The United States isn't fully ready for women to break the glass ceiling, to hold power. As Hillary Clinton aims for a leadership role, it is bringing out ugly speech that exposes more than name-calling.
What does it mean that an audience of progressives applauds "corporate Democratic whores?" If a politician is selling out our nation, and we're trying to come up with the worst insult we can think of, do we compare them to a thief, a bandit, a warlord? No, we collectively intuit that sex is worse than criminality and use sexual terms. The logical insult for someone making a profit selling other people out, with sex thrown in, would be a "pimp." But it would be rare to hear Clinton or Congress referred to as pimps, instead people seeking the worst insult for powerful people often imply that they are women.
The general response to symptoms of sexism has been to get angry, to demand that Sanders disavow statements (as he has this time), but I don't think that gets us very far.
This incident is more interesting than just a bit of sexist name-calling, it exposes how our society and our language teach us to relate to power and gender. When most people people think of a "whore" in the sense that was used on the stage, what comes to mind is a woman in poverty with no good options who sells use of her body, perhaps to feed her kids. Most congresspeople selling us out are men, wealthy, who have many comfortable options besides selling out. Besides being impolite, the word evokes a metaphor that is the opposite of what was meant about gender, power and integrity. Why would a progressive speaker use a metaphor that turns so thoroughly against the reality they consciously believe they are fighting?
Exploring Metaphors and Frames
George Lakoff (Don't Think of an Elephant) describes liberal politics as built upon the metaphor of a nurturing parent who provides support, while conservative politics has a foundation of a strict father who teaches discipline. Calling sell-out politicians "whores" matches neither of these. What underlying way of seeing the world is evoked when naming powerful sell-outs as whores?
Lakoff's hypothesis is that we all think about complex topics with simpler metaphors. Families are a basic, widely shared experience, so people often use parenting styles as a frame for governing styles. Hierarchies are also a basic experience -- something our ancestors knew intimately since before they came down from the trees. Our ancestors and our childhood stories are full of alpha-males, hierarchies and patriarchy. The "whore" metaphor is not about nurturance nor discipline (left or right), it's not a family metaphor -- it's a word related to thinking of the world in raw power structures, seeing power as right. The more you use a metaphor, the more you reinforce that way of thinking about the world. In recent months, more and more of the messaging from Sanders and his supporters has moved from a framework of nurturance to power politics.
Hillary Clinton's efforts to crack the glass ceiling have been unleashed a shower of patriarchy and hierarchy metaphors: as she tries to take on leadership, even many people who would like to think of ourselves as anti-patriarchy are intuitively responding within that metaphor. When people respond to a woman trying to take a leadership role with words evoking those at the bottom of the patriarchy, it's evidence they are participating in a story of hierarchy and patriarchy, whether they know that is their frame or not.
Calling a corporate lawyer Senator a "whore" is implicitly seeking a way to blame the weak.
It's not an accident that we push our insults downwards on the social hierarchy.
We live in a culture that sees a sellout at the top of the financial and power hierarchy, and can only find ways to insult them by comparing them to the people at the bottom, and to women.
Whenever sexist language is used, it's a sign that the speaker is not trying to break down habits of hierarchy. Rather they are participating within that framework: arguing that their side belongs at the top of the pyramid, and that their opponent has characteristics of those at the bottom. If your mind is stuck in a hierarchy framework, you'll use metaphors that try to diminish powerful opponents by comparing them to the people at the bottom of the power pyramid.
The single greatest threat to Sanders' victory is his supporters expressing sexist bias in front of Democratic primary voters, but even that motivation is not enough to stop someone from using the word "whore" in a prepared speech. We're usually not this stupid except when we're derailed by our subconscious biases.
A Learning Moment
These habits don't disappear on their own, they have to be uprooted.
This primary could be a learning moment. Hillary Clinton is as close as any woman has ever come to cracking the highest glass ceiling in the US. She is running against a primary opponent who long ago concurred that she faces sexism. Both campaigns are full of people who see themselves as feminists. A lot of sexism is being dredged up. But so far all that is happening is the Clinton campaign takes shots at Sanders for it, while Sanders keeps his head down hoping to stay on his economic message.
Censoring a few words is trivial and misses the point. Our thinking is built with metaphors, and the controversial words are just symptoms of how we are thinking.
I don't think that having Sanders disavow his supporters when they go too far is interesting or adequate. What more can the Sanders campaign do? I'm curious to hear other readers' ideas, please leave ideas in the comments.
