Presentation groups

Remember: topic to me at least by Week 4

Recall overview from Tarrow (2011)

The ‘cultural turn’ and new social movements

• origins: Gramscian concentration on internal life of movements, values and meaning-making; otherwise the central contribution of ‘new social movements’ is missed

The ‘cultural turn’ and new social movements

• origins: Gramscian concentration on internal life of movements, values and meaning-making; otherwise the central contribution of ‘new social movements’ is missed

Framing - definition and origins

• broadly, framing refers to the meanings individuals or groups attach to events, developments, activities, and other individuals/groups.
  • previously, this had also been covered by referring to ideology

• origins of ‘framing’: Erving Goffman’s Frame Analysis (1974)
  • frames link objective conditions to subjective perceptions
• Benford and Snow (1986) connect this concept to social movements
  • how do collective actors collectively determine what’s going on here — and once they make that determination, how do they try to convince others?

Framing - why?

• Is there a problem?

• Can it be fixed?

• How can it be fixed?

• What must be done?

• Frames provide answers to these questions—they are essential to movement activity

Framing - why?

• Is there a problem?

• Can it be fixed?

• How can it be fixed?

• What must be done?

• Frames provide answers to these questions—they are essential to movement activity

• types of frames:

  • diagnostic: what’s the problem and who’s to blame
  • prognostic: how can the problem be solved
  • motivational: why should we go solve this problem

Framing - an example

• types of frames: diagnostic: what’s the problem and who’s to blame; prognostic: how can the problem be solved; motivational: why should we go solve this problem

deaths from drunk driving

• previously, ‘just’ sad, but bound to happen, like other accidents

Injustice frames (Gamson, 2013)

• When impersonal, abstract forces are perceived as responsible for problems/wrongs/suffering, people tend to accept, tolerate, and cope

Further types of frames

• Master frame: an overarching frame that smaller/sub-issue frames fit into
  • e.g., the ‘Great Replacement’
    • can accommodate subordinate frames about welfare provision, ethno-cultural identity, maintaining liberal democracy, religious heritage and/or freedom, etc.

Further types of frames

• Counter frame: a frame created to oppose another group’s frame (cf. Mayer 1995; Meyer and Staggenborg 1996, 2008)
  • e.g., abortion contention in the U.S.:
    • one side: ‘pro-choice’, freedom to choose to abort or not
    • other side: ’where is the baby’s choice? (rights of unborn)

Further types of frames

• Counter frame: a frame created to oppose another group’s frame (cf. Mayer 1995; Meyer and Staggenborg 1996, 2008)
  • e.g., abortion contention in the U.S.:
    • one side: ‘pro-choice’, freedom to choose to abort or not
    • other side: ’where is the baby’s choice? (rights of unborn)
    • one side: women’s right
    • other side: regret of women who have aborted

Framing contest (Alex Wong, Getty Images)

other examples?

Frame alignment (Benford and Snow 2000)

• frame bridging - linking of two or more ideologically congruent but structurally unconnected frames regarding a particular issue or problem
  • e.g., German activists against World Bank and IMF, linking their frames to those of peace, ecosystem, women’s, localism, and labour movements
• frame amplification - idealization, embellishment, clarification, or invigoration of existing values or beliefs
  • e.g., white supremacists stressing ‘white pride’ or preserving white race (e.g., 14 words)

Frame alignment (Benford and Snow 2000)

• frame extension - depicting an SMO’s interests and frame(s) as extending beyond its primary interests to include issues and concerns that are presumed to be of importance to potential adherents
  • e.g., peace movement: money spent on military could be used for education, infrastructure, social programmes, etc. — so groups that want more funding are potential recruits
• frame transformation - changing old understandings and meanings and/or generating new ones
  • e.g., drunk driving example: accident → moral failing

Frame resonance (Benford and Snow 2000)

resonance - degree to which a movement’s framing aligns with beliefs, values, experiences of consituents/audience/public

• Credibility:
  • consistency - congruency of SMO’s beliefs, claims, and actions
    • e.g., do Klima-Kleber actions align with claims?
  • empirical credibility - can claims be verified
    • e.g., climate change: complex, but measurable and traceable
  • credibility of claim-maker - are the movement actors (esp. leaders) seen as reliable, knowledgeable, respectable
    • e.g., we should listen to Einstein and Sakharov about nuclear disarmament because they understand how the bombs work

Frame resonance (Benford and Snow 2000)

resonance - degree to which a movement’s framing aligns with beliefs, values, experiences of consituents/audience/public

• Salience:
  • centrality - does it matter to potential members/participants?
  • experiential commensurability - does it fit with the experience of potential members/participants?
  • narrative fidelity - does it accord with wider cultural narratives/traditions?

