:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Friday, May 18 . 7:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Materials for October 4 Presentation “A Country Divided - Different Perspective Across the Political Spectrum
    Materials for October 4 Presentation “A Country Divided - Different Perspective across the Political Spectrum Moral Politics How Liberals and Conservatives Think George Lakoff University of Chicago Press, 1997 Source – www.getAbstract.com Recommendation In this substantial study, liberal linguist George Lakoff delves into schools of thought that mold political debate everywhere, but particularly in the United States. He cites the old-fashioned “strict father” school, which focuses on order, discipline, morality and punishment, as the ethos that shapes conservative ideology. He identifies the newer “nurturant parent” theory, which stresses mutual respect, encouragement and equality, as the bedrock of liberal thinking. Lakoff explains how these theories underpin a variety of political positions. Small-government conservatives espouse bigger prisons, more police and a larger military because they see the world as inherently evil. Liberals who give the benefit of the doubt to the poor are suspicious of CEOs because wealth offends their sense of egalitarianism. This update of Lakoff’s 1996 book came out in 2016, just before the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders and the defeat of Hillary Clinton. So, some examples are dated: Newt Gingrich faded from power nearly two decades ago. But, to his credit, Lakoff spells out a political 1 theory that holds no matter which party is in power or who is the latest political star. He acknowledges he’s a liberal and clearly sides with the “nurturant parent” point of view, but he doesn’t shortchange the “strict father” school. Take-Aways • Two different conceptual metaphors inform today’s conservative and liberal worldviews. o In the “strict father” model, fathers (or governments) should raise children (citizens) to be strong and self-reliant, so they can survive and even thrive in a harsh world.
    [Show full text]
  • Ideology in the Age of Mediatised Politics: from 'Belief Systems'
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by LSE Research Online Angelos Kissas Ideology in the age of mediatised politics: from ‘belief systems’ to the re- contextualizing principle of discourse Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Kissas, Angelos (2017) Ideology in the age of mediatised politics: from ‘belief systems’ to the re- contextualizing principle of discourse. Journal of Political Ideologies, 22 (2). pp. 197-215. ISSN 1356-9317 DOI: 10.1080/13569317.2017.1306958 © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/76952/ Available in LSE Research Online: May 2017 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. 1 Ideology in the age of mediatised politics: From ‘belief systems’ to the re-contextualizing principle of discourse Angelos Kissas, Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics and Political Science [email protected] To cite this article: Kissas, A.
    [Show full text]
  • Parenting and Politics: Exploring Early Moral Bases of Political Orientation
    Journal of Social and Political Psychology jspp.psychopen.eu | 2195-3325 Original Research Reports Parenting and Politics: Exploring Early Moral Bases of Political Orientation Ronnie Janoff-Bulman* a, Nate C. Carnes a, Sana Sheikh b [a] Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA. [b] School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, Fife, UK. Abstract Based on Lakoff’s (2002) Strict Father and Nurturant Parent metaphors for political conservatism and liberalism respectively, two studies explored parenting styles, political ideology, and the moral orientations that might link the two. Restrictive parenting (by both mother and father) predicted political conservatism, and this path was mediated by a strong Social Order orientation (Study 1) reflecting, more broadly, an inhibition-based proscriptive morality (Study 2). Political liberalism was associated with a Social Justice orientation, but was not predicted by nurturant parenting in either study. Study 1 included mothers’ reports of their own parenting, and these were correlated with the students’ responses. Findings support a restrictive moral underpinning for conservatism, but raise questions about the assumed unique association between parental nurturance and political liberalism, which is addressed in the discussion. Keywords: parenting, politics, morality, liberal, conservative Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 2014, Vol. 2(1), 43±60, doi:10.5964/jspp.v2i1.243 Received: 2013-07-31. Accepted: 2014-03-07. Published (VoR): 2014-03-21. Handling Editor: Johanna Ray Vollhardt, Department of Psychology, Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA *Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003. E-mail: [email protected] This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
    [Show full text]
  • Multilevel Governance and Development
    Multilevel Governance and Development Ryan Wilson The Myth of Political Reason - The Moral and Emotional Foundations of Political Cognition and US Politics SRE-Discussion-2019/02 2019 1 The Myth of Political Reason The Moral and Emotional Foundations of Political Cognition and US Politics Ryan Wilson Master Thesis Socio-Ecological Economics and Policy 2018 2 Abstract The current ascendancy of right-wing populists across western democracies is a concerning trend, and so far, the left has not managed to mount an effective counterstrategy to arrest its momentum. Much of the rhetoric of these right-wing populists has focused on evoking fear and suspicion, verging on hatred, of outsiders and fellow countrymen and women with opposing political ideologies, to great effect. The importance of understanding why certain rhetoric is effective cannot be understated, and the works of George Lakoff, Jonathan Haidt, and Drew Westen that illuminate the moral and emotional factors behind how individuals interpret and respond to inputs of a political nature are reviewed and synthesised. Individuals’ underlying moral mental structures and the emotional responses that they can trigger must be understood in order to generate political messaging that resonates strongly with its target audience and consequently increases the likelihood of their actuation to vote. The recent phenomenon of individualisation, stemming from the current era of reflexive modernity is analysed within the context of divergent conservative and liberal moral matrices, and is found to be disproportionately ailing the liberal side of politics. In delineating the key elements of liberal and conservative morality, the existence of liberal moral tenets that are discordant with longstanding liberal communitarian ideals were revealed.
