Framing Theory

This article introduces social movement framing theory. It discusses the development of social movement framing theory in relation to other social movement theories, and identifies key elements of collective action frames, including discussions of diagnostic framing, prognostic framing and motivational framing. The article also discusses variable aspects of collective action frames such as the interpretive scope of frames and frame resonance. The relationship between political opportunities and framing is also addressed. The article closes with a brief discussion of applications and critiques of social movement framing theory.

Overview

Social movements have played and continue to play a significant role in many societies. They can range from reform oriented, to conservative and even revolutionary. Social movements can be found in open and democratic societies to authoritarian societies. Indeed, many social movements have been responsible for democratic transformation of their respective societies. Some social movements attempt to change political systems while others seek only to reorient adherents' worldview. Because social movements are so widespread and can potentially effect great change, they are of interest to many sociologists. Social movement scholars have noted that despite the variation between location and goals social movements share many similarities.

Although there is no single definition of what constitutes a social movement there are some general agreements among scholars about what a social movement looks like. Charles Tilly, for example, argues that social movements are their own unique form of contentious politics. He states that all social movements display key characteristics:

• The campaign. All movements carry out sustained actions with an orientation toward specific goals;
• Social movement repertoires. A standard set of actions that are used by social movements i.e. protests, rallies, etc. and,
• Displays of worthiness, unity, numbers and commitment (WUNC). WUNC displays are carried out by social movements and social movement organizations (SMOs) in order to legitimize themselves in the eyes of potential adherents and target authorities.

De la Porta and Diani (2006) explain that social movements are "involved in confliction relations with clearly identified opponents; are linked by dense informal networks; [and] share a distinct collective identity" (p. 20). A social movement, then, can be considered a unique form of contentious politics, which is goal-oriented and which is carried out by individuals and/or organizations that act outside of formal political or social institutions.

Social Movement Theories

Early scholars of collective action and social movements often focused on broad social conditions which they thought produced social movements. Inherent in much of this work was the assumption that social movements were a result of individuals' sense of alienation from society. Scholars theorized that people were drawn into social movements or collective action because they were not adequately integrated into the existing social structures. Scholars believed mass, industrialized society led to social alienation and isolation, which in turn, led people toward revolutionary social movements that sought to undo the existing order. Later social movement scholars focused on deprivation as a theory for social movement participation. This theory assumes that the people who feel deprived in some way participate in social movements.

As scholars studied social movements more closely and as social movements became less stigmatized, research began to focus on how rather than why social movements occur. Resource Mobilization theory emphasized the need for resources in successful social protest. Theorists pointed out that for any social movement to be successful it needed access to resources such as money and human-hours. Later, Political Process theorists argued that not only are resources needed but so is the opportunity to use those resources. This theory combined the internal movement dynamics with external conditions. Political opportunities are seen as moments that movements can take advantage of for some political and or social gain. For example, a report about the increasing cost of a war, or the publishing of gruesome pictures of the war would be an opportunity for anti-war activists to mobilize. The problem with this approach, as Gamson & Meyer (1996) point out, is that "…opportunities are subject to interpretation and are often matters of controversy. Political opportunities are subject to framing processes and are often the source of internal movement disagreements about appropriate action strategies" (p. 276). In other words, there is no fixed "opportunity." People interpret what is an opportunity and what to do with that opportunity. Social movement framing theory attempts to address this issue.

Framing Theory

Social movement framing theory attempts to understand the way in which social movements and social movement actors create and use meaning, or how events and ideas are framed. This work has become a key way in which social movements are understood and analyzed. Benford & Snow (2000) point out that "framing processes have come to be regarded, alongside resource mobilization and political opportunity processes, as a central dynamic in understanding the character and course of social movements" (p. 612).

The idea of frame analysis comes from the work of Erving Goffman. Goffman argued that people frame experiences in order to organize and understand the world around them. Much like a picture frame excludes things while focusing attention on others, so does framing. Framing helps people interpret the world based on their social position and their previous experiences. Every social interaction that occurs is understood through a frame of reference within which people react based on their perception of the situation and the way they perceive the people with whom they are interacting. In the study of social movements, collective action frames are used to bring people together and incite them to action. Benford and Snow (2000) explain, "collective action frames are action-oriented sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of a social movement organization (SMO)" (p. 614). A social movement organization is a formal group that functions as part of a broader social movement and that often provides the resources for the broader social movement. SMOs deploy collective action frames in order to create a set of meanings which will inspire people to act collectively toward some goal.

Social movement framing analysis focuses on four broad areas: 1). the creation and use of collective action frames, 2). framing processes, 3). opportunities and constraints, and 4). the effect of framing on movement outcomes and other processes. Within each of these broad areas there are sub-categories of analysis.

