- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostThe Backstory
- Next Post »Reading Classics Together - Redemption Accomplished and Applied (VII)
Framing the Debate
- 12/23/09
- 24
In The Marketing of Evil, author David Kupelian disusses how so many of the social ills we see in our society have not merely happened, but have been actively marketed and promoted by men and women with specific, unbiblical agendas. One pearl of wisdom which Kupelian repeats throughout his book is that the person who frames the terms of a debate almost always wins that debate. In other words, the person who is allowed to set the language in a debate over a particular social issue, will almost always be able to prevail in winning that debate. While we could choose any number of examples to support this, perhaps the most obvious is in the debate over abortion.
The right to abortion was not fought over the right of a mother to kill her child. No lawyer marched into court and demanded that a mother have the right to allow a doctor to probe her womb for a helpless baby and dismember the fetus. And later, as debate raged over partial birth abortion, no one demanded that a woman be able to give birth to a premature baby and have the doctor crush that child’s skull. The child has been left out of the equation altogether. Instead, the debate always has been and seemingly always will be over a woman’s right to choose. It was never presented an issue of life or death, but an issue of choice. And who, in a free and democratic culture, could deny a person the right of free choice? The debate was over and won before it began. It was over when the abortionists framed the terms of the debate. Kupelian says, “In one of the most successful marketing campaigns in modern political history, the “abortion rights” movement—with all of its emotionally compelling catchphrases and powerful political slogans—has succeeded in turning what once was a crime into a fiercely defended constitutional right.”
This battle was won with catchphrases such as:
- “Women must have control over their own bodies.”
- “Safe and legal abortion is every woman’s right.”
- “Who decides? You decide!”
- “Abortion is a personal decision between a woman and her doctor.”
- “Freedom of choice—a basic American right.”
Interestingly, feminists are now turning against choice. Choice, it seems, has come to haunt feminists. Why? Quite simply, far too many women, in the opinion of these feminists, are choosing to forsake their careers in favor of full-time motherhood. Choice has spilled over the from the abortion debate and has impacted all of feminism. Some women, it seems, are not using their right to choose in a way that pleases the more radical feminists.
In the final days of 2005, Linda Hirshman wrote a harsh critique of such women in a much-discussed article entitled “Homeward Bound.” “‘Choice feminism’ claims that staying home with the kids is just one more feminist option. Funny that most men rarely make the same ‘choice.’ Exactly what kind of choice is that?” She documents the failure of “choice feminism” and proposes that the word “choice” be removed as the hallmark of the feminist agenda. She proposes that, rather than offering women choice, society must offer women solutions they can enact on their own. She further proposes three rules that women must follow: Prepare yourself to qualify for good work, treat work seriously, and don’t put yourself in a position of unequal resources when you marry. Appended to the three rules is just one more: a woman should never have more than one child. “A second kid pressures the mother’s organizational skills, doubles the demands for appointments, wildly raises the cost of education and housing, and drives the family to the suburbs. But cities, with their Chinese carryouts and all, are better for working mothers.” In short, a second child requires a greater committment and increases the likelihood that a mother will enact her right to choose and elect to stay home with the children.
Wendy McElroy, editor of ifeminists.com, discusses some of the impact of this move away from choice in the future of feminism:
On abortion. The words choice and pro-choice will be de-emphasized. Instead, stress will be placed on weighing the rights and health of the woman against those of the unborn with the clear message that the woman takes precedence.
On sexual harassment. The argument will not change because it has proven successful but the approach will be broadened to include male victims, especially boys. For example, the latest survey from the American Association of University Women on school and campus harassment reports on male victims.
On domestic violence. The argument will not change and the approach will not be broadened significantly. In gender feminist theory, domestic violence is key to establishing that traditional marriage is a dangerous place for women.
