The idea of a split between the “I” and the “Self” is most closely associated with George Lakoff, particularly in his work with **Mark Johnson** in _Philosophy in the Flesh_. ### **Core Idea: The Divided Self Metaphor** Lakoff argues that we habitually understand ourselves through metaphor. One of the most pervasive metaphors in English (and many other languages) is that the self is divided into two parts: - **The “I”** – the conscious, rational subject; the one who decides, controls, judges. - **The “Self”** – the body, [[emotions]], impulses, [[habits]], or social identity; the part that can be disciplined, improved, indulged, or restrained. This division is not a literal psychological claim but a **conceptual metaphor** embedded in everyday [[language]]. --- ### **Linguistic Evidence** Lakoff points to common expressions such as: - “I pulled myself together.” - “I lost myself.” - “I’m not myself today.” - “I need to control myself.” - “I told myself to calm down.” In each case, the speaker treats themselves as if there are two entities: a controller and something being controlled. --- ### **Variations of the Split** Lakoff identifies different versions of this metaphor: 1. **The Subject–Self metaphor** The “I” (subject) governs or manages the “Self.” 2. **The True Self metaphor** There is a “real” or authentic self beneath social roles or external pressures (“Be true to yourself”). 3. **The Essential Self metaphor** One’s identity is something stable and discoverable. These metaphors shape moral thinking, therapy culture, political rhetoric, and ideas about discipline and authenticity. --- ### **Why It Matters** Lakoff’s broader argument is that: - Human reason is **embodied**, not abstract and detached. - Even our most intimate sense of identity is structured metaphorically. - The idea of a purely rational, unified self is itself a conceptual construction. The split between “I” and “Self” reveals how deeply metaphor structures our understanding of mind, morality, and personhood. ## The Embodied Mind Lakoff’s most fundamental claim, developed with **Mark Johnson** in _Philosophy in the Flesh_ (1999), is that human reason is **not** abstract, disembodied or universal. It is grown out of the body — specifically out of the sensory-motor systems of the brain that allow us to perceive, move and act. ### Reason Reuses the Body’s Circuitry The same neural circuits that run perception and bodily action are recruited to perform abstract thought. When we _grasp_ an idea, _move towards_ a goal, or _see_ someone’s point of view, we are not merely speaking poetically — Lakoff argues we are literally activating sensory-motor structures and projecting their inferential logic onto abstract domains. The brain did not evolve a separate “reasoning module.” It repurposed circuitry already shaped by millions of years of surviving in a physical world. ### Primary Metaphors With Mark Johnson and Joseph Grady, Lakoff identifies _primary metaphors_ — small, automatic mappings learnt in infancy through recurrent correlations between bodily sensation and emotional or cognitive states: - **Affection is Warmth** (being held closely as an infant) - **Important is Big** (the size of things that mattered when we were small) - **More is Up** (watching levels rise as something is added) - **Happy is Up / Sad is Down** (posture mirroring mood) - **Knowing is Seeing**, **Understanding is Grasping**, **Time is Motion** These are not chosen or culturally learnt. They are wired in through repeated co-activation of brain regions and become the building blocks from which complex metaphors and abstract concepts are constructed. ### The Neural Theory of Language In 1988, Lakoff and Jerome Feldman founded the _Neural Theory of Language_ group at Berkeley. Srini Narayanan later showed computationally that the same neural patterns used to interpret bodily motion — so-called _X-schemas_ — can be used to interpret metaphors like “France falls into recession” or “India releases its stranglehold on business.” Abstract economic or political reasoning, on this account, is run on simulated bodily action. ### Challenge to Western Thought The subtitle of _Philosophy in the Flesh_ is _The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought_, and Lakoff means it: - The **Cartesian self** — a mind cleanly separated from the body — does not exist. - **Kantian moral reason** — capable of universal duties through pure rationality — does not exist either. - There is no “view from nowhere.” All reason is the reason