My first thoughts:
- Sanders shouldn't have ducked, he shouldn't have answered with a short tweet. Don't try to hide our impulses to use inappropriate words, but dig up why we have those impulses. The very quick admonition "Don't say that; get back on topic" should be transformed into longer explorations of why we turn to the words we choose. It's not about inappropriate word use: it is about our tendencies to assume a story of hierarchy and patriarchy, where we want to be at the top of the pyramid. Subservience to the powerful and slandering of the powerless is at the core of Sanders' message when it comes to campaign contributions. When people in his campaign are participating in that worldview, he has the best opportunity to change the way people thing.
- Sanders needs to teach and empower his supporters to engage each other, using this campaign to reduce sexism. His campaign needs to put out some writings, perhaps an image that works well on social media, that his supporters can use when others use sexist language in his name. He should be asking his supporters to learn. We need to be a bit tougher on ourselves, figuring out why we think what we think, exploring the stories we're telling ourselves. To the extent that he doesn't do this, he is leaving a vacuum that should be filled by both Hillary Clinton and all her supporters. The most powerful technique is to reduce accusations and focus on teaching and getting conversations started. It's very hard to convince people who don't see themselves as sexist that they are sexist, to "score points" when there is no referee. Taking on leadership roles as educators among Sanders volunteers would draw progressives who want politicians to lead, and who need to be reminded of the full breadth of progressive values.
The words are just a symptom. We all need to be asked, and to ask ourselves, what language we're using, and what that tells us about how our minds are currently programmed. Calling a corrupt corporate lawyer a whore is not an accident, it's not just a word; it shows an underlying way of thinking about the world that is backwards.
I would like to see either politician -- or if they are willing to put mission ahead of their campaigns, both, together -- give a speech that calls Americans on our habits. Can they discuss why a woman gaining power is causing people to turn to sexist language?
In an ideal world, Clinton and Sanders would work this out together.
Political Framing Strategy: Clinton
The Clinton campaign has two choices to deal with the sexism she faces. The first, the path chosen so far, is to call out sexism and attempt to score points on Sanders for it: you should not vote for Sanders because many of his supporters and many people in the press are sexist.
The Clinton campaign has often tried to express why she is electably centrist, highly competent, and often aggrieved by the right wing and sexists of all flavors. Many women of her generation have seen her as a pathbreaker. But she hasn't taken on a leadership role beyond the demographic of people who already see things as she does. I believe the rhetoric of the "Bernie Bros" is mostly wrong and misleading: most Sanders supporters have a feminist or at least anti-sexist self-image. Clinton can take on a leadership role that will draw people to vote for her -- now and in November -- if she stops trying to score points, and instead leads us on social issues. Sanders has high integrity, but weak skills, at doing this. He votes for progress in social issues and has even been part of sit-ins and other very personal work, but given a podium he mostly talks economics. Clinton needs to give him his "enough of the emails!" moment, followed by speaking about her own struggles from the heart, and standing up for women who are not rich and powerful and face the brunt of what is behind the "whore" metaphor. She is calling Sanders out for being unable to control his millions of followers; she needs to show how it can be done instead.
Political Framing Strategy: Sanders
Twenty years ago politicians might receive a briefcase full of cash. Today that would be redundant. They give a speech and get paid. This primary is not about Hillary Clinton's individual competence or corruption. It comes down to this: Can we ever fix our government if we have hundreds of politicians each saying that they are the one politician who can be trusted with millions of dollars that are obviously intended as pay-offs?
Sanders campaign has many positive messages, and this one negative message: the acceptance of money, and the acceptance of accepting money. If they can stay on it, dropping most other negative comments or implying that Hillary Clinton is worse than other typical politicians, they can get their message out without appearing bitter.
If you want to insult Hillary Clinton, you can call her a "corporate-lawyer Democrat," you can call her a "politician," so why in the world do people choose childish sexist language, and language that turns on the weak instead of the powerful? Sanders cannot skip this issue and still be a leader; his supporters can't let this slide and call themselves progressives.
This primary is an ideal time to uproot some very old and foul parts of our culture. The Democratic debates started in the right place. But as politics heat up, we're moving away from metaphors of nurturing or discipline-building parents, and towards gang metaphors. The Trump campaign is not at all framed upon the traditional Republican strict father metaphor, but upon hierarchy metaphors. Trump is the strongman leading his gang of voters, not a disciplined leader demanding sacrifices. We need to be discussing this, and helping our own communities wake out of accidental gang-, power- and hierarchy-metaphors.
Both Democratic primary campaigns are acting desperate now, which suits neither of them. This is a vitally important time for them to figure out what they really disagree about, stick to it, and shake hands on the rest.