Further Insights

Collective Action Frames

Collective action frames are an important part of any social movement mobilization. As Gamson and Meyer (1996) explain, "collective action frames deny the immutability of some undesirable situation and the possibility of changing it through some form of collective action. They define people as potential agents of their own history" (p. 285). Collective action frames, then, define a situation as problematic, but also give people a sense that a problem is something that can be overcome through concerted efforts therefore leading to collective action. Collective action frames are understood as having three core framing tasks:

• Diagnostic framing,
• Prognostic framing, and
• Motivational framing.

Diagnostic Framing

Diagnostic framing refers to the identification of a problem. In order for any social movement to be successful to any degree a problem must be identified. If there is no perceived problem, then it is difficult if not impossible to mobilize potential adherents. Framing theory, like Resource Mobilization theory, assumes that at any given moment there are enough grievances in the world to incite people to action. Unlike Resource Mobilization theory though, Framing theory assumes that it is not solely about the SMO's leaders' ability to garner resources which contributes to growth and mobilization of social movements, but instead it is about their ability identify — or frame — problems correctly. As Jenness (1995) explains, "One way in which social conditions come to be seen as social problems is through the work of social movements" (p. 146). Jenness notes that the Gay/Lesbian Rights movement, like the Women's Movement, successfully framed violence against gay people a as a social problem, thus creating a powerful diagnostic frame for the movement to use. After having diagnosed the problem, the movement was able to move forward toward solutions.

Many diagnostic frames include what has been referred to as an injustice frame. Injustice frames identify victims of some injustice and amplify the victimization. Injustice framing is more successful if there is a specific target — someone or something that is responsible for the injustice and at which moral indignation can be directed. On the other hand, there is danger in focusing anger too narrowly on a specific thing or individual. As Gamson (1995) further explains, "As long as moral indignation is narrowly focused on human actors without regard to the broader structure in which they operate, injustice frames will be a poor tool for collective action, leading to ineffectiveness and frustration…" (p. 92). Injustice frames and diagnostic frames, then, cannot be the only way in which problems are framed. Frames must also include an analysis of the potential solutions to the problems that SMOs have identified. Prognostic framing provides this analysis.

Prognostic Framing

Prognostic framing "involves the articulation of a proposed solution to the problem, or at least a plan of attack, and the strategies for carrying out the plan" (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 616). Specific SMOs diagnosed problems and the proposed solutions seem to line up. This means that although there is a consistency in which an organization diagnoses a problem and the potential solution that they are advocating for. This is similar to a social movement repertoire in which plans of action are constrained by the ideology and/or habits of SMOs. Similarly, proposed solutions fall within a narrow range based on the habits and ideology of the movement. For example, the Gay/Lesbian Rights movement would not likely respond to violence against gay people by calling for gay and lesbian people to hide their sexual orientation, which could in theory limit potential violence. Instead, because of the ideology and goals of the organization they chose a strategy of documentation and empowerment in which they raised public awareness and attempted to gain legal support for their goals. Benford & Snow further note that prognostic framing also often attempts to refute or minimize the framing of social movement opponents. This refutation is known as counterframing. Counterframing aims to prevent negative framings from taking hold and minimizing the impact of the movement. Of course, movements must do more than just identify problems and propose solutions; they must also mobilize people.

Motivational Framing

Motivational Framing "provides a 'call to arms' or rationale for engaging in ameliorative collective action, including the construction of appropriate vocabularies of motive" (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 617). Motivational frames, then, create reasons for people to get involved. They provide a sense of agency to potential actors. These types of frames are essential for social movements, as mobilization is a key and yet difficult task for social movements. Some of the vocabularies of motive that have been identified are:

• Severity, which refers to the perceived danger of the threat;
• Urgency, which refers to the swiftness in which the problem needs to be addressed;
• Efficacy, which refers to the sense of power one has to address the problem; and
• Propriety, which refers to one's duty to act.

These vocabularies of motive can act in contradictory ways. As Benford & Snow explain, with regard to the anti-nuclear movement, "activists' framings amplifying the severity and urgency of the nuclear threat contributed to a diminished sense of efficacy among the frame articulators" (p. 617).

How Frames are Used

Social movement scholars, beyond identifying the tasks of collective action frames, have also investigated the types and variations among such frames. They have noted that there is wide variation in the kinds and ways collective action frames are used. The two most important ways that frames vary is in interpretative scope and resonance.

Interpretative Scope

Social movements are often successful depending on the degree to which the frames they use are widely interpretable. Thus, if a social movement's frame has wide appeal, it is more likely to be successful. The degree to which the frame is not specific to a particular SMO is helpful for creating widespread appeal. For example, an SMO that advocates for the rights of HUD tenants, in order to be successful, must frame the issue as important to not only HUD tenants but also to people outside that sphere. An example may be the framing of housing as a human right rather than HUD tenants demanding amelioration of a specific problem. The "rights" frame has been noted to be a broad, or "master frame" (Benford & Snow, 2000). A master frame is a frame that has widespread appeal across many social movements and potential constituencies.

