Immigration

Ok,

Finally have the time to address myself afresh to the immigration issue/debate, as originating on 9/13 with Henry’s perceptive and provocative response to Lakoff’s article on the framing of the subject.

Let me preface this by saying that I haven’t thought much about this for quite a while—in fact not really since the days Mike H. and I used to discuss it, and that was years ago. In general, both then and until now, my view of it was, from a both a strictly scientific view and from the view of one who has always felt it most urgent that we focus primarily on issues that can actually be resolved by a solid majority (since this is still supposed to be a democracy), not that it does not contain deep and profound aspects that in some way, direct or indirect, touch all our lives; but that it is essentially irresolvable under the current system of thought and politics defining the world. This is because both “sides” of the issue hold values that can really not be denied. Those generally in favor of a perpetuation of a “liberal” immigration policy have in their favor the value of free and equitable enterprise, while those who espouse more or less draconian restrictions on immigration, or no immigration, have in their favor the value of quality of life (all else being equal once a reasonably sustainable population density has been reached) for the area into which the outside people wish to immigrate. Taking this “dichotomy” one step further, you could say that each side additionally shares the initial value of the other, as well. For doesn’t curtailing the quality of life for those already “here” also impinge upon their potential for “free enterprise?” And doesn’t restricting the movement of peoples across the border potentially reduce their ability to advance their quality of life? So, looking at the controversy that way, both sides really share the exact same needs and values, from different points of view.

This problem is, as I understand them both, somewhat analogous to that of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Leaving aside for the moment which of them has blown up more of the other, their attitude over the key land in Palestine seems to be about the same: they are both absolutely certain it is theirs.

So anyway, when Mike and others have suggested to me, “we have to do this” or “we have to do that,” I’ve always said, “until negative population growth becomes an ecological reality, and until there’s a dramatic change in the way the world in general does politics, economics and culture, there’s no truly effective way to adjudicate effectively between the two positions. The book Ishmael I recently recommended points out that, for thousands of years, the entire human world, save for a few fringe tribes, has practiced the policy of wiping out all competition for whatever its food source was, as opposed to just taking what it needed and practicing live-and-let-live. This in turn practically guarantees a world of haves and have nots, with the inevitable consequences of gross and ever-intensifying economic inequalities.

That is not to say I therefore espouse a “bleeding-heart” view of the poor immigrant killed or turned back at the border by peoples who, not that many generations ago, were immigrants themselves, in a similar situation with similar dreams and motives; because I doubt very much whether these potentially new immigrants are coming over here with an overwhelming desire to make the US a more economically sensible, fair and equitable society. No, if they think about values at all, their main interest, just like that of our ancestors (with the possible exception of a few religious “radicals”), is to advance their own economic position to the fullest extent possible, regardless of what that might mean for society as a whole (and perhaps even their neighbor, particularly if their neighbor is from a different "tribe"). In other words, their motives for coming in are no more or less pure  than are ours for wanting to keep them out.

But even if everyone’s values and motives, on both sides of the border, were pure as the driven snow, all the finest values in the world, by themselves, would arguably do nothing much by themselves to affect the changing ecological realities (exploding population and runaway consumption, quantum leaps in technology, and a relentlessly dwindling natural resource base). On the other hand, nothing about these ecological  factors does much to alter the ultimately deleterious social and psychological effects of ignoring universal, humanistic values.

So, folks, I would have said, and perhaps still do, “I don’t really see any way to resolve this issue head on. We are caught completely, historically and culturally, in a system that doesn’t allow any sensible, moderate approach to either side of the problem.  So whether you grab a gun and go down to the border to try and protect your job, your land, etc., or on the other hand commit to try and figure out some relatively just and humane quota of new folks to let in—well, either way, given the macro political picture, you might as well just be spitting in the wind.

But have we looked at everything that affects human thought and behavior here. Nope. Even Lakoff's notion of frames doesn't begin to give us the kind of micro-analysis or potential accessibility to the language-driven emotional cues that underlie, in part, a lot of the aforementioned political impasses.

So, for the heck of it, let's try one such "bioenergetic" analysis on the current topic: immigration, and see if it changes how you or I view any of the above.

On a body sensory level, the syllables “immi” are clearly among the most pleasurable sound you can make. That short “i” sound just makes you feel good—don’t really know why, just does.*  And the mmm sounds, well, connotes generally just about everything warm, comforting, and nurturing: prime examples, “mmama,” “mmm, delicious.” Not that both sounds (all sounds, in fact, particularly in a language as complex and variegated as ours) don’t appear in words that aren’t ostensibly “feel good” in their meanings, e.g., “murder,” “mayhem,” etc., but we are striving for cultural linguistic generalities here: i.e., the most likely and prevalent effect (of the subliminal language affect) of the sound on the most people.