McElroy, in disagreement with Hirshman, tell her readers what she feels is the best “feminist line” for our new century. “Your peaceful choices are yours alone and no one else’s business. Be a housewife, love your children without a time schedule…or dive into a 24/7 job that you get on merit. Live your own dream. Be your own woman.”
It is clear that a shift is occuring within feminism. Whether a rift grows along the “choice” fault line or along another, change is afoot. If there is a lesson that Christians ought to have learned from the first few decades of feminism, it is exactly what Kupelian sought to make clear in The Marketing of Evil: the person who frames the debate will win the debate. We, as Christians, need to keep abreast of these changes and, if and when possible, seek to have a voice in the framing of this debate and so many others. Once the terms have been set in stone, the debate may well have already been lost.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (24)
It's a little too tempting to think that all major evil developments in the secular world were marketed by some sort of secret cabal. I think that book you mention misses the point massively. Pro-choice folks didn't invent the "choice" construct as a way to market abortion, they really believe it. It's not a failure of marketing, it's a failure of ideas.
We need to love our ideological enemies enough to listen to them and assume good faith, and this book does the exact opposite. (At least based on your brief summary.)
Too often, we have a debate of words and slogans rather than ideas.
Just look at the current political landscape! Is there thoughtful, meaningful discussion and debate over the issues? Or are we reduced to catch-phrases and name calling?
I think we should understand truth -- in this instance, IT'S A BABY -- and then articulate it as such. "IT'S A BABY" and let truth stand on its own two feet.
Thoughtful postDavid RupertRed Letter Believers blog"Salt and Light"www.redletterbelievers.com
Wren, I would say they invented it the" choice" construct to further persuade those riding the fence on abortion legalization. Then of course, the old "if you tell a lie long enough..." axiom set in, and now they truly believe it.
Also, how should we "assume good faith" for proponents of abortion?
I suppose you don't have to assume good faith, but that's death to the debate. If I assume my enemies are sick, deranged people then I'm probably not going to love them at all, much less pay any attention to what they're saying.
Also, I want to say again that choice isn't a made-up construct; people really believe it. That doesn't make it right, but it does mean that we can't just wave it away; we have to interact with it intellectually, as a serious idea.
Couple thoughts here:
1. Kupelian is closely tied to World Net Daily. That alone makes me highly, highly suspicious of anything he writes.
2. Not sure I agree with Kupelian (or Tim) on the abortion issue, considering it was widespread and largely ignored (despite being illegal) in the 1800s in the United States. Using Marvin Olasky's statistics from his book on the history of abortion in the U.S., the per-capita abortion rate was approximately the same in 1850 as it is today. The difference is that it was mostly prostitutes having abortions. But the fact remains that law enforcement (and the populace as a whole) largely ignored the issue.
My point being: abortion was widespread and the general populace was more or less ambivalent about it long before the feminist movement and/or Roe v. Wade introduced "choice" language to the debate.
3. "Interestingly, feminists are now turning against choice." This is patently false. Even someone like Hirschman, who criticizes the "choice" to keep house, isn't really "turning against choice". She doesn't want to forbid women staying home in the same way anti-abortion folks (myself included) want to forbid abortions. So she still believes women should have the choice to stay home. Her point is that this "choice" is illusory since so few men are willing to do the same. If I'm a woman who wants to work, have kids, and have her husband stay home, the pool of men willing to step into that situation is exceedingly small. So my "choices" in reality are 1) not marry, 2) marry but not have kids, or 3) marry, have kids, and have a nanny do most of the heavy lifting, 3) marry, have kids, then quit my job and stay home. Hirschman points out that a woman who is unwilling not to have children and unwilling to delegate care to someone other than herself or her husband is pretty much obligated to short-change her career.
Today's language is all about obfuscation and euphamisms; using unclear language and terms to make bad things sound okay...never saying what you mean because stating it outright would be shocking. My wife is a Veterinarian...and she took the same oath MD's take at the time of receiving her license; "First do no harm. She sees this as paramount when treating an animal. Excepting when a mother's life is in danger because of a pregnancy, I could never understand how any medical doctor gets around their oath, or why those who perform abortions "at will" do not lose their license? Ultimately God will have His judgement on them.