    [Show full text]
  • A Nation Under Joint Custody: How Conflicting Family Models Divide US Politics
    A Nation under Joint Custody: How Conflicting Family Models divide US Politics By Eva Elisabeth Wehling A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor George Lakoff, Co-chair Professor Terry Regier, Co-chair Professor Eve Sweetser Professor Thomas Shannon Spring 2013 Abstract A Nation under Joint Custody: How Conflicting Family Models divide US Politics by Eva Elisabeth Wehling Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professor George Lakoff, Co-chair Professor Terry Regier, Co-chair Across the globe and throughout history, politics are regularly divided into “left-leaning” and “right-leaning” camps. Explaining the sources of this conservative-liberal divide has become a major quest in the cognitive and social sciences. Early attempts have focused on self- interest as a possible explanation. However, as the self-interest hypothesis repeatedly failed, researchers’ belief in its explanatory power dwindled. Recent investigations have thus begun to tap into genetic material, personality traits, psychological needs, and moral concerns as possible explanations. One early account of the moral underpinnings that guide conservative and liberal politics is Moral Politics Theory (Lakoff, 1996). It proposes that conservatives and liberals endorse different moral worldviews, which conceptually unify their positions on issues as diverse as abortion, education, the economy, or the environment. Those worldviews are grounded in different beliefs about ideal parenting: conservatives endorse a strict-father and liberals a nurturant-parent model. The theory proposes that parenting beliefs are mapped onto national politics via the NATION AS FAMILY metaphor, and that language use in synch with the two models can significantly influence people’s perception of political issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Family Paradigms and Human Emotions
    FAMILY PARADIGMS AND HUMAN EMOTIONS By Lori A. Hoisington A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Family Studies 2011 ABSTRACT FAMILY PARADIGMS AND HUMAN EMOTIONS By Lori A. Hoisington The primary objective of this research was to explore the relationship between family paradigms and human emotions. The research tested the relationship between closed paradigm vs. random paradigm and positive affect vs. negative affect. As a secondary objective, the research also extended the analysis to include open paradigm and synchronous paradigm. The closed family reflects stability through tradition and focuses on the past. Relationships are cohesive with a strong sense of belonging. The family is group-oriented. Boundaries prohibit information from freely entering or exiting the family. The random family lives for today and values freedom and independence; the individual always comes first. This family often appears chaotic to other paradigms and is discontinuity- oriented as it seeks change and new ideas. The family theme supports innovation but not hierarchy. The open family orients to the past, present and future with balance between continuity and change. The family is consequence-oriented with flattened hierarchy and values both the individual and the group. Consensus occurs through communication and boundaries are semi- permeable. The synchronous family is a harmonious system that operates on timelessness with no visible hierarchy. Members share consensus without communication through a special way of knowing. This family values individuality but provides stability with rigid system boundaries. The current study occurred at a single-site location throughout four phases of data collection; the first two phases comprised the pilot study and the latter two phases comprised the working study.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critique of the “Strict Father” Model in Transnational Governance
    Why Sparing the Rod does not Spoil the Child: A Critique of the “Strict Father” Model in Transnational Governance Patrick Haack Andreas Georg Scherer Department of Business Administration University of Zurich Abstract The United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) is one of the largest transnational governance schemes. Its success or failure, however, is a matter of debate. Drawing on research in cognitive linguistics, we argue that when evaluators discuss the UNGC, they apply the metaphorical con- cept of the family: the UNGC corresponds to the “family,” the UNGC headquarter to the “par- ent,” the business participants of the UNGC to the “children” of the family. As a corollary, evalu- ators’ implicit understanding of how a family is best organized sets different benchmarks against which the governance structure of the UNGC is assessed. We describe two ideal models of “edu- cating” UNGC business participants. Critics of the UNGC adopt a “strict father” model of trans- national governance based on the idea that the proper education of inherently “bad” business firms necessitates obedience, discipline and punishment in case firms are non-compliant. In con- trast, the UNGC’s advocates follow a “nurturant parent” model, which prioritizes empathy, learn- ing and nurturance to support the moral development of “good” business firms. We develop the “UNGC-as-family” metaphor, explore its implications for transnational governance, and discuss under what conditions these idealized models can serve as appropriate guidelines for transnation- al governance schemes. Specifically, we posit that following the behavioral prescriptions of the “strict father” model may, under certain conditions, jeopardize the organizational embedding and institutionalization of UNGC principles, and explain when and why it may be in the best interest of the UNGC and civil society to embrace the instructions of the “nurturant parent” model of transnational governance.
    [Show full text]