Further on framing… interview with William Gamson:

Introducing concept of civil society

• civil society: organised (non-state, non-market) societal activity
  • composed of voluntary association based on shared interests
  • fuzzy conceptual boundaries
  • Bolleyer: voluntary members, non-profit, private, self-governing, formalised infrastructure
• Alexis de Tocqueville: free association essential for democracy

Civil society and democracy

• organisational participation (contributing to democratic citizenry)
• interest representation (similar function to parties)
• societal responsiveness (alternative mechanism of political input)

Civil society and democracy

• organisational participation (contributing to democratic citizenry)
• interest representation (similar function to parties)
• societal responsiveness (alternative mechanism of political input)

democratic culture

Movements/Civil society and Democracy

goodCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("good")
  .groupby("good")
  .count()
  .derive({ measure: d => "" })

// Calculate the maximum count from your dataset
good_maxCountRE = Math.max(...goodCounts.objects().map(d => d.count));

plot_good = Plot.plot({
  marks: [
    Plot.barY(goodCounts, {
      x: "good",
      y: "count",
      fill: "good",
      stroke: "black",
      strokeWidth: 1
    }),
    Plot.ruleY([respondentCount], { stroke: "#ffffff99" })
  ],
  color: {
    domain: [
      "Strongly disagree",
      "Disagree",
      "Neutral",
      "Agree",
      "Strongly agree"
    ],
    range: [
      "red",
      "pink",
      "lightgrey",
      "lightgreen",
      "forestgreen"
    ]
  },
  marginBottom: 180,
  x: { label: "", tickSize: 2, tickRotate: -45,
    domain: ["Strongly disagree", "Disagree", "Neutral", "Agree", "Strongly agree"]
  },  
  y: {
    label: "",
    tickSize: 10,
    tickFormat: d => d,
    tickValues: Array.from(
      new Set(goodCounts.objects().map(d => d.count))
    ).sort((a, b) => a - b),
    domain: [0, good_maxCountRE]
  },
  facet: { data: goodCounts, x: "measure", label: "" },
  marginLeft: 140,
  style: {
    width: 1350,
    height: 500,
    fontSize: 30,
  }
});

beneficialCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("beneficial")
  .groupby("beneficial")
  .count()
  .derive({ measure: d => "" })

// Calculate the maximum count from your dataset
beneficial_maxCountRE = Math.max(...beneficialCounts.objects().map(d => d.count));

plot_beneficial = Plot.plot({
  marks: [
    Plot.barY(beneficialCounts, {
      x: "beneficial",
      y: "count",
      fill: "beneficial",
      stroke: "black",
      strokeWidth: 1
    }),
    Plot.ruleY([respondentCount], { stroke: "#ffffff99" })
  ],
  color: {
    domain: [
      "Strongly disagree",
      "Disagree",
      "Neutral",
      "Agree",
      "Strongly agree"
    ],
    range: [
      "red",
      "pink",
      "lightgrey",
      "lightgreen",
      "forestgreen"
    ]
  },
  marginBottom: 180,
  x: { label: "", tickSize: 2, tickRotate: -45,
    domain: ["Strongly disagree", "Disagree", "Neutral", "Agree", "Strongly agree"]
  },  
  y: {
    label: "",
    tickSize: 10,
    tickFormat: d => d,
    tickValues: Array.from(
      new Set(beneficialCounts.objects().map(d => d.count))
    ).sort((a, b) => a - b),
    domain: [0, beneficial_maxCountRE]
  },
  facet: { data: beneficialCounts, x: "measure", label: "" },
  marginLeft: 140,
  style: {
    width: 1350,
    height: 500,
    fontSize: 30,
  }
});

