Let’s start by stating the obvious: it’s thanks to our brains that we think, understand the world around us, and coordinate with other human beings to act. Our brain, its structure, and the way it functions are necessarily linked to our body. To use an example from experimental psychology, a left-handed person will recognise a cup more quickly if its handle is on the left. For a right-handed person, the opposite is true. Why is this? Because recognising an image is not simply a matter of taking in information; it’s also a question of anticipating a relationship between the object and our body. What we perceive is the possibility of taking this object and using it.

These fundamental mechanisms of understanding are largely below the level of our consciousness. Researchers often claim that 98 per cent of our brain’s activity escapes our rational awareness. Understanding mobilises automatic mechanisms on a massive scale that we are not even aware of. Let’s take an example from George Lakoff’s repertoire. Imagine we are given this challenge: “Don’t think about an elephant!” We will immediately realise that this is simply impossible: in the very effort not to think about an elephant, we are obliged to think about it. That’s the way our brain works.¹

But what does this have to do with politics? Well, absolutely everything! That’s why the work of George Lakoff is so interesting. Lakoff taught cognitive linguistics at Berkeley and quickly established himself internationally as the leader of a research movement called “embodied cognition”, thanks to the book Metaphors We Live By (1980), written with philosopher Mark Johnson. After a series of acclaimed academic books, Lakoff decided to put his scientific knowledge at the service of activists, civil rights and environmental campaigners, feminists, and democrats.

As activists, we tend to believe that, in order for people to act for a cause of collective interest, they must first understand it. So we start by explaining it to them – we start with the facts. But the social sciences have long shown that this is not how it works. Values, engagement, the feeling of belonging to a group, and the desire to resemble people we admire are much more important drivers of action than facts. Lakoff explored the importance of values and their links with politics in his book Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, first published in 1996 and since updated. His thesis was simple: the values that guide us in caring for children are the foundations of our worldview. It is what we use as an unconscious reference to define our political aspirations. Lakoff distinguishes between two ideal models, each with its own internal coherence, which he calls the “strict father” and the “nurturant parent” models. The originality and strength of his approach lies in the fact that it focuses not on ideas, but on the physical organisation of our neural networks. The consequences for political communication are far-reaching.

A matter of frames

George Lakoff is also known in the field of communication for the notion of “frame”. This term describes one of the most important mental mechanisms when it comes to explaining how our brains create meaning. Frames are the mental structures that enable human beings to understand reality – and sometimes to create what we take to be reality. A frame is a “field of experience” that enables us to make sense of what happens to us. It describes people, objects, behaviours, and expectations. It also describes explanations and solutions to problems. Conversely, it excludes other actors, objects, explanations, and solutions. A single word is enough to activate a frame, and when a frame is activated, it brings certain things into the light and leaves others in the dark.

Language is not neutral: every word we use automatically and unconsciously evokes a set of links, ideas, judgements, and sensations. This is crucial for ecologists. Talking about socio-ecological issues and calling for our living environments to be protected is not the same as using the words “fighting climate change”. In one case, we are activating the responsibility of “benevolent guardians”; in the other, we are talking more about conflict, the enemy to be confronted, which mobilises other types of emotions and actions. This all plays out in the intimacy of our neural networks, which are themselves shaped by our experiences, our learning, our culture…and our language.

Calling for our living environments to be protected is not the same as using the words ‘fighting climate change.’

Choosing our words is therefore crucial: different words do not activate the same neural networks; they influence our perception of the problem and, consequently, the solutions we deem appropriate. Frames are cognitive before they are linguistic. In other words, our brain elaborates meaning, intuitively and unconsciously, before we even “put words to it”.

Conservative freedom

For decades now, the word “freedom” has been the lexical totem of the conservative camp. Behind the conservative use of this seemingly universal word lies a precise ideological frame, which Lakoff describes at length.

