Framing

Framing refers to the use of language and ideas to interpret and influence the understandings of others regarding an issue or event. The concept has been used most widely in the study of social movements, collective attempts to bring about social change. Social movement activists seek to convince others to identify with and to join or support their cause by strategically framing some aspect of the social world they deem as unjust and in need of correction. They do so by highlighting the seriousness of a problem or injustice (e.g., racial inequality, war, environmental decline, domestic violence, homelessness), attributing blame for the problem, offering solutions, and urging people to take action to overcome the problem. Scholars refer to the products of social movement framing activities as collective action frames.

Early research focused on movement framing strategies whereby activists sought to affect an apparent alignment between a movement group's ideas and goals and the interests and values of the targets of mobilization (e.g., potential recruits, third party supporters, media). Such deliberative movement discursive acts are called frame alignment strategies. One frequently employed frame alignment strategy entails amplifying values thought to be widely shared by the audience at hand (e.g., equality, freedom of choice, fairness, loyalty, privacy). Another often used frame alignment strategy involves highlighting widely held beliefs (e.g., all politicians are corrupt, corporate executives only care about profits, “the people united will never be defeated”). A third frame alignment strategy extends a movement's original claims so as to encompass the interests of the targets of mobilization. For example, the peace movement has occasionally extended its peace-related and antiwar framing activities to encompass economic concerns (Jobs for Peace, Bread Not Bombs). Researchers have found that successful frame alignment tends to yield the acquisition and mobilization of necessary resources (money, members, media coverage) as well as the achievement of movement goals for social change.

Whether or not framing activity succeeds in mobilizing people to join or support a movement depends on frame resonance, the extent to which the target audience views the framings as credible and salient. Researchers have found that frame credibility is affected, in part, by the perceived consistency of the various claims, the credibility of those engaging in the framing activity, and empirical credibility —the apparent fit between what activists say and observable events in the world. Salience is affected by how central the movement's ideas, beliefs, and values are to the audience; the extent to which the movement framings are consistent with people's everyday life experiences; and the fit between collective action frames and the stock of folk tales, folk wisdom, and cultural myths with which the audience is familiar. The more a movement's framings are characterized by the previously mentioned elements of credibility and salience, the greater is the frame resonance and thus the more likely people are to identify with, join, and support the activities of that cause.

Collective action frames and other social movement framing activity often include identity claims. For example, activists and members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer movement assert that, other than sexual orientation, they are no different than other people and thus deserving of the same rights (e.g., right to marry, right to own and inherit property, right to work) and opportunities as everyone else. Framing related to identity claims also typically entails the development of identity fields marking boundaries between avowed movement identities (sometimes referred to as collective identities ), and imputed opponent's identities. Movement framings are rife with boundary framing that constructs and attributes three types of clearly demarcated identity fields: protagonist identity fields (us, the “good guys”), antagonist identity fields (them, the “bad guys”), and audience identity fields (bystander audiences such as neutral or uncommitted observers, media, powerful elites).

...