Social Forces, University of North Carolina Press
Frame Disputes within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement Author(s): Robert D. Benford Reviewed work(s): Source: Social Forces, Vol. 71, No. 3 (Mar., 1993), pp. 677-701 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2579890 . Accessed: 14/05/2012 18:10 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
Oxford University Press and Social Forces, University of North Carolina Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.
http://www.jstor.org
Frame Disputes within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement ROBERTD. BENFORD,Universityof Nebraska-Lincoln
Abstract Socialmovementorganizations (SMOs)devoteconsiderable effortto constructing particular versions ofreality,developing andespousingalternativevisions, andattempting toaffectvariousaudiences' suchinterpretive interpretations. Conflicts regarding matters, referred toas 'framedisputes," areubiquitous withinmovements. Usinga multimethod strategy,thisstudyanalyzesthedynamics ofinterorganizationalframe disputeswithinthe nucleardisarmament andideological movement, includingtheirorganizational contexts, conditions conducive totheiremergence, patterns observed, andtheireffects.Three generic andelaborated: diagnostic, prognostic, andframe resonance typesofdisputesareidentified disputes.Of the51 disputesobserved, all but twoinvolvedSMOsfrom twoor more differentmovement factions.Moredisputesoccurredbetweenthe movement'smost thanbetween moderate andradicalfactions Intramural otherfactions. conflictswereboth detrimental andfacilitative movement andits SMOs. of thedisarmament In the most extensivereview to date of social movementliterature,McAdam, McCarthyand Zald (1988)concludethatwe know little about"thedynamicsof collectiveactionpast the emergenceof a movement"(728).Until recently,even less was knownaboutgrievanceinterpretation andcommunicationprocesses,the essence of movementdynamics.Scholarshave begun to addressthis lacunaby attendingto variousmovementinterpretiveprocessesincludingpublicdiscourse (Gamson1988;Gamson & Modigliani1989;Steinberg1989),frame alignment (Benford1987;Snow&Benford1988,1992;Snowet al. 1986),grievanceinterpretationandrealityconstruction(Benford&Hunt1992;Ferree&Miller1985;Gusfield 1981;Klandermans1992;Mauss 1975;Tarrow1992;Turner& Killian1987),and collectiveidentity(Friedman&McAdam1992;Gamson1991;Hunt1991;Hunt& Benford1994;Melucci1980,1985,1988,1989;Pizzomo 1978;Taylor& Whittier 1992).
*Thisis a revisedversionof apaperpresentedattheannualmeetingsoftheMidwestSociological Society,April6-9,1989,in St.Louis.Iamgratefulto ScottA.Hunt,MichelleHughesMiller,David A. Snow, and two anonymousreviewersfortheiradvice and commentson earlierdrafts.Please direct correspondenceto the author at the Departmentof Sociology, University of NebraskaLincoln, 703 OldfatherHall, Lincoln,NE 68588-0324. i) TheUniversityof North CarolinaPress
Social Forces, March1993,71(3):677-701
678 / Social Forces 71:3,March1993 Althoughoften empiricallygrounded,the bulk of these developmentshave been theoretical.Few analyses examine how well these concepts stand up empirically.McAdam,McCarthyand Zald(1988)suggestthat"whatis neededis moresystematic,qualitativefieldworkintothedynamicsof collectiveactionatthe intermediatemeso level . . . thelevel at which most movementactionoccursand of whichwe know the least"(729).Withtheseconsiderationsin mind,this article analyzes empiricallythe negotiatedand often contentiousnatureof grievance constructionand communicationprocesses within the nuclear disarmament movementby focussingon intramovementframedisputes. FrameDisputes Socialmovementsareseldomunifiedaffairs(Zald&McCarthy1980).Numerous organizationstypically comprisea particularmovement.While a movement's variousorganizationssharean overarchinggoal,disagreementsfrequentlyerupt within and among movement organizations regarding specific objectives, strategies,and tactics. What is often at stake in such intramuralconflicts are meanings. Social movement organizationsdevote considerabletime to constructingparticular versions of reality,developingand espousingalternativevisions of thatreality, attempting to affect various audiences' interpretations,and managing the impressionspeople