In this frame, freedom means, above all, the absence of external constraints: lower taxes, fewer laws, less government. It is the freedom to own, to decide for oneself, not to be “hassled” by collective rules or norms. In its most radical version, it is also the freedom to pollute, to refuse vaccines, or to carry a gun in the street in the name of individual autonomy. This vision, deeply rooted in North American political history but also present in Europe, turns the individual into an island whose freedom is thought of as a right against others, not with others. In this view, anything collective is a constraint.

Conservatives define freedom according to an individualistic and hierarchical logic rooted in the moral metaphor of the strict father. This framework has the following features:

Freedom from government intervention: Conservatives emphasise freedom as the reduction of the size and powers of the state to a minimum. Freedom is seen as the ability of individuals to act without state constraints, particularly in tax, regulatory, and economic matters. This framework values negative freedom, i.e. freedom from state interference. Freedom = less state, less regulation.

Freedom linked to individual responsibility and economic morality: Freedom is also framed as the ability of individuals to take responsibility for themselves, in a system where success depends on personal effort and merit. This framework moralises the economy, valuing competition and individual responsibility, while rejecting aid or interventions perceived as privileges or dependencies. Freedom = individual responsibility and merit.

Freedom within a hierarchical and familial framework: According to Lakoff’s analysis, which is repeated in the literature on framing, conservatives use a moral metaphor of the patriarchal family, where freedom is associated with order, authority, and discipline. This vision contrasts freedom with permissiveness and justifies a natural social hierarchy. Freedom = order, authority, and moral hierarchy.

Freedom as the protection of universal individual rights: In the Anglo-Saxon liberal tradition, freedom is also framed as respect for individual autonomy, with the state limited to guaranteeing fundamental rights, without excessive intervention in personal choices. Freedom = universal individual rights guaranteed by a minimal state.

These frameworks are mobilised to construct a coherent narrative that makes freedom a central value, but defined in such a way as to legitimise conservative policies of limiting the state and promoting the free market.

Conservatives have been able to apply this framework to every aspect of their discourse: freedom of enterprise (translated into all-out deregulation), freedom of expression (used to defend hate speech or climate denialism), freedom of education (to the detriment of a public education service), religious freedom (used to oppose the rights of women or LGBTQIA+ people), etc. This narrative construction is highly effective in emotionally mobilising part of the electorate, particularly the white middle class worried about social change.

This narrative exploits an Orwellian conception of freedom where reducing public services becomes “liberating” citizens. An oftcited example is Ronald Reagan’s rhetoric, which popularised the idea that “cutting taxes” or “reducing the size of government” is tantamount to increasing individual freedom. This metaphor transforms complex economic policies into a simple, emotional image: less government = more freedom. Another example is Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, which took up and amplified this framework by presenting freedom as the ability to act without government intervention, particularly in matters of immigration, economic regulation, and individual rights, while mobilising a family moral metaphor (the nation as a family, where order and authority are essential).

According to Lakoff, progressives have deserted the lexical field of freedom for too long, leaving it in the hands of those who have turned it into an empty slogan or an ideological shield to defend and promote inequalities. This strategic error has a cost: when a single worldview monopolises such a fundamental word, any attempt at reform, whether economic, social, or ecological, for example, can easily be caricatured as an attack on it.

According to Lakoff, progressives have deserted the lexical field of freedom for too long.

Reframing freedom

“It’s time to reclaim freedom seriously again, and to reformulate a powerful progressive framework around it.” George Lakoff, Whose Freedom?

Lakoff argues for an alternative framing based on the historical legacy of progressive struggles and the extension of civil rights, worker protection, and wider access to healthcare. A collective and emancipatory freedom grants the means to make one’s choices (freedom to vote without hindrance, freedom to take care of oneself, freedom through public education, etc.).

To do this, Lakoff advocates an emotional narrative mobilising empathy rather than self-interest, the family metaphor (the nation as a nurturant family that looks after its members), and shared values (protection, mutual aid, etc.). He also reminds us not to adopt the language of the other side (talking about the size of the state), since it is impossible not to think of an elephant.

