Framing (sociology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
It has been suggested that Framing (communication theory), Framing (psychology), Political frame, Loaded language and Frame analysis be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page or replace this tag with a more specific message.
This article has been tagged since April 2007.

In media studies, sociology and psychology, framing, also known as loaded language is a process of selective control over the individual's perception the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Framing defines how an element of rhetoric is packaged so as to allow certain interpretations and rule out others. Media frames can be created by the mass media or by specific political or social movements or organizations.

Contents

[edit] History

The concept is generally attributed to the work of Erving Goffman, especially his 1974 book, Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. The concept of framing is taken from Erving Goffman (1974, p. 21) to label "schemata of interpretation" that allows individuals or groups "to locate, perceive, identify, and label" events and occurrences, thus rendering meaning, organizing experiences, and guiding actions. Goffman's framing concept evolves out of his 1959 work, Presentation of Self, a commentary on impression management. It could be argued that these works evolve out of Kenneth Boulding's concept of image (Boulding, 1956). George Lakoff, in teaching his Cognitive Science 101 course at the University of California, Berkeley gives his students a directive: "Do not think of an elephant!"[1] According to Lakoff, it is impossible not to think of an elephant as the mere mention of the word "elephant" provokes an image and an accompanying frame.

[edit] Description

Framing is the process of selectively using frames to invoke a particular image or idea. This idea is often associated with a pre-conceived cultural metaphor. Lakoff suggests, for example, that political terms such as "tax relief" are successful framing devices because the frame relates to the cultural metaphor of something positive. One who brings about pain or distress is an afflicter, someone bad. One who relieves pain or distress is a hero. Lakoff notes the salience of this concept in affecting those who hear the frame:

"Taxes are an affliction, proponents of taxes are the causes of affliction (the villains), the taxpayer is the afflicted (the victim) and the proponents of tax relief are the heroes who deserve the taxpayers' gratitude. Those who oppose tax relief are bad guys who want to keep relief from the victim of the affliction, the taxpayer. Every time the phrase tax relief is used, and heard or read by millions of people, this view of taxation as an affliction and conservatives as heroes gets reinforced."[2]

The consequences of framing are extremely widespread. From a political perspective, if one considers the importance of agenda setting, for example, it becomes clear that the concepts of framing and agenda setting are linked. By constantly invoking a particular frame, the framing party is able to effectively control the discourse, thus often setting the agenda. Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber in Trust Us, We're Experts illustrate how Public Relations (PR) firms often use language to help frame a given issue, structuring the questions that are then subsequently asked. For example, one firm advises clients to use "bridging language" that uses a strategy of answering questions with specific terms or ideas in order to shift the discourse from an uncomfortable topic, to a more comfortable one.[3] Practitioners of this strategy might attempt to draw attention away from one frame in order to focus on another. As Lakoff notes, "On the day that George W. Bush took office, the words "tax relief" started appearing in White House communiqués."[4] By refocusing the structure away from one frame (tax burden or tax responsibilities), individuals are able to set the agenda of the questions to be asked in future.

Marvin Minsky sees frames as a core mechanism in the human brain, and advocates its use in AI. See: http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Frames/frames.html

[edit] As used by linguists

In politics, linguists point to an example of framing in the phrase "tax relief"; the use of the word "relief" implies a notion that the prevailing level of taxes put strain on the citizen, and casts those who oppose it as insensitive to taxpayers; similarly, when tax reductions are framed as "giveaways to the rich," this casts those who support reduced taxation in a bad light.

Terms which frame debate seek to limit the possibilities of discourse by setting the vocabulary and metaphors by which an issue can be discussed. In this view, framing cannot be avoided—it is an inherent part not just of political discourse, but of literally all cognition, both conscious and unconscious—but the effort should be made to do it consciously.

According to Klandermans, a sociologist, the "social construction of collective action frames," involves "public discourse, that is, the interface of media discourse and interpersonal interaction; persuasive communication during mobilization campaigns by movement organizations, their opponents and countermovement organizations; and consciousness raising during episodes of collective action." (1997: p. 45)

Cultural anthropologist Jeffrey Feldman, writing about framing and politics in his Framing the Debate suggests that frames are cognitive, cultural and historical. Feldman demonstrates that for framing to be effective as strategic politics, it must be rooted in rhetorical tradition. Feldman makes his case by drawing on historic speeches (e.g., Presidential addresses) to understand and define contemporary debate challenges.