formabouttheirmovement.Consensuswithinand amonga movement'sorganizationsregardingsuchinterpretivemattersis at besttenuous and more often thannot absent. Complicatingthe processfurtheris the factthatmovementparticipantsand potential adherentsare not tabulacrasaeupon which activists may draw any picture of reality they would like. Rather,as Goffinan(1974)suggests, people A frame operateunder the guidanceof framesor "schemataof interpretation." enablesan individual"to locate,perceive,identifyand labela seeminglyinfinite numberof concreteoccurrencesdefined in its terms"(21).It "providesa first answerto the question'Whatis it that'sgoing on here?"'thereby"renderingwhat would otherwise be a meaninglessaspect of the scene into something that is meaningful"(25,21). Framesare crucialto social movementdynamicsbecause they serve to guide individualand collectiveaction. But not all movementparticipantswill necessarilysharethe same frameor interpretationof reality.As Goffmanobserved(1974),it is possiblein anysituation that an appreciableperiodcanelapsewhen thereis no immediatepotentialagreement,when,in fact,thereis no way in theoryto bringeveryoneinvolvedintothesameframe.Underthese circumstancesone canexpectthatthe partieswith opposingversionsof eventsmayopenly disputewith eachotheroverhow to definewhathasbeenoris happening.A framedispute results.(322)
In such cases, "reality"must be negotiated. Similarly, social-movementsactors frequentlyengage in the business of negotiating what is real. Groundedin the literatureon movement ideology construction(Rude1980;Snow &Benford1988;Wilson1973)as well as empirical observations,this articleidentifies and elaboratesthree generaltypes of intra-
MovementFrameDisputes/ 679 movementframedisputes. First,framedisputes erupt within movementsover of the problemthatis interpretationsof reality.At stakehereis a shareddiagnosis the movement'sraisond'etre. Second,intramovementframedisputes derivefrom disparatevisions of an alternatereality. This variety of dispute entails disagreementsconcerningthe movement'sprognosis,how the problematicaspect of realityought to be transformed,including what is to be done to achieve such a state of affairs.Social movementorganizationsseekto resolvediagnosticandprognosticframedisputes in orderto create"anacceptedversionof reality"(urner &Killian1987:232)and therebyachieve"consensusmobilization"(Klandermans1984),the interpretive foundation upon which movement ideology, recruitment,participation,and actionare built (Snow& Benford1988;cf. Wilson1973). Consensusmobilizationentails,amongotherthings,developinga correspondence amongindividualand SMOinterpretiveorientations,what Snow and his colleaguesreferto as "framealignment"(Snowet al. 1986).SMOeffortsto affect frame alignmentare interactiveprocesses involving decisions about the audience(s) to be targetedfor mobilization,imputationsconcerningthe operative andactionsof theaudiences,theselection frameworksguidingtheinterpretations of framingstrategiesfrom a field of alternatives,tailoringframesand framing activitiesto suit targetedaudiences, and readjustingframingeffortsbased on assessmentsof responsesto previousframingactivities. Eachof the foregoingis subjectto differentialinterpretationacrossa movement'sparticipants.Hence, debatesover which framingstrategieswill be most effectiveconstitutea thirdtype of intramovementframedispute.Here the issue is not what is or ought to be real,but ratherhow realityshouldbe presented,that is frameresonance. Which rhetoricalstrategiesare likely to strike a responsive chord and thereby mobilize the greatestnumber of people? Should framing activitythatunderminesideologicalpuritybe allowed?Shouldinterpretivework be tailoredto recruitand activatethosewho have the greatestpotentialpower to effect change?The data collectedfor the presentstudy suggest that reachinga consensuswithin a movementon answersto such questionscan be problematic. This article analyzes all three varieties of intramovementframe disputes, disagreementsover what is, over what ought to be, and over how to representa movement's versions and visions of reality. How prevalent are these disagreements?Whatare the interorganizationaland ideologicalcontextsof such debates?Which types of framingactivityare