In the nurturant parent model, proposed by Lakoff to represent progressive morality, freedom is not an abstract absolute: it is relational, contextual, concrete. It is constructed with others and with the help of common institutions. We are not free in poverty. We are not free without care. We are not free when we cannot choose our life. We won’t be free in a world that is 4 degrees Celsius warmer. Being progressive, therefore, means defending a freedom that is accessible to everyone. Freedom cannot be the prerogative of a few to the detriment of others. It is a collective societal project.

Above all, this means changing our language, our slogans, and our narratives. For example:

Freedom to live in an inhabitable world: The climate is not a technical issue; it is a question of fundamental freedom. An unlivable planet offers no freedom of choice and no future.

Freedom to decide about one’s own body: The right to abortion is not a moral issue; it is an essential condition of women’s autonomy.

Freedom to care for oneself, to grow old with dignity, to study: These rights are concrete conditions for exercising freedom. Without social security, freedom becomes a privilege reserved for the rich.

Freedom not to be discriminated against: Racist, sexist, or homophobic discrimination deprives millions of people of fundamental freedoms in their daily lives, such as housing, work, security, and love.

This reframing work can and must be applied to all areas. On economic issues, it needs to reassert how precariousness hinders freedom: if the minimum wage prevents you from living a dignified life, you’ve lost your freedom. On housing and public transport, it needs to emphasise that keeping warm and getting around are not luxuries but existential freedoms. And on democracy, it needs to insist on the freedom to decide together: the right to vote, transparency, and citizen participation are all exercises in collective liberty.

According to Lakoff, one successful example was Kamala Harris’ focus, in the 2024 US elections campaign, on “the freedom to live with dignity”, combining LGBTQIA+ and reproductive rights and social protection under a single unifying framework. Harris attempted to reclaim the notion of freedom, linking it to concrete, collective rights: freedom to care, to vote, to be socially protected. Her campaign illustrates the strategy of proposing an alternative, more inclusive, and emotionally mobilising narrative in opposition to conservative frames.

Some European Green and progressive politicians have employed similar narratives. Angelo Bonelli (Italy) said: “There can be no freedom in a society that condemns you to pollution, insecurity and exclusion.” Jean-Marc Nollet (Belgium) argued that “freedom does not mean having to choose between heating or eating. Freedom means being able to live with dignity, and ecology contributes to that.” And Teresa Ribera (Spain) claimed that “freedom isn’t about being able to choose Uber. It’s about being able to get to the end of the month, breathing clean air and having a future.”

These examples also show how frames operate through narrative metaphors, which simplify abstract concepts and mobilise emotions, thereby making it possible to control the political meaning of freedom. Lakoff insists that the repetition and consistency of these frames in the media and in political discourse are essential to their effectiveness.

It is by reappropriating words that we can transform our imagination – and with it, reality.

Freedom: a collective value

Freedom is not the opposite of social justice; it is its promise. It is therefore essential to break the rhetorical trap that contrasts freedom and equality. We need to show that fair rules make everyone freer, and that in this conception, the state is the guarantor of this freedom, not its enemy, and solidarity is a liberating power.

Progressives and ecologists want more, not less, freedom. But for everyone, not for the few. And it is the responsibility of the public authorities to make this possible. This goal must be part of our speeches, our political programmes, our campaign posters, but also of our human stories. We must show that our struggles are about real lives, about regaining dignity, about doors that open instead of closing. We need to defend the idea that regulation, social rights, public services, and environmental protection are tools that make freedom a reality for everyone.

Reclaiming the frame of freedom is not only possible, but vital to the Green project. Because it is by reappropriating words that we can transform our imagination – and with it, reality. The choice of words is just the tip of the iceberg. Understanding what’s going on beneath the surface, forming and developing a long-term strategy, is increasingly a vital component of political action.

---

1. George Lakoff (2004). Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing. An updated and expanded edition was published in 2014. ↩︎