I am a proud stay-at-home mom of 4. We are currently living in the Seattle area church planting. My favorite bumper sticker has been...Reproduction Responsibility..No more than 2 children please. In a city so driven by their "pets", I want one on my van saying, Reproduction Litter Responsibility...One litter only Please...Love your blog. My husband and I are new. We stumbled upon it, but became fans back when your wife posted.:)
Looking at statistics misses the point. We didn't get to the place where abortion is a protected constitutional right simply because women already were getting abortions. The abortion activism Tim discusses (including the intentional framing of the issue through the lenses of privacy and choice) followed in a long line of feminist activism. By the time abortion was on the front burner, those activists had learned their lessons about how to change public attitudes and, eventually, public policy. Frontal assaults against long-established policies do little good -- it's much more effective to preempt the debate by establishing terms in advance that will appeal to more popular notions of freedom and individuality. Homosexual activists followed (and are still following) the same tactics with a great deal of success.
Shawn- Kupelian's point, based on what Tim quoted, seems to be that we "lost" the battle on abortion when the language changed. The statistics seem to show it was already "lost" because "we" were never really interested in fighting it to begin with.
Sometimes I think the modern pro-life movement isn't so much a movement against abortion itself, but against the purely conceptual notion that abortion is "right" and "good". Back in the 1850s when everybody agreed it was bad and only prostitutes were getting abortions, we were willing to just ignore the problem.
The greatest failure of the feminist abortion rhetoric is in those countries that combine legal abortions with population control, effectively resulting in genocide against women. Parents choose males and abort females. Faced with this outcome, some feminists are realizing the inevitable error of "choice."
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
"Did God really say..."
I believe Tim has touched on something important, and I believe there's some truth and wisdom in the majority of what's been said before this comment. I do believe that proponents for abortion are largely convinced in favor of the agenda that supports the argument for "choice." However, I don't know that I believe you have to be convinced of something to make a compelling argument in its favor. When I was in high school, my American history teacher announced that there was going to be a debate on the subject of slavery, after which he arbitrarily assigned half of the class to argue in favor and half to argue against slavery. Although I was (and still am) staunchly opposed to the slavery for which I was instructed to argue, I was able to put myself in the mindset of someone advocating not for the slave owner, but for the good of slaves and the good of the country. Much to my chagrin, I framed an argument that led my team to overwhelming victory in the debate. Being able to understand an argument from your opponent's perspective is not a bad thing; and when you choose to focus on certain aspects of an issue that you deem worthy, rather than look at the whole picture, you can accomplish this with a fair amount of ease. However, when you step back and look again, you have an opportunity to see the greater issue in proper perspective. But stepping back usually puts you in the minority or on the fringe, and people generally want to stay with the majority. They want to be on the winning side, the popular side, and finally the side that feeds their sinful desires. Because of this, those who decide who has made the most compelling argument wield tremendous power. In the case of abortion in the U.S., it is ultimately the Supreme Court. Since God calls us to be subject to the leader and rulers under whose authority He has wisely placed us, it would serve us well to fall upon our knees on their behalf. Seeking God's wisdom and intervention, living holy lives full of compassion, grace and humility, will also make us far more compelling spokesmen in any argument we make before men. Saturated in the Word of God, we will frame our arguments with light and truth; and He will use them to convince those whom He has chosen to believe.
DLE-
Were I a female abortion supporter, that statistic wouldn't really bother me. Why? Because I don't consider fetuses to be women. Fewer women being born is fine by me, as long as the lot of those who are born is improved.