 Next comes “gra,” here pronounced “gray.” And it’s not a huge stretch to associate this here with “gray area,” i.e., neutrality. So what do we have so far? Something soft and fluid (easy to pronounce),  and pleasurable and neutral ( that applies equally to everyone). Then finally, the “tion.” I suppose you might be able, if so willing, to hear or see this as “shun” and subsequently make some clever political pun on that; but on a purely bioenergetic level the “sha” in “tion” as usually pronounced almost invariably produces a sense of pushing out or away or forward—a semantic analog of the way your breath exits your mouth upon uttering the sound—whereas the soft n (as distinct from the hard n in, say, “unusual”) reels that movement back into the mouth, where it stabilizes it. This suggests activity or movement, but also continuity (traction, mention, reaction, etc).

 Keep in mind that, bioenergetically, language at this level is almost always very simple, and understanding it no more of a mental stretch than understanding the onomatopoeia in the way the sound buzz represents bees.

So what do we have here then, bioenergetically? That “immigration” is (or perhaps, just should be) a mainly pleasurable, positive, and comforting occurance, a continously pushing forward, ahead, or even “across” that is equally open to all. Hmm, pretty hard to fight against something like that, I guess. Perhaps the word itself--forget about anything else you attach to it--already tends to work against anyone who might try not to like it. This “bioenergetic” fact alone might make it almost predictable that, on an otherwise equal field of debate, opponents of immigration are always going to seem more hard-pressed, irritable, and tired, etc., than its advocates, because they are the ones who must argue against their culture’s bioenergetic, body-sensory-value predisposition toward the word, and thus, what it generally means.

So, apart from whatever might be going on at the semantic level of the debate, the first thing “bioenergetically aware” opponents of immigration might decide to do is find an entirely different word to describe what it is they are against.**

Note: I just finished this analysis for the first time this very moment, and am sending it out to you the next. So it is utterly a “first draft.” But it nonetheless strikes me as interesting to think that the most powerful “framing” device in the entire debate over immigration may reside in the very word itself. Anyone care to try the same approach on other key issue words: abortion, sustainability, etc. Take your pick.

Then put em all together and take a look at how all the various sensory affects might interrelate: a new way of micro-analyzing these debates, but one I hope may eventually lead, not to just more chaos and confusion, but a greater clarity,  precision and consensus of meaning, if not opinion, on the macro level as well.

*I’m well aware that, even for those who more or less get what I mean here by “bioenergetic” word analysis, there may exist big differences in the way certain sounds and phrases make them “feel” on a body, sensory level. Although of course, while the lazy and impatient part of my personality would prefer that everyone would immediately and sincerely agree with my own personal sensory experience of these sounds and words, the more industrious, realistic and scientific part of me acknowledges the likelihood of such differences and in fact welcomes them as a vital part of the work leading to the most accurate appreciation of how we can generalize language affects and effects at this level—if indeed such an accomplishment is within the realm of possibility. So feel free to say, nah, that short “I” doesn’t strike me that way at all, or even “I don’t feel a thing when I say the word, it’s just a word to me, totally unencumbered by any physical sensation at all." Of course I have my strong view of all this, but I’m still very much at the point of research where everyone’s authentic feedback, however different their experience may be, is still very much seen as necessary to the development of this sort of language analysis an a useful, applied science.

**Henry, I don’t really have the time or energy right now to analyze the rest of the Lakoff argument this way, i.e., “illegal” and so forth . . . though I have little doubt all that will be of interest, to me at least. Right now though, if you turn back to his article, you might see that some of his initial difficulty stems from the fact that he doesn’t, in framing the issue, start simply from the term “immigration” itself, but immediately casts the argument in terms of an “immigration problem” or “immigration debate.” To me this suggests that he is probably somewhat unaware of what he himself is saying on a bioenergetic level. Having immersed himself authentically in theories of organic language for decades, he probably senses that the naked term “immigration” may generally work bioenergetically (though he wouldn’t put it that way) to bolster the position of those who favor what it indicates, and that therefore the Bushites practice of attaching the words “debate” or “problem” to it is effectively a way of counteracting that result. However, his lack of an initial direct and purely bioenergetic level of analysis probably makes it difficult for him to understand why he is saying what he is saying. This lack of abstraction on a micro level at the outset might, only seemingly ironically, make it a lot more difficult for him not to get overly abstract, general,  and disconnected with regard to the issue on a macro level.

 Lee Strauss (Copyright @ 2011)