The CAQ, the third link and… our neurons

Hearing certain ministers talk about the third link since the defeat of the CAQ in Jean-Talon’s riding, I had the impression of seeing the owners of a house applying a new coat of paint to sell it more easily.

Martine Biron and Geneviève Guilbault spoke about the project, but in different terms.

They used the term “replacement link”.

They allege that the Pierre-Laporte and Quebec bridges “will not be eternal” and that it will therefore be necessary, one day, to replace them.

That didn’t surprise me.

The third link has a serious image problem. In terms of communication, this expression has almost become toxic for the CAQ.

However, researchers have proven that the language we use can sometimes influence the way we think.

The CAQ strategists probably understood this.

A few years ago I got my hands on an essay called The war of words. A fascinating little book written by an American expert in cognitive linguistics, George Lakoff.

He explains in particular that language is made up of frames, that is to say “mental structures which shape our way of seeing the world”.

It may seem daunting at first glance, but it’s not as complex as it seems. You’ll see.

He also says that in politics, “our frameworks determine the actions we take and the institutions we create to implement actions.” And that by “modifying the frameworks, that’s all we are changing”.

Does that still seem a little too theoretical to you?

Here’s a concrete example: when George W. Bush became president of the United States in the early 2000s, the White House popularized the term “tax relief.” So much so that it was “integrated into the public debate”.

“Let’s look at the framework within which the term “lightening” fits,” writes George Lakoff. For there to be relief, there must be a weight, individuals suffering from this weight and a “lighter” who removes said weight and who therefore becomes a hero. Those who try to prevent the hero from taking action are villains since they obstruct relief. »

The hero, in this case, was of course President Bush.

Journalists and even Democratic politicians eventually adopted the phrase. The terms used by George W. Bush and his allies “attracted them to their vision of the world,” summarizes the expert.

To help me decipher all this even further, I contacted Isabelle Blanchette, full professor at the School of Psychology at Laval University. Two years ago, I spoke with her about the rehabilitation of Maripier Morin and the cognitive biases that could influence our perception of him.^⁠1.

This time we discussed linguistic effects in political discourse.

“The words that are used will activate concepts that are in memory. A term that has been studied a lot is the war on drugs. When we talk about war, there are lots of associated concepts that we don’t need to say, but which will be activated in semantic memory, that is to say in people’s knowledge. The simple fact of hearing the active expression of the notions of combat, victims, etc. ”, she began by explaining to me.

It also reminded me of a study that I had forgotten existed. A decade ago, it was proven that there was a surprisingly simple way to influence Americans’ perceptions of Barack Obama’s highly controversial health care reform.

When we only mentioned the name of the law (“ Affordable Care Act “, be there Affordable Care Act), more Americans surveyed said they were in favor of reform.

But when we only mentioned Obamacare (the nickname of the law, associated with the name of the president), the popularity of the reform dropped by several percentage points.

“However, we were talking about the same thing! », recalled Isabelle Blanchette.

I point out to him that the human brain is a funny thing. Could the same phenomenon be observed in the third link file?

“If we do a survey of 1000 people and, in a question, we use replacement link versus third link, I would be quite sure that at this moment, yes, there will be a difference in the answers. If only because of what I told you earlier: it won’t activate the same things in our memory and we won’t have the same concepts in mind. »

We discuss the work of George Lakoff. I remind him that he felt that the word “relief”, added to the adjective “fiscal”, gave the impression that “taxes are an evil”.

For my part, I have the impression that if we hear the expression “replacement” link, it is easier to imagine that it is a positive project. Usually, we replace something that is damaged. We are doing useful work.

“You are absolutely right,” replies Isabelle Blanchette. There is a presumption that there is something to replace, it is in the expression. While the third link is the one that comes after the first two. »

These predictions come with a significant caveat and many nuances, specifies this specialist in cognitive neuroscience, who also works at the Cervo research center.

If there were a referendum on the replacement link, we should not believe that the opinion of the population consulted would be entirely determined or even that it would certainly be modified by this change in vocabulary.

There are “hundreds or thousands of variables that will influence someone’s attitude.” Even though opinions are divided among researchers. Some believe that the effect of language on the way of thinking is not as decisive as others have claimed, she emphasizes.

Proof that changing terminology does not necessarily change opinion regarding an initiative is that the CAQ has already tried to find a – linguistic – alternative solution to the third link. In vain.

“This logic has been there from the beginning,” Étienne Grandmont, solidarity deputy for Taschereau, told me.

“They have already tried to rename the third link the Quebec-Lévis tunnel. After that, they tried to integrate it into a larger whole, the Capital Express Network (REC),” he recalls.

Will the government succeed this time in changing the framework of the debate on the third link?

Maybe.

Or maybe not.

But beyond this specific issue, it seems useful to me to realize that sometimes, these days, as George Lakoff writes, “access the neuronal level to understand today’s politics”.