Resonance

Similar to the idea of interpretative scope is the idea of frame resonance. If frames resonate with audiences then they are typically more successful. Benford & Snow have identified two ways which contribute to resonance: credibility and salience.

Credibility includes three factors. The first is frame consistency. If consistency refers to the perceived gap between what social movement actors and/or SMOs do and what they say. If people perceive that the action of social movement participants is consistent with what the stated goals are then they are perceived as having more credibility. The second factor is empirical credibility. Benford & Snow (2000) explain that "this refers to the apparent fit between the framings and events in the world" (p. 620). If potential recruits to a movement do not see the frame and the real world lining up, then the social movement is less likely to be seen as credible. The frame should in some way explain the world around them and provide for potential solutions. The third way frames can be resonant is if the people expressing the frame are seen as credible. This often leads to a division of labor in movements where movement participants who are seen as more credible in the eyes of the press or public are given roles as spokespeople while others take on the role of those who break the law and commit civil disobedience. This aspect of credibility is especially important as it is related to the press. This can be seen in anti-war movements, which will often have soldiers and family members of soldiers as spokespeople in order to create a higher degree of credibility in the public's mind.

Salience also affects frame resonance. Salience also includes three major factors: centrality, experiential commensurability, and narrative fidelity. Centrality refers to the importance of certain beliefs in people's lives. Thus if an issue being framed is seen as important in someone's life the frame is said to have centrality. Experiential commensurability refers to the way in which a frame fits with a person's lived experience. If the way an issue is framed matches with people's experiences the frame is said to be more credible. Finally, narrative fidelity refers to whether or not frames conform to broad cultural narratives or cultural ideologies. If a frame fits nicely with a shared cultural narrative has a higher degree of narrative fidelity.

Frame Development

Frames, of course do not just happen, they are created through processes. The three processes identified in which frames are created are:

• Discursive processes,
• Strategic processes, and
• Contested processes.

Discursive processes are the processes related to communication and include frame amplification and frame articulation; the ways events and experiences are organized, discussed and sold together in a simplified conceptual package. First, a frame is simplified (articulated) and then it is highlighted (amplified). This makes the frame an easy point of reference for the public and for journalists. Strategic processes are the processes that are "developed and deployed to achieve a specific purpose" (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 624). Contested processes are the arena in which frames are contested and reconstituted.

Competition between frames is known as framing contests and counterframing. Counterframing and framing contests occur when groups try to frame a specific situation in order to discredit opponents. Micili discusses the framing contests between gay/lesbian/bisexual rights groups and the Christian right in the United States. She notes that each group attempted to control the debate with its preferred frame. These frames, Micili explains, appealed more to each group's base than the wider public and therefore were not as successful at creating widespread support for either group. Frame contests and counterframing activity can often lead to the development of new frames, which take into consideration the changing dynamics.

Framing Opportunities & Constraints

Framing is not a static or fixed process. Social movement framing must take into consideration the environment in which it operates. Collective action frames can be constrained or helped by the political and social structures within which they exist. Further, social movement framing can alter both opportunities and constraints. Indeed, as Gamson & Meyer (1996) point out, "if movement activists interpret political space in ways that emphasize opportunity rather than constraint, they may stimulate actions that change opportunity, making their opportunity frame a self fulfilling prophecy" (p. 287). The widespread movement mobilization of the 1960s is often described as a situation in which social movements interpreted a political opportunity that was created from earlier movement mobilizations such as the civil rights movement. As more movements interpreted the opening of new space for political action more space was opened for even more movement mobilizations.

Discussion

Social movement framing theory followed the creation of resource mobilization theory and political process theories. Both of these theories emphasized rational choice with regards to social movement activists and SMOs. They both also emphasized the broad political structures that promoted social movement growth. Framing theory brought the social constructivist analysis to social movement theories. It emphasizes that realities are not fixed, but are interoperated. It also attempts to bridge the divide between agency and structure; meaning that it includes both the acknowledgment that people are active and empowered agents in their lives, but that they also exist within a social and political system that shapes their reality.

One criticism of framing theory is that the construction of meaning is highly personal and can never be fully understood at an individual level. As pointed out by Goffman, every person brings a unique and distinct set of values and beliefs into every social interaction. Thus, attempting to understand how people understand the meanings that social movements construct is fruitless because everybody interprets them differently.

Further, Hart points out that not all social movement adherents buy into the preferred collective action frames. In a study of the John Birch Society (JBS), he found that although the JBS was a conspiratorial, far right, anti-communist organization not all of the activists espoused the same beliefs. He discovered that while many of the activists generally agreed with the organization, many joined instead because there were no good alternatives for those who wanted to act on their own belief system. So, rather than having a widely appealing collective action frame they instead had a widely appealing model for action.