Berman (1997) - Civil society in Weimar - theory

• Tocqueville
  • neo-Tocquevillian scholars: Putnam’s focus on community and social capital (e.g., Bowling Alone)
    • associationism both indicator of healthy democracy and prerequisite for it
• W. Kornhauser, H. Arendt: ‘mass society’ (collapse of intermediate associations)
  • industrialisation and modernity estranged citizens from each other — lack of belonging

Theory puzzle

• neo-Tocquevillean theories:
  • high levels of associationism = good for democracy
• Huntingtonian institutionalist theories:
  • without high political institutionalisation, active and mobilised citizenry degenerates into instability, disorder, and even violence

Contextual background - Wilhelmine Germany

• various spurts of associational growth in 19th and early 20th century
  • legal liberalisation, expanding wealth (rise of bourgeoisie), universal suffrage granted — BUT…
  • failure of liberal political parties to aggregate interests and bolster institutional politics
  • economic deprivation
    • trend of associations emerging in response to strain
    • nationalist/anti-democratic actors targeted dissatisfied for recruitment

Casing

• influential/crucial case (Gerring 2007)
  • Weimar as ‘crucial theoretical testing ground’
  • (Wilhelmine) Germany as comparable to U.S. for high level of associationalism (Vereinsmeierei)

Civil society in Weimar

Civil society in Weimar

Without the opportunity to exploit Weimar’s rich associational network, in short, the Nazis would not have been able to capture important sectors of the German electorate so quickly and efficiently. (p421-422)

Civil society in Weimar

What occurred in Germany was no less than an inversion of neo-Tocquevillean theory; not only did participation in civil society organizations fail to contribute to republican virtue, but it in fact subverted it. … Private associations were correctly seen to offer benefits that the traditional bourgeois parties were failing to provide, such as a sense of community and unity. (p417)

(cf. Allen 1984)

• what do you know about associational activity in the Weimar era?

Findings

• “It was weak political institutionalization rather than a weak civil society that was Germany’s main problem…”
• NSDAP rise: not through attracting apolitical Germans—instead, attracting highly active individuals ↓
  • expand party’s appeal and consolidate position

Civil society activity alone, in short, could not overcome the country’s social divisions or provide the political cohesion that would have been necessary to weather the crises which beset Germany beginning in 1914. For this, strong and flexible political institutions, particularly political parties, were necessary.

Findings

• “It was weak political institutionalization rather than a weak civil society that was Germany’s main problem…”
• NSDAP rise: not through attracting apolitical Germans—instead, attracting highly active individuals ↓
  • expand party’s appeal and consolidate position

Civil society activity alone, in short, could not overcome the country’s social divisions or provide the political cohesion that would have been necessary to weather the crises which beset Germany beginning in 1914. For this, strong and flexible political institutions, particularly political parties, were necessary.

• Problems/issues?: isolating causal impact; do the findings travel?

Coda: authoritarian vs. democratic contexts

Do framing strategies differ significantly in authoritarian vs. democratic regimes?

auth_demCounts = aq.from(surveyResults)
  .select("auth_dem")
  .groupby("auth_dem")
  .count()
  .derive({ measure: d => "" })

// Calculate the maximum count from your dataset
auth_dem_maxCountRE = Math.max(...auth_demCounts.objects().map(d => d.count));

plot_auth_dem = Plot.plot({
  marks: [
    Plot.barY(auth_demCounts, {
      x: "auth_dem",
      y: "count",
      fill: "auth_dem",
      stroke: "black",
      strokeWidth: 1
    }),
    Plot.ruleY([respondentCount], { stroke: "#ffffff99" })
  ],
  color: {
    domain: [
      "Yes",
      "No",
      "Maybe"
    ],
    range: [
      "forestgreen",
      "darkred",
      "goldenrod"
    ]
  },
  marginBottom: 80,
  x: { label: "", tickSize: 2, tickRotate: -1, padding: 0.2,
    domain: ["Yes", "No", "Maybe"]
  },  
  y: {
    label: "",
    tickSize: 10,
    tickFormat: d => d,
    tickValues: Array.from(
      new Set(auth_demCounts.objects().map(d => d.count))
    ).sort((a, b) => a - b),
    domain: [0, auth_dem_maxCountRE]
  },
  facet: { data: auth_demCounts, x: "measure", label: "" },
  marginLeft: 60,
  style: {
    width: 1600,
    height: 500,
    fontSize: 40,
  },
});