Lakoffian Analysis of Hobby Lobby ruling

Like many of my fellow progressives (by which I mean liberals), I'm outraged by the Hobby Lobby decision.  Like many of my friends, I want to fight against the conservative agenda that the conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court are pushing.  However, in order to win the fight, we need to know the opposition.  If we fail to do that, we'll surely lose.

I've recently been reading George Lakoff's book "Moral Politics".  In it, Lakoff, a U.C. Berkeley cognitive scientist and fellow progressive, discusses the moral models of conservatives and liberals.  Although I haven't yet gotten to his chapter on specific issues, I think I understand enough to be able to share what I've gleaned so far about his theory to help my fellow progressives fight the larger movement in conservatism represented by the Hobby Lobby ruling.

Lakoff's theory applies broadly and he discusses variants within liberalism and conservatism and how those variants come about based on variants on his core theory.  Basically, though, his theory states that progressives have what he calls the Nurturant Parent moral model, whereas Conservatives have the Strict Father moral model.

Very basically, the Nurturant Parent model views empathy as being critical to morality, because it views the goal of parenting to nurture children and in turn make them empathetic so that they'll be moral.  When the model is applied to politics, we see the role of government as nurturant so that citizens are empathetic, and therefore good, people.

The Strict Father model views discipline as being critical to morality, because it views the goal of parenting to discipline children so they'll obey the rules.  When applied to politics, this model, according to Lakoff, sees the role of government as being to discipline its citizens, and thereby make them moral.

In reality, these models and their variants are actually more complex than this, as Lakoff discusses in his book, but that's as simple as I can make it for the constraints of this post.

Here's my analysis of the Hobby Lobby ruling based on what I've read so far (keep in mind that I'm not Lakoff and don't speak for him... it should go without saying that he'd analyze this better according to his theory than I will here... I hope he blogs on this, because I want to read what he has to say).  This case is really about sex and freedom, as I see it.  Birth control pills are a way for women to be able have sex without getting pregnant.

According to the Nurturant Parent model, happiness is important in order to have empathy, provided that it harms none.  In order to understand what makes other people suffer or be happy, we have to understand those things in ourselves.  Asceticism is useless to the ends of empathy.  Sexual happiness is particularly important in a person's ability to be empathetic, since it involves mutual happiness with another.

So, I think many of us progressives see the rights of women to get birth control pills and thereby have sex with a man, in a way that will not bring another human life into the world by getting her pregnant, as being critical to the happiness of any woman who wants that form of pleasure in her life.  (Please note that I've very careful phrases this so as to avoid excluding other forms of sexuality.)

Moreover, having the pleasure she chooses is critical to her ability to be an empathetic being, which, in turn, from our perspective, is critical to her being a good person. 

From the perspective of those who apply the Strict Father model, however, being a good person requires discipline.  Having discipline implies, from their perspective, asceticism.  Asceticism, to them, implies no sex except for procreation.  Women who use birth control, from their perspective, are undisciplined because they're non-ascetic.  By being undisciplined, according to this perspective, they're morally suspect.

Businesses, however, from a Strict Father model perspective, are seen as highly disciplined.  If they weren't, according to this way of thinking, they'd fail.  Therefore, they are seen as more moral than women who use birth control pills.

Based on my reading in "Moral Politics", my armchair Lakoffian analysis of this is that the real debate boils down to two perspectives.  This is a clash between two different freedoms: the freedom of businesses versus the freedom of women. 

The conservative perspective tends to be that women who take birth control pills are less deserving of freedom than businesses, because they're less disciplined.  The progressive perspective is that women who take birth control pills tend to be more deserving of freedom than businesses, because such women are taking responsibility for their pleasure, and therefore for the self-nurturance of their empathy, and therefore for their development as good people by having responsible sex.  On the other hand, businesses are, by default, amoral, because their goal is only to make profit rather than to nurture the community to help everyone become more self-actualized.

Obviously, like my fellow progressives, I think the conservative perspective is poppy-cock.  However, in order to fight this politically, my armchair Lakoffian take on this is that we need to be honest in our rhetoric, not just about the facts, but about our values. 

We need to express our core values and ethics, rather than assuming that others understand them.  If we fail to do so while conservatives express their core values, it will be like not showing up to court.  Our fellow citizens will tend to see us as lacking values and morals, while seeing conservatives as having them.  I think that a critical part of our effort should be to express to our fellow citizens what our core values are and how we analyze this issue using them.

For more information on George Lakoff, "Don't Think of the Elephant" is a good summary of his theory.  His website is below.  I particularly find his blog insightful:
http://georgelakoff.com