“the person who frames the debate will win the debate”
On Abortion, I just started reading Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf. His 2-step approach begins with just that - framing the debate:
“The abortion controversy is not a debate between those who are pro-choice and those who are anti-choice. It's not about privacy or trusting women. To the contrary, the debate turns on one key question. What is the Unborn?” And, he provides tactics to staying on that very point. I would highly recommend this book (see also caseforlife.com).
For those NOT interested in equipping themselves to defend the unborn, I like what Scott says in the intro of the book:
“Admittedly, a book about pro-life apologetics may not appeal to some lay Christians. It seems many believers would rather focus on end times rather than these times. That’s a mistake. Humans who ignore questions about truth and human value may soon learn what it really means to be left behind.”
...anyway, i think everyone should read this book...
I read Kupelian's book. It's basically a compilation of other source material, quoting from other books written for liberals to rally their cause and provide strategies for how to take America's collective mind for their evil purposes. One book, for example, is a work by two pro-gay Harvard-trained marketers on how to get America to accept homosexuality as normal. I believe it was written in the late 80s. It contains a plan for how to accomplish this, which includes tactics like getting gays on sitcoms, first get America to laugh at homosexuality, then they'll be more comfortable with it. The plan was disturbing; everything that's happened over the last 20 years is exactly as they prescribed. Clever. Kupelian quotes extensively from the book to show the reader what has been going on behind the scenes in these movements. There was very little editorializing on Kupelian's part. He didn't need to. The source material itself was disturbing enough. I didn't know Kupelian was "closely tied to WND," and found nothing kooky or extreme about his commentary.
Make no mistake, the people who believe abortion rights are "choices" ARE using language to skew the debate in their favor. I urge you to read Kupelian's book, "The Marketing of Evil." Please refrain from judging this book in your comments here until you've read it for yourself. You will be greatly disturbed by what is going on in the abortion/gay rights camps.
Great comment, J. P. H.: "Sometimes I think the modern pro-life movement isn’t so much a movement against abortion itself, but against the purely conceptual notion that abortion is “right” and “good”. Back in the 1850s when everybody agreed it was bad and only prostitutes were getting abortions, we were willing to just ignore the problem."
I have to really ask myself that. Which am I fighting for? Any? Both?
-Marshall Jones Jr.
Christians have lost this debate and the larger culture war, not because of poor brand messages, but because of “poor performance.” Historically, Christians (both true ones and the untrue ones) were oppressors rather than debaters. In my short 40 years, I have found that they would rather mandate requirements than help one achieve them. “Live like I think you should” isn’t very attractive. To many American Christians, in America you are free as long as your freedom doesn’t step on their Christian sensibilities. In America, you are free to practice whatever religion that you want as long as the god of that religion doesn’t require or allow you to do something that is too “out there.”
To be sure, the most important place for the church to fight feminism and properly frame debates is within the church itself. There is no small amount of damage that has occurred in the church due to the egalitarian crowd. When God's model and mandate for headship and leadership is abandoned, the results are predictable and disastrous.
Thought-provoking post and comments. I also think that our lack of desire to engage the present framework in a meaningful way has short-circuited any potential sway that we might have had with the public..
One of the strongest arguments against abortion propoonents is the fact that places like Planned Parenthood do not in fact offer choice. Up until 2 years ago when a pregnancy ministry set up an office near the local college campus, there really was only option for pregnant college students -- and the campus health center was always on the front line shuffling them off to Planned Parenthood to exercise that choice. Today -- finally -- there is a counseling, financial and ministerial support available to those young women, and now many of them are able to "opt out" of the "feminist solution."
This is just one illustration of how Christians are being truly missional and turning the framework/ assumptions of the prevailing pro-abortion movement upside down. According to a very recent Gallup poll, MOST Americans are Pro-Life, so choice should be a framework that works to our advantage, if we were willing to engage in a wise and real way.
Eric- I've yet to have someone give me a concrete example of a situation where a caring and self-sacrificial "headship" husband would act differently than a caring and self-sacrificial egalitarian husband. Can you help me out?