[edit] Other possible examples

  • The word "progressive" to describe left-wing politics. The word "progressive" implies an improvement, or a step forward, and therefore suggests that right-wing politics are a regression or a step back. The use of the word progressive is sometimes used as a substitute for the word liberal (which itself was effectively framed by various opponents into a negative word, and is now being reclaimed as an honorable appellation).
  • Phrases such as "Pro-Life" (which implies its opponents are "anti-life" or "pro-death"), "Pro-Choice" (which implies its opponents are "anti-choice" or "pro-compulsion"), and "anti-immigrant" (which implies the people this term is applied to are against individual immigrants as opposed to being against immigration or illegal immigrants.).
  • Program names which may only describe the intended effects of a program but can also imply their effectiveness. These include "Foreign Aid" (which implies that the result will be to aid, rather than harm foreigners), "Social Security" (which implies that the program can be relied on to provide security for a society), "Stabilisation policy" (which implies that the effects of a policy will be stabilizing).
  • Recent popularization of the term "escalation" to describe an increase in troop levels in Iraq. This implies that the United States is deliberately increasing the scope of conflict in a provocative manner.

[edit] Political frames

A political frame is a word or idea that brings to mind other words or ideas within a specific paradigm. It refers to the way a word or phrase is packaged for mass consumption, but in a political context. For example, in the United States at least, usually the words "abortion" and "terrorism" bring to mind conservative policies while "the environment" and "corporation" bring to mind progressive policies.

Frames are generally thought to be symbolic of something greater than the image or word itself. However, it shouldn't be thought that the Statue of Liberty or the American flag are frames, because they are sponsored by both the progressive and conservative viewpoints and don't necessarily bring to mind any policy or politics.

It's debatable whether the use of frames was actually "invented" or was simply a natural way of talking about politics in the contemporary era. According to the main contributor to the theory of the use of political frames in American Politics, George Lakoff, conservative politicos developed frames before progressives did.

Before George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist from Southern California, wrote his book, "Don't Think of an Elephant", the phrase "political frame" had no meaning, but was an active tool in conservative politics.

[edit] Conservative Frames

Conservative frames tend to be linked to what Lakoff referred to as the "structuring parent" model. People are bad, and need to be structured vigorously to become good. The ones who are good get rewards and the ones that are bad get punishment. It does not condone the nurturing mindset and views it as weak, and, subsequently, views dominating personalities favorably. The conservative frame tends to be centered on white, male, Christian, etc., values.

[edit] Examples

  • Abortion - It is argued that conservatives are anti-abortion mainly to punish people who have sex before marriage. This has evidence, but it can never be proven.
  • Civil Union / Gay Union - This term is encouraged by conservatives instead of gay marriage because putting gay and marriage together make the concept more reasonable.
  • the Constitutional Option - This term was created to replace the phrase the Nuclear Option which refers to the destruction of the filibuster option by the minority party in the Senate.
  • Flip-Flopper - Used mainly against John Kerry in the 2004 election. It was shown that even voters in remote areas referred to Kerry as a "flip-flopper" first before any other attribute, without many people being able to give examples.
  • Intellectual Diversity - This term refers to a response to what conservatives see as a lack of conservative teachers at universities.
  • Terrorism - Used for many years after 9/11/01 by Bush and various Republicans, it was the third most viable issue in the 2004 election according to CNN exit polls.

[edit] Progressive Frames

Progressive frames tend to be linked to what Lakoff termed the "nurturing parent" model. People are neutral or good, and need to be led to become better. The ones that are good should help the ones that are bad, and punishment is left for very extreme cases or is left out entirely. The progressive frame doesn't tend toward any demographic.

[edit] Powerful frames that either side could use

Uncle Sam
Uncle Sam
  • the American flag, the Statue of Liberty, and other national symbols - Used by both parties. However, there's no evidence at all that voters notice or are more likely to vote for someone who uses those symbols more.
  • careers instead of jobs - (Frank Luntz) "Careers" bring to mind satisfying, life-long employment, whereas a "job" seems more temporary.

[edit] Frame analysis

Framing theory and frame analysis is a broad theoretical approach that has been used in communication studies, news (Johnson-Cartee, 1995), politics, and social movements among other applications. "Framing is the process by which a communication source, such as a news organization, defines and constructs a political issue or public controversy" (Nelson, Oxley, & Clawson, 1997, p. 221).

[edit] Frame analysis for social movements

Framing has been utilized to explain the process of social movements (Snow & Benford, 1988). Movements are carriers of beliefs and ideologies. In addition, they are part of the process of constructing meaning for participants and opposers (Snow & Benford, 1988). Mass movements are said to be successful when the frames projected align with the frames of participants to produce resonance between the two parties. This is a process known as frame alignment.

