I first remember hearing this term during the debate over Terri Schiavo and the question —an important one, in my opinion — over whether it's ever appropriate or morally acceptable to terminate the life of a sick human being. It's unfortunate that the question had to be discussed in the context of a wholly ugly political fight over the life of a particular woman. More unfortunate yet that the question itself so often took a backseat to spurious allegations about a man's character, and the difficulty of a terrible rift within a family.

But the question remains a relevant one, and in its various guises it is one of the defining debates in American politics today. The term is fascinating for the reason so much of the language used by the American right-wing is fascinating — it naturally and implicitly draws the hearer's mind to contrast it with its opposite. A 'culture of life' must be standing in opposition to a 'culture of death', just as someone who is 'pro-life' is fighting against those who are 'anti-life' or 'pro-death'. I suspect, indeed, that I'd heard it many times before the term first caught my attention — it seemed familiar from the first times I can remember it being discussed. It's subtle enough that it doesn't necessarily arrest the attention, which is a significant part of the term's power.

George Lakoff is a linguist and cognitive scientist, and of late has become famous as the author of the books Moral Politics and Don't Think of an Elephant. In these books (the first a long, academic tome, in contrast with the second, a brief guidebook for progressive activists), Lakoff advances a view of politics as a polar opposition between a "nurturing mother" who symbolizes leftist politics and a "strict father" who symbolizes right-wing politics. According to Lakoff, the right in America has put forth a concerted, deliberate effort to use terminology that permeates political discussion and subtly advances right-wing views. He refers to this process as 'framing' a view, and his books have enjoyed a tremendous new popularity among progressives, along with a certain amount of ridicule from those who view the problem with the left in the United States to be far more fundamental than one of word choice.

History

Despite my own misgivings of the seeming adoration of Lakoff and his ideas, I think that 'framing' is an instructive means to examine the phrase 'culture of life' and try to understand what its impact on U.S. politics has been. So what is the 'culture of life'? The term was first used in 1993 by Pope John Paul II during a tour of the United States. The Catholic Church — and John Paul II in particular — is a long-standing opponent of abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, embryonic stem cell research, and war.

The call to create a culture of life, then, is the call to create a culture that doesn't support or permit any of these things. The phrase was further elaborated in John Paul II's 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae ('Gospel of Life'). He explicitly drew the contrast I mentioned earlier, claiming that our current social context is a battle between opposing cultures of life and death. This encyclical again mentioned each of those matters — abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, war, and stem cell research — and called for Catholics to oppose them.

The term became influential in U.S. politics during the 2000 presidential election, during a debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Bush made the rather absurd statement that the approval of the 'morning after pill', an emergency contraceptive that can be used for several days after sex, would increase the number of abortions (even though a new means of contraception would presumably reduce the need for abortion). He then suggested that legalized euthanasia would work against a culture of life, and encourage youth violence.

The 'culture of life' continued to be invoked throughout Bush's first term in office, in regard to discussions of embryonic stem cell research and bills banning late-term abortion and defining violence against a pregnant woman and the fetus as separate, distinct crimes. The term was officially made a part of the Republican Party's platform in time for the 2004 election, and as I've discussed before gained additional currency during the argument over termination of life support for Terri Schiavo.

The implications of the term

The stark contrast between the ideas of cultures of life and death is obvious; the phrase 'culture of death' is almost terrifying, invoking images of a great necropolis filling the world. The implication that that the right wing has a monopoly on valuing life is inherently problematic, especially in the United States, where the GOP is notably opposed to gun control and in favor of the death penalty, and the main proponent of the current War in Iraq. John Paul II was an outspoken opponent of the death penalty and the War in Iraq throughout Bush's first term in office. It's a particular irony that Bush, previously the governor of the state of Texas — the most death penalty-happy state in the United States — claimed the term in his own campaign for president.

Some commentators have suggested that Bush's invokation of the term during 2000 was a coded reference to the Pope's speech, intended specifically to reach out to moderate Catholic voters, who are in a peculiar position in U.S. politics. Catholics are traditionally associated with the Democratic party, of course, and it's recent that they have voted for Republicans. There is a certain tension between the Fundamentalist and Evangelical power base of the GOP and the Catholic Church, and the opposition to much of Bush's politics by John Paul II didn't endear them to one another any further.

But more conservative members of the Catholic Church have very notably aligned with the GOP in recent years — particularly notable when some Catholic bishops called for John Kerry, George W. Bush's opponent in the 2004 presidential race and a practicing Catholic, to be denied Communion. Even more absurdly, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, later to become Pope Benedict XVI, issued a statement calling for Catholics who consistently vote for politicians who are pro-choice or support physician assisted suicide to be denied communion. His statement said that voting for a pro-war or pro-death penalty candidate was not as major a moral transgression (but did not explain why.) The embrace of the 'culture of life' — however half-heartedly — has been an immense boon to the Republican party.

Conclusion

As with so many of the buzzwords used in politics, the 'culture of life' is a tool calculated to create a particular response in the hearer. And much use of the term has been very deliberately deceptive. The efforts of the GOP to reach out to Catholics in the U.S. have ignored major moral divides between the Church and the political positions taken by the Republican party. It's been successful, though, convincing voters who ought to have been troubled by the death penalty and the War in Iraq to support the GOP in spite of it.

The GOP's use of the term may be fallacious — both in terms of the explicit intent of Pope John Paul II in using it in 1993, and in the implication that the GOP is particularly supportive of human life — but it's been surprisingly effective. It's hard to justify the death penalty if one believes in a culture of life, and harder still to justify a long and increasingly pointless war, but the term itself shows no signs of losing popularity — or effectiveness.

References

Lakoff, George. Don't Think of an Elephant.
Lakoff, George. Moral Politics.
http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM - English translation of Evangelium Vitae.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050317-7.html - George W. Bush's statement on Terri Schiavo.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm - Ratzinger's letter
http://www.christianity.com/cultureoflife - the Culture of Life Foundation and Institute.