of a particular kind of embodied creature. If this is right, much of analytic philosophy’s central assumption collapses: that thought can be studied as a system of disembodied symbols. ### Why It Underwrites Everything Else Here The embodied-mind thesis is the foundation for the rest of this note: - The **divided self** (“I” vs “Self”) is not a literal psychological structure but a metaphor built from bodily experience of controlling external objects. - The **Strict Father** and **Nurturant Parent** models of morality are inherited from early embodied experience of family. - The **resonance** of political worldviews is pre-rational because the metaphors they rest on were laid down in the sensory-motor system before any explicit argument could reach them. In short: for Lakoff, mind, morality and politics are all downstream of the body. --- ## Morality and Politics For George Lakoff, the split between “I” and “Self” does not remain a private psychological metaphor; it extends into morality and politics. The way we imagine inner authority shapes the way we imagine social authority. --- ## **The Moral Self: Inner Authority as Discipline** In Lakoff’s model, especially developed in _Moral Politics_, moral systems are structured by family metaphors. If the “I” governs the “Self,” morality becomes a matter of: - **Self-control** - **Discipline** - **Restraint of impulse** - **Character formation through effort** Here, the rational “I” must control the undisciplined “Self.” Failure to do so is a moral failure. Virtue equals self-mastery. This internal metaphor scales upward into political thought. --- ## **1. From Inner Control to the “Strict Father” Model** Lakoff argues that many conservative worldviews mirror this structure. In what he calls the **Strict Father model**: - Authority is legitimate and necessary. - Discipline builds character. - Those who lack discipline are responsible for their condition. - Moral strength comes from overcoming internal weakness. Just as the “I” must control the “Self,” authority must control disorder in society. --- ## **2. The Alternative: The Nurturant Model** In contrast, Lakoff describes a **Nurturant Parent model**, more common in progressive politics: - Morality is about empathy and care. - People flourish through support, not harsh discipline. - Internal conflict is not weakness but part of human complexity. Here, the self is not primarily a battleground of control but a relational being shaped by connection. --- ## Why This Matters Politically Lakoff’s deeper claim is that political disagreement is not mainly about policy details. It reflects: - Different metaphors of selfhood. - Different moral psychologies. - Different models of authority. If one sees the self as something that must be governed firmly, one is more likely to favour strict law, punishment, and hierarchical order. If one sees the self as relational and shaped by care, one is more likely to favour social support and systemic reform. --- ## **Implication for Identity** The split between “I” and “Self” thus becomes foundational: - It structures ideas of responsibility. - It informs attitudes toward poverty, crime, welfare, and education. - It shapes whether moral failure is seen as internal weakness or structural injustice. Lakoff’s larger thesis is that politics is not fundamentally about logic, but about deeply embedded metaphors of personhood. ## Resonance of political worldviews Extending **George Lakoff** further, the resonance of political worldviews is not primarily intellectual but temperamental. People are not persuaded into moral frameworks so much as they _recognise themselves_ within them. --- ## **1. Temperament and Moral Framing** Lakoff’s models in _Moral Politics_ rest on the idea that moral systems grow out of embodied experience — especially early experiences of authority, care, and discipline. Different temperaments incline individuals towards different moral metaphors: - Those who value order, clarity, boundaries, and self-discipline often find the **Strict Father** model intuitively right. - Those who value empathy, nuance, and relational understanding often gravitate towards the **Nurturant Parent** model. The attraction is pre-rational. Arguments then follow to justify what already _feels_ morally coherent. --- ## **2. The Inner Split and Personality** Returning to the split between “I” and “Self”: - A person who experiences the self as something that must be controlled may see strength as moral virtue. - A person who experiences the self