most likely to lead to intramural disputes?Finally,what impacthaveframedisputeshad on thepeacemovement? Setting and Method for Study FromMay1982throughDecember1983,I collecteddataon twelve organizations that included nucleardisarmamentas one of their primarygoals. Nine of the SMOswere local organizations,while three were local or regionalpeace and justice coalitions. The principal method of data collection was intensive and extensiveparticipantobservation.I participatedin the activities,meetings,and campaignsof five of the local disarmamentgroupsand all threecoalitions.I was acceptedin each SMOas a personconcernedwith the purposesof the organiza-
680 / Social Forces 71:3,March1993 tionsandas a researchergatheringdataabouttheiractivities.Detailedfieldnotes weretakenandrecordedfullywithin24hours.Datafromtheremainingfourlocal weregatheredusingobservationalmethods.1Approximately disarmamentgroups 2,100 hours were spent in the field yielding 961 pages of field notes. Formal intensive interviewswere conductedwith 21 core activistsof the 12 local and regional SMOs. Additionally, 132 rank-and-ile members were interviewed informally during the course of participation.Finally, approximately1,400 documents(memos,newsletters,fliers,pressreleases)were movement-generated collected,coded, and analyzed. AnalyticalConsiderations The very existenceof a social movementindicatesdifferenceswithin a society regardingthe meaning of some aspect of reality.For disarmamentmovement adherents,nuclearweapons representa threatto life, while for the movement opponentsthesameobjectsrepresentsecurityfromanattackby an enemystateor "evilempire."Eachside attemptsto countertheversionof realityespousedby the other.Theensuingpublicdebateconstitutesa framedispute. That,however,is not the type of framedisputeI wish to address.Theframe disputes analyzed herein are those which occur internallyamong movement supporters.Nevertheless,what is at issue fortheactivistsandtheirorganizations is how to win the wider frame dispute and thus emerge victorious over the movement'sopponents.As McAdam,McCarthyandZald(1988)note,"Whatis at stakeis nothingless thanthepopularperceptionof reality"(722).Themovement's chancesof winningthis struggle,though,may dependin parton the outcomesof the intramovementdebatesand conflict. ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXI
Thereare two organizationalcontextswithin which framedisputesoccur.First, a socialmovementorganization.Thisoccurswhen framedisputescanariseuwthin two or membersof an SMOdisagreeaboutthe contentor the formsof framing activitythoughtto servethe group'sor movement'sbestinterests.In some cases, suchdisputesleadto factionalismorschisms.Becauseof membershiprestrictions and a desire to focus on interorganizationalrelations, this article does not elaborateon intra-SMOdisputes. Thisstudy focuseson the secondtype of intramovementframedispute,that which occurs betweentwo or more SMOs.Intramovementdisputes can occur under a variety of interorganizationalcontexts. Frequently,several SMOs undertakejointventuresorpool resourcesin pursuitof commonobjectives.Adhoc or more permanentcoalitions are thereby established.Such cooperationcan enhancea movement'seffectivenessbutmayalso spawnintramovementconflict. Coalitionsareparticularlyconduciveto framedisputesbecausetheyarecomprised of activistsfrom a variety of SMOs,each having its own version of reality,
MovementFrameDisputes/ 681 agenda,and views regardingthe ways in which the movementshould go about the businessof recruitment,activation,and contentionfor power. Inter-SMOconflictemergesfromcontextsotherthancoalitions.Movement organizations,or morepreciselytheirrepresentatives,interactwith one another. Theyexchangeevaluations,information,andotherresources(Benford1984;Zald & McCarthy1980).While such piecemealcollaborationor cooperationis not uncommon,neither is competition.SMOs compete with one anotherfor instrumentalresourcessuchasmoney,constituents,andthirdpartysupport,aswell as for symbolicgoods suchas turf,status,andprestige(Benford&Zurcher1990). Intense competition between groups can lead to intramovementconflict or cooperation(Benford1984).Similarly,wheneverSMOsinteract,thepotentialfor framedisputesexist. FACTIONSWITHIN THEAUSI1NPEACEMOVEMENT
