Download Ayca Zayim 19 OCT post class writing

Frames, Framing and Ideology
As Snow (2007, Blackwell Companion) notes, the framing perspective fills a void in the literature by underlining
that “grievances can’t be taken for granted and that interpretive processes matter for some purposes and under
some conditions” (p.383). Hence, this framework reemphasizes meanings, culture, identity and ideology in a
literature that has been dominated by the resource mobilization approach for a long time.
With regard to the framing perspective, the difference between a frame and framing seems to be a recurring
theme. While the former connotes “individual cognitive structures, located ‘within the black box of mental life’
that orient and guide interpretation of individual experience” (Oliver& Johnston, 2000, p.4), framing denotes the
process of “the production of meaning” (Snow & Benford, p.3). This difference is also punctuated by Snow and
Benford in their reply to Oliver and Johnston (2000) in which they aim to specify “the interactive processes by
which frames are socially constructed, sustained, contested, and altered” (p.3).
Oliver and Johnston (2000) acknowledge that the concepts of ideology and a frame are related, but also
underline the distinctions between them. They attempt to bring ideology onto the stage in the analysis of social
movements. Ideology is described as “a system of meaning that couples assertions and theories about the nature
of social life with values and norms relevant to promoting or resisting social change” (p.7). I believe that the
authors’ emphasis on the use of ideology in the social movement analysis, –where it is pertinent-, helps to draw
attention to the political aspects of movements; to the norms, values and ideas themselves which allow one to
distinguish movements from one another. I agree with Oliver and Johnston that the ’malleable’ nature of frames
(p.13), coupled with the exclusive emphasis in the literature on frame resonance carries with it the danger of
depoliticizing social movements. This is because it draws upon an image of social entrepreneurs who try to
market a social movement in the most favorable way so as to ensure the maximum resonance. By way of
example, Snow and Benford (2000), and many others, propose that the greater “the credibility of the proffered
frame” and its salience are (p.619), the greater is the movement’s potential for mobilization. This account
portrays an exclusive image in which social movements only strive to frame their goals, claims and actions in
‘resonance’ with those of their targets of mobilization.
This reminds me of last week’s discussion on the ‘co-optation’ of social movements in the way they are
conceptualized as the exploiters of existing political opportunities. In a similar manner to political opportunity
structures, frame resonance implies the exploitation of discursive opportunity structures. Yet, Ferree (2003), in
her article, repudiates the absolute prevalence of frame resonance theory by demonstrating that radical feminist
groups, that refuse to be resonant with the existing discursive opportunity structure, exist. She contends that
“some speakers will persist in offering arguments that are radical, contradicting rather than affirming the
premises of the discursive opportunity structure” (p.339). Nevertheless, this does not mean that each and every
social movement that utilizes frame resonance as a strategy of mobilization is co-opted. It is also true that there
are social movements that target excluded, radical, nonmainstream groups.
In regards to Oliver and Johnston’s article, in which they argue for the reintroduction of the use of ideology into
the social movement literature, Snow and Benford pose several criticisms. In one example, they contend that
Oliver and Johnston oversimplify the diversity present in conceptualizations of ideology and “assume…a degree
of coherence and integration among the elements of ideology” (p.8). To corroborate their point, they provide
U.S. focused studies which, they believe, demonstrate that “not only do individuals acknowledge a host of values
and beliefs that are often contradictory, but they rarely cohere in an integrated, systematic fashion” (p.8). I am
skeptical about the inferences they draw from these examples and whether they are sufficient to prove their
point. My reticence is primarily due to the U.S. centric nature of their chosen studies. Rather, I agree with Oliver
and Johnston, when they denote U.S. as a society dominated by “the marketing approach to movement
mobilization” and the invisibility of ideology (p.10). As such, studies that are only based on the U.S. and which
try to test the coherence of ideologies could be expected to lead to biased results.
Westby (2002) develops an alternative understanding of framing to the one developed by Snow and Benford
(1988). Snow and Benford propose three core framing tasks: diagnostic framing which identifies the problem;
prognostic framing which proposes what is to be done; and motivational framing which motivates people to
participate (p.200-1). Westby (2002), on the other hand, approaches the issue of framing from a different
perspective and outlines an understanding of a frame that is composed of strategic and ideological discourses.
While the former denotes the “strategic incentives created in the course of the shifting and complex historical
flow of the cultural stock”, the latter is the movement ideology (p.291). Any framing of a social movement
incorporates these two dimensions to varying degrees, depending on its context. Westby’s articulation of framing
is a valuable contribution that accentuates the difference between “interest logic and identity logic”. He provides
1
a theory to explain ‘radicalism’ that is left as a side issue in Ferree’s article, but also underlines the possibility
and presence of social movements where the strategic considerations are surpassed by ideology (p.300). This is
in contrast to the most prominent view in the strategic framing literature.
Regarding the empirical articles, Ellingson’s (1995) article focuses on the audience to which the frame is
targeted. He emphasizes the dialectical relationship between discourse and events, “how episodes of collective
action influence the processes of meaning construction and the content of movement frames or discourses
(p.103). His account underscores the relatively underemphasized role of collective action, namely that of
challenging or discrediting some arguments and ideas and remapping the whole terrain of meaning production.
In addition to this, it is also interesting to observe how the altered cultural terrain endows legitimacy to certain
arguments which did not have a powerful audience prior to the collective action. Analyzing the riots around
abolitionism in Cincinnati, he shows how the mobs delegitimized the anti-abolitionists’ frame and changed the
field of debate in favor of the law and order and abolition speakers.
Ferree (2003), on the other hand, undertakes a comparative study of the U.S. and Germany, looking at the
feminist movement. I believe her most important conclusion is the portrayal of frames being embedded in power
structures, which lead to divergent discursive opportunity structures derived from divergent contexts. She
manages to put the widespread resonance argument in the literature in context, by contending that resonance is a
“mutually affirming interaction of a frame with a discursive opportunity structure…” (p.310). Due to the
divergent discursive opportunity structures in the U.S. and Germany (liberal individualism vs. social protection),
feminist movements in each country adopt discourses that are in resonance with their discursive opportunity
structures, so as to make their demands heard and be influential. Moreover, as mentioned above, because her
theory underlines the possibility of radicalism, it does not assert co-optation as the only path to be followed by
social movements.
Lastly, Steinberg (1999) analyzes the English cotton spinners in the 1820s to show how discursive repertoires are
“relational, social, semiotic, and strategic” (p.769). He shows how the challengers make their claims and fight
for their rights within the contours of the genres of the powerful. In this power relationship, the weak defines and
employs a discursive repertoire of their own, albeit within the discursive field defined by the powerful. He
demonstrates how the discursive repertoires are in an ongoing dialogue, “a talk and talk back” that make and
remake meanings. This empirical paper complements his theoretical article “Tilting the Frame” (1998), where,
drawing on the discourse theory of Bakhtin Circle and cultural psychology, he proposes a dialogic model of
production of meaning as a “dynamic and often conflict-riven process tied to particular socio-historical contexts
and patterns of interaction” (p.862). In my opinion, his empirical account of English cotton spinners is powerful
in portraying the limit to agency in framing and how the framing strategies of the weak are confined within the
discursive terrain of the dominant.
As a last word, it has to be noted that despite the usefulness of the framing approach –as it is evident from the
articles-, it falls short of fully explaining how the frames come into being and are produced in the first place.
2