as something to be understood or integrated may see compassion as moral virtue. Thus, inner psychological style maps onto outer political conviction. Some people feel most secure when impulse is mastered. Others feel most secure when complexity is acknowledged. Neither orientation is simply “more rational.” Each reflects a deep-seated orientation toward authority, vulnerability, and human nature. --- ## **3. Why Debate Often Fails** If political differences arise from embodied moral metaphors: - Evidence alone rarely shifts allegiance. - Appeals framed in the “wrong” moral language fall flat. - Each side hears the other as morally misguided, not merely mistaken. Lakoff therefore argues that effective persuasion requires speaking within the listener’s moral frame — or reshaping frames over time — rather than presenting detached facts. --- ## **4. A Broader Reflection** The implication is subtle but profound: politics is, in part, an outward projection of how we experience our own divided selves. How we manage our impulses. How we relate to authority. How we understand strength and care. These inner narratives quietly become public philosophy. George Lakoff (born 1941) is a renowned American cognitive linguist and philosopher known for developing the theory that conceptual metaphors and mental "frames" [[Structural Coupling|structure]] human thought, language, and social reality. A retired UC Berkeley professor, Lakoff is famous for works like _Metaphors We Live By_, which argue that metaphors are foundational to thought, and _Don't Think of an Elephant!_, which applies framing to politics.  **Key Contributions and Concepts** - **[Conceptual Metaphor Theory](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Conceptual+Metaphor+Theory&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&mstk=AUtExfAO_x0QLbp1NghKpQiiqn5VrJdyEaPcsjXwJ0k7CFbN-QUBf43pTDs2i_mk9p66jFKK9NShL9f-MWey_0GUIdtlfPBFYk7jWfGwSMQUAEBqSZotI4_Ew1spVj3W8Zm0BI9l8jEFHb5iSyq0OuL4-nQEk5-KPkpSyDq1tOCvew2UVzg&csui=3&ved=2ahUKEwj6z5DkmvSTAxXlXEEAHWS6MncQgK4QegQIAxAB):** Lakoff argues that abstract concepts are understood through concrete, embodied experiences (e.g., "time is money"). - **[Framing in Politics](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Framing+in+Politics&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&mstk=AUtExfAO_x0QLbp1NghKpQiiqn5VrJdyEaPcsjXwJ0k7CFbN-QUBf43pTDs2i_mk9p66jFKK9NShL9f-MWey_0GUIdtlfPBFYk7jWfGwSMQUAEBqSZotI4_Ew1spVj3W8Zm0BI9l8jEFHb5iSyq0OuL4-nQEk5-KPkpSyDq1tOCvew2UVzg&csui=3&ved=2ahUKEwj6z5DkmvSTAxXlXEEAHWS6MncQgK4QegQIAxAD):** He argues that political ideas are framed by metaphors that shape public opinion, analyzing how conservatives and liberals use different family metaphors ("strict father" vs. "nurturant parent") to view the world. - **[The Embodied Mind](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=The+Embodied+Mind&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&mstk=AUtExfAO_x0QLbp1NghKpQiiqn5VrJdyEaPcsjXwJ0k7CFbN-QUBf43pTDs2i_mk9p66jFKK9NShL9f-MWey_0GUIdtlfPBFYk7jWfGwSMQUAEBqSZotI4_Ew1spVj3W8Zm0BI9l8jEFHb5iSyq0OuL4-nQEk5-KPkpSyDq1tOCvew2UVzg&csui=3&ved=2ahUKEwj6z5DkmvSTAxXlXEEAHWS6MncQgK4QegQIAxAF):** Reasoning is rooted in sensory-motor neural circuitry, challenging traditional views of disembodied, purely logical thought (see [[#The Embodied Mind|the section above]] for detail, and the book note [[Philosophy in the Flesh]]). - **[Cognitive Linguistics](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Cognitive+Linguistics&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&mstk=AUtExfAO_x0QLbp1NghKpQiiqn5VrJdyEaPcsjXwJ0k7CFbN-QUBf43pTDs2i_mk9p66jFKK9NShL9f-MWey_0GUIdtlfPBFYk7jWfGwSMQUAEBqSZotI4_Ew1spVj3W8Zm0BI9l8jEFHb5iSyq0OuL4-nQEk5-KPkpSyDq1tOCvew2UVzg&csui=3&ved=2ahUKEwj6z5DkmvSTAxXlXEEAHWS6MncQgK4QegQIAxAH):** Lakoff contributed significantly to construction grammar and the neural theory of language.  **Background and Influence** - **Academic Career:** He taught linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, from 1972 until 2016. - **Think Tank Founder:** He founded the Rockridge Institute, a progressive think tank focused on framing public policy. - **Key Publications:** Besides the above, he authored _Moral Politics_, exploring how metaphors shape political morality.  Lakoff's work is interdisciplinary, influencing cognitive science, philosophy, psychology, and political communication by showing that language shapes how we perceive and act upon reality. ![[George Lakoff.jpg]] `Concepts:` `Knowledge Base:`