To understandfully the context of frame disputes within the Austin peace movement it is useful to examine the movement'sideological contours.The developmentof factions and schisms within social movementshas been well documentedby scholarsstudyinga varietyof politicalreformmovements(fora summary see Benford1987). A faction is an identifiablesubgroup within a movementthatis opposed to othermovementsubgroups(Zald& Ash 1966;see also Firey1948;Zald &McCarthy1980). Duringtheperiodof thisstudy,threefactionswereevidentwithintheAustin peacemovement:radical,liberal,and moderate.Althoughrepresentativesof the SMOsof a particularfactionrarelyreferredto themselvesby such labels, they frequentlyreferredto otherSMOs,especiallythose thatwere ideologicallyand tacticallydistinctivefromtheirownfaction,by suchnames,typicallyinpejorative terms. At one end of the political spectrumwere the radical SMOs, those that advocated among other things global disarmament.The radical wing of the Austinpeace movementconsistedof the TexasMobilizationforSurvival(Texas Mobe or TM),UniversityMobilizationfor Survival(UniversityMobe or UM), University Peace and Justice Coalition (UPJC),2and the Texas-ArkansasOklahomachapterof the AmericanFriendsService Committee(AFSC-TAO). TheseSMOstendedto espousesimilardiagnosesandprognoses.Fromtheradical perspective,the nuclearthreatwas but a symptomof globalsystemicproblems exacerbatedto a largeextentby the U.S.and its pursuitof hegemonyas well as a manifestationof greedy defense contractors,multinationalcorporations,and unscrupulous politicians. Radical SMOs called for fundamental structural changes, such as a basic redistributionof resources globally, changes they contendedwould make war obsolete. Hence, this radicalwing identifiedand articulated links between various social problems - poverty, oppression, militarization,andenvironmentalmisuse.Finally,theseSMOssupportedtheuse of, and occasionallyemployed,unrulytactics,includingcivil disobedienceand otherformsof nonviolentdirectaction. Moderateswere at the other end of the Austin peace movement'spolitical spectrum.ModerateSMOsincludedPaxChristi-Austin(PC-A),AustinNuclear WeaponsFreezeCampaign(ANWFC),the Universityof Texaschapterof United
682 / Social Forces 71:3,March1993 Campusesto PreventNuclear War (UT-UCAM),Austin Physiciansfor Social Responsibility(APSR),and Austin Professionalsfor NuclearArms Limitations (APNAL).ModerateSMOsconstructedcommondiagnosesandprognosesas well. Theytendedto definethe problemin narrowtermsfocussingonly on thenuclear threat, a problem they attributedprimarily to technological developments. Moderatesarguedfor a reductionin the nuclearthreatthrougha seriesof minor foreignpolicychanges,budgetreductions,andinternationaltreaties.TheseSMOs contendedthat the best way to bring about such reformswas legislativelyby educatingthe electorate,electingpoliticalrepresentativeswho were willing to seekreformsandlobbyingon CapitolHill forspecifictreatiesandtheelimination of particularweapon systems. Moderateseschewed radicaltacticsand unruly appearances. Betweenthesetwo ends of thepeacemovement'spoliticalspectrumwere the liberalSMOs.LiberalgroupsincludedtheMarchCoordinatingCommittee(MCC), Red RiverPeace Network (RRPN),and the Austin Peace and JusticeCoalition (APJC).It is no coincidencethat each were coalitionscomprisedof the movement'sradicalandmoderatewings.Theliberalcoalitionssoughtcommonground betweenthe movement'sextremes,and often mediateddifferencesbetweenthe radicaland moderatefactionsof the Austin peace movement.Likethe radicals, liberalsarguedforstructuralreforms,albeitnot as sweeping,andliketheradicals they linkedvarioussocialissues. However,like the moderates,liberalswere less willing to use stridentrhetoricand confrontationaltacticsthanwere the radicals. Althoughmovementliberalsoccasionallyendorsedtheuse of unrulymeans,they did so with a greatdeal of ambivalence,preferringlegal mechanisms. CODINGFRAMEDISPUTES
Coding frame disputes entailed three stages. The first involved identifying interorganizationalframedisputes.A framedisputewas operationalizedas any occurrencein which representativesof two or moredifferentSMOsvocalizedor indicatedin printdifferencesof opinionregardingone or moreof the following framingissues: (1