[edit] Frame alignment - a process to explain social movement theory

Snow and Benford (1988) say that frame alignment is an important element in social mobilization or movement. They argue that when individual frames become linked in congruency and complementariness, that "frame alignment" occurs (p. 198; Snow et al. 1986, p. 464), producing "frame resonance", which is key to the process of a group transitioning from one frame to another (although not all framing efforts are successful). The conditions that affect or constrain framing efforts are:

  • "The robustness, completeness, and thoroughness of the framing effort". Snow and Benford (1988) identify three core framing tasks and the degree to which these tasks are attended to will determine participant mobilization. The three tasks are: a) diagnostic framing for the identification of a problem and assignment of blame, b) prognostic framing to suggest solutions, strategies, and tactics to a problem, and c) motivational framing that serves as a call to arms or rationale for action.
  • The relationship between the proposed frame and the larger belief system; centrality – the frame cannot be of low hierarchical significance and salience within the larger belief system. Its range and interrelatedness – if the frame is linked to only one core belief or value that, in itself, is of limited range within the larger belief system, the frame has a high degree of being discounted.
  • Relevance of the frame to the realities of the participants; a frame must be relevant to participants and inform them. Relevancy can be constrained by it empirical credibility or testability, it relates to participant experience, and has narrative fidelity, that is, it fits in with existing cultural myths and narrations.
  • Cycles of protest (Tarrow 1983a; 1983b); the point at which the frame emerges on the timeline of the current era and existing preoccupations with social change. Framing efforts may be affected by previous frames.

Snow and Benford (1988) propose that once proper frames are constructed as described above, large-scale changes in society such as those necessary for social movement can be achieved through frame alignment.

[edit] Four types of frame alignment

There are four types which include frame bridging, frame amplification, frame extension and frame transformation.

Frame bridging is the "linkage of two or more ideologically congruent but structurally unconnected frames regarding a particular issue or problem" (Snow et al., 1986, p. 467). It involves the linkage of a movement to "unmobilized [sic] sentiment pools or public opinion preference clusters" (p. 467) of people who share similar views or grievances but who lack an organizational base.

Frame amplification refers to "the clarification and invigoration of an interpretive frame that bears on a particular issue, problem, or set of events" (Snow et al., 1986, p. 469). This interpretive frame usually involves the invigorating of values or beliefs.

Frame extensions are a movement's effort to incorporate participants by extending the boundaries of the proposed frame to include or encompass the views, interests, or sentiments of targeted groups.

Frame transformation is a process required when the proposed frames "may not resonate with, and on occasion may even appear antithetical to, conventional lifestyles or rituals and extant interpretive frames" (Snow et al., 1986, p. 473). When this happens, new values, new meanings and understandings are required in order to secure participants and support. Goffman (1974, p. 43-44) calls this "keying" where "activities, events, and biographies that are already meaningful from the standpoint of some primary framework, in terms of another framework" (Snow et al., 1986, p. 474) such that they are seen differently. There are two types of frame transformation:

  1. Domain-specific transformations such as the attempt to alter the status of groups of people, and
  2. Global interpretive frame transformation where the scope of change is quite radical as in a change of world views, total conversions of thought, or uprooting of all that is familiar (e.g. moving from communism to democracy; religious conversion, etc.).

[edit] References

This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time. This article has been tagged since April 2007.

    [edit] See also

    [edit] External links

    • Curry, Tom. 2005. "Frist chills talk of judges deal (Page 2)." The question in the poll was not framed as a matter of whether nominee ought to get an up-or-down vote. And that framing of the issue, Republican strategists believe, is the most advantageous one... MSNBC.com.