Conclusion

Social movement framing theory is a useful analytical tool. Sociologists can more easily understand how and why movements coalesce and mobilize by applying framing theory. Framing theory not only informs sociologists about the nature of movements, but it also helps to illuminate processes of popular consensus and popular support for different ideas and policies. Successful social movements often illustrate, shape and take advantage of popular sentiments. For example, the widespread mobilizations which took place in the 1960s were illustrative of the desire for rights and empowerment.

Social movement framing theory is also beneficial for movement activists. The better movement activists understand how to use the process of framing and how the construction of collective action frames works, the more empowered and successful they will be. Movement activists well versed in framing theory will understand the need for frames which diagnose problems, inform solutions and activate people.

Terms & Concepts

Collective Action: Action that is undertaken by groups of individuals acting together for some (usually political) goal.

Collective Action Frames: Collective action frames define a situation as problematic and give people a sense that a problem is something that can be overcome through concerted efforts therefore leading to collective action.

Constituencies: A group of people who share a set of goals, values, and/or ideologies.

Contentious Politics: The use of confrontational, disruptive or violent tactics to achieve desired political goals.

Diagnostic Framing: The part of a collective action frame that refers to the identification of a problem.

Framing Contests: A contest between two opposing groups and/or organizations with different preferred meanings of a subject and/or event.

Motivational Framing: The part of a collective action frame that creates a reason for people to get involved in a social movement mobilization.

Prognostic Framing: The part of a collective action frame that refers to the proposed solution of a problem.

Social Movement Organizations (SMOs): A social movement organization is a formal group that functions as part of a broader social movement and that often provides the resources for the broader social movement.

Bibliography

Benford, R. (1993). "You could be the hundredth monkey": Collective action frames and vocabularies of motive within the nuclear disarmament movement. Sociological Quarterly, 34, 195-216. Retrieved November 29, 2009 from JSTOR

Benford, R., & Snow, D. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611. Retrieved November 29, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete.

De la Porta, D. & Diani, M. (2006). Social movements: An introduction (2ndEd). Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Gamson, W. A. (1995). Constructing social protest. In Johnson, H. & B. Klandermans, ed., Social Movements and Culture 85-106. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Gamson, W. A., & Meyer, D. S. (1996). Framing political opportunity. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, M. N. Zald, eds., Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings, 275-90. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Garner, R., & Zald, M.N. (2012). Now we are almost fifty! Reflections on a theory of the transformation of social movement organizations. Social Forces, 91, 3–11. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper Colophon.

Hart, R. (2008). Practicing Birchism: The assumption and limits of idiocultural coherence in framing theory. Social Movement Studies, 7, 121-147. Retrieved November 29, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete.

Hopper, R. D. (1950). The revolutionary process: A frame of reference for the study of revolutionary movements. Social Forces, 28, 270-280. Retrieved May 22, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Jenness, V. (1995) Social movement growth, domain expansion, and framing processes: The Gay/Lesbian Movement and violence against gays and lesbians as a social problem. Social Problems, 42, 145-170. Retrieved November 29, 2009 from

Longard, S. (2013). The reflexivity of individual and group identity within identity-based movements: A case study. Humanity & Society, 37, 55–79. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Miceli, M. (2005). Morality politics vs. identity politics: Framing processes and competition among Christian right and gay social movement organizations. Sociological Forum, 20 , 589-612. Retrieved November 29, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Shawki, N. (2013). Understanding the transnational diffusion of social movements: An analysis of the U.S. solidarity economy network and transition US. Humanity & Society, 37, 131–158. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Tilly, C. (2004). Social Movements 1768-2004. Boulder: Paradigm.

University of Edinburgh. (2022, Jan. 7). Media framing and how it can shift the narrative. www.business-school.ed.ac.uk/research/blog/media-framing-and-how-it-shifts-the-narrative

Suggested Reading

Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press

Langman, L. (2013). Occupy: A new new social movement. Current Sociology, 61, 510–524. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.

Noonan, R. (1995). Women against the state: Political opportunities and collective action frames in Chile's transition to democracy. Sociological Forum, 10, 81-111. Retrieved November 29, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Sandberg, S. (2006). Fighting neo-liberalism with neo-liberal discourse: ATTAC Norway, Foucault and collective action framing. Social Movement Studies, 5, 209-227. Retrieved November 29, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete.

Snow, D., Rochford Jr., E., Worden, S., & Benford, R. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464-481. Retrieved November 29, 2009 from EBSCO online Database Academic Search Complete

Snow, D.A., Tan, A.E., & Owens, P.B. (2013). Social movements, framing processes, and cultural revitalization and fabrication. Mobilization, 18, 225–242. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text.