Deb- Whether or not there's a pro-life majority sort of depends on how you define "pro-life". The latest Gallup poll I could find was from July. In it, 47% of people called themselves "pro-life" vs. 46% who called themselves "pro-choice". On the other hand, only 18% of people said abortion should be illegal under any circumstances. 21% said "legal in all circumstances" and 57% said "legal in some circumstances". I don't know about you, but I have a hard time classifying someone who believes abortion should be legal "under some circumstances" to be "pro-life". I suppose its possible all those people were thinking solely of "health of the mother" situations, but I'm guessing most of them were actually thinking of rape, incest, etc.
Poll data available here: http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
JPH, I was actually referring to the Gallup poll that came out last week and was run on the AP wire and several news outlets. Sorry I don't have a reference to it here, but the percentage who said they were pro-life is at 51%. I can look for the article, but it was common knowledge and quoted quite a bit last week.
JPH, I googled it and found that the newswire on the Gallup poll was from May 15, 2009. It was being quoted rececently in regard to the health care bill, which is why I thought it was a new poll. 51% are prolife, only 42% are prochoice.
If abortion was only legal "in some circumstances," then planned parenthood and free clinic abortion doctors would be put out of business. That would be a huge step forward.
I've never understood the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life". Presumably, the opposites are "anti-choice" and "anti-life", respectively. I've known very few people to whom either term would apply.
This issue came up with my mother a couple years ago. I suggested that instead of using politically loaded terms, we should stick with the politically neutral, descriptive terms, "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion"; and argue the two positions based on their merits rather than on rhetoric. She responded, "That's absurd. No one is pro-abortion. Pro-choice people just believe that abortion is sometimes better than the alternative, and a woman has the right to make that decision for herself."
She then added that she habitually describes me to her friends as "anti-choice".
As others have already suggested, another case in point is the "gay marriage" debate.
I cannot write "gay marriage" without quotes. It's an oxymoron. In this case, it doesn't matter whether your perspective is biblical or social-historical. In all of history, no culture, no matter how depraved, has ever proposed such a phenomenon as "gay marriage" -- until ours. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken.)
And yet, that is precisely how the debate is framed. "Are you for gay marriage, or opposed to gay marriage?" No alternative vocabulary is even offered. It's like asking, "Are you for round cubes, or opposed to round cubes?"
Interestingly, the idea has not caught on. This despite a powerful lobby and endorsement by the entertainment industry and mainstream media. Every time the institution of "gay marriage" has come before any legislature or electorate, it has been defeated. The only legal sanction of "gay marriage" has been by the courts. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken.)
Some would argue with merit that it is the job of the courts to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority. The obvious question, then, is how are "rights" determined?
Honestly, I don't know if I can come up with a compelling argument why a pluralistic society should not afford legal privileges to homosexual couples. True, this dares heaven to rain burning sulphur down upon our nation, but should that be the basis of a legal decision?
Regardless, we should frame the debate in terms that do not predispose the conclusion. "Are you for legally sanctioned sodomy, or opposed?" Okay, that's not exactly neutral language, but you get the point. (Indeed, the very difficulty of describing "gay marriage" in objective terms might lead one to question whether the concept has any instrinsic meaning.)
So far, the American people have been stubbornly unwilling to redefine "marriage", at least in this one regard. In contrast, we have no trouble accepting that a person might go through three or four "marriages" in the course of a lifetime. That's perhaps not quite so intrinsically nonsensical as "gay marriage"; but it should throw up a red flag that "marriage" in America is not what it's meant to be.
Like some others, I am tempted to divorce the concept of marriage from a legally defined institution. If "marriage" does not denote a condition in which a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, then perhaps we, the Church, should stop using it. We could use another term such as "matrimony" instead. The only reasonable alternative is to insist on using the term "marriage" in its original meaning. I'm not sure we can win that battle, or that it would be beneficial to try. (I'm not sure that it would not be beneficial, either.)