    [edit] Progressive Framework Institutes

    [edit] Conservative Framework Institutes

    [edit] Further reading

    • Baars, B. (1988), A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Carruthers, P. (2003), On Fodor's Problem, Mind and Language, vol. 18(5), pp. 502-523.
    • Clark, A. (1997), Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Dennett, D. (1978), Brainstorms, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Fodor, J.A. (1983), The Modularity of Mind, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Fodor, J.A. (1987), “Modules, Frames, Fridgeons, Sleeping Dogs, and the Music of the Spheres”, in Pylyshyn (1987).
    • Fodor, J.A. (2000), The Mind Doesn't Work That Way, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Ford, K.M. & Hayes, P.J. (eds.) (1991), Reasoning Agents in a Dynamic World: The Frame Problem, New York: JAI Press.
    • Goodman, N. (1954), Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    • Hanks, S. & McDermott, D. (1987), “Nonmonotonic Logic and Temporal Projection”, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33(3), pp. 379-412.
    • Haselager, W.F.G. (1997). Cognitive science and folk psychology: the right frame of mind. London: Sage
    • Haselager, W.F.G. & Van Rappard, J.F.H. (1998), “Connectionism, Systematicity, and the Frame Problem”, Minds and Machines, vol. 8(2), pp. 161-179.
    • Hayes, P.J. (1991), “Artificial Intelligence Meets David Hume: A Reply to Fetzer”, in Ford & Hayes (1991).
    • Heal, J. (1996), “Simulation, Theory, and Content”, in Theories of Theories of Mind, eds. P. Carruthers & P. Smith, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 75-89.
    • Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980), Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • McCarthy, J. (1986), “Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge”, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 26(3), pp. 89-116.
    • McCarthy, J. & Hayes, P.J. (1969), “Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence”, in Machine Intelligence 4, ed. D.Michie and B.Meltzer, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 463-502.
    • McDermott, D. (1987), “We've Been Framed: Or Why AI Is Innocent of the Frame Problem”, in Pylyshyn (1987).
    • Mithen, S. (1987), The Prehistory of the Mind, London: Thames & Hudson.
    • Pylyshyn, Z.W. (ed.) (1987), The Robot's Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    • Russell, S. & Wefald, E. (1991), Do the Right Thing: Studies in Limited Rationality, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Shanahan, M.P. (1997), Solving the Frame Problem: A Mathematical Investigation of the Common Sense Law of Inertia, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Shanahan, M.P. (2003), “The Frame Problem”, in The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, ed. L.Nadel, Macmillan, pp. 144-150.
    • Simon, H. (1957), Models of Man, New York: John Wiley.
    • Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1996), “Fodor's Frame Problem and Relevance Theory”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 19(3), pp. 530-532.
    • Wilkerson, W.S. (2001), “Simulation, Theory, and the Frame Problem”, Philosophical Psychology, vol. 14(2), pp. 141-153.
    • Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row.
    • Fairhurst, Gail T. and Sarr, Robert A. 1996. The Art of Framing: Managing the Language of Leadership. USA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
    • Klandermans, Bert. 1997. The Social Psychology of Protest. Oxford: Blackwell.
    • Cutting, Hunter and Makani Themba Nixon. 2003. Talking the Walk: A Communications Guide for Racial Justice." San Francisco: We Interrupt This Message:
    • Feldman, Jeffrey. 2007. Framing the Debate: Famous Presidential Speeches and How Progressives Can Use Them to Control the Conversation (and Win Elections). Brooklyn, NY: Ig Publishing.
    • Scheufele, Dietram A. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122.
    • Willard,Charles Arthur Liberalism and the Social Grounds of Knowledge Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
    • Boulding, Kenneth E. (1956). The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society. Michigan University Press.
    • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    • Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
    • Johnson-Cartee, K. (2005). News narrative and news framing: Constructing political reality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
    • Diana Kendall, Sociology In Our Times, Thomson Wadsworth, 2005, ISBN 0-534-64629-8 Google Print, p.531
    • Leites, N. & Wolf, C., Jr. (1970). Rebellion and authority. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.
    • McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., & Zald, M. (1996). Introduction: Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Framing Processes—Toward a Synthetic, Comparative Perspective on Social Movements. In D. McAdam, J. McCarthy & M. Zald (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements; Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings (pp. 1-20). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221-246.
    • Pan. Z. & Kosicki, G. M. (2001). Framing as a strategic action in public deliberation. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, (pp. 35-66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    • Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197-217.
    • Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464-481.
    • Tarrow, S. (1983a). Struggling to Reform: social Movements and policy change during cycles of protest. Western Societies Paper No. 15. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
    • Tarrow, S. (1983b). Resource mobilization and cycles of protest: Theoretical reflections and comparative illustrations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Detroit, August 31-September 4.
    • Tilly, C., Tilly, L., & Tilly, R. (1975). The rebellious century, 1830-1930. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
    • Turner, R. H., & Killian, L. M. (1972). Collective Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    [edit] Footnotes

    1. ^  "Framing the Dems: How conservatives control political debate and how progressives can take it back." The American Prospect. Volume 14, Issue 8, September 2003. http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/8/lakoff-g.html
    2. ^  Ibid.
    3. ^  Rampton, Sheldon and Stauber, John. Trust Us, We're Experts! Putnam Publishing, New York, NY, 2002. Page 64.
    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/a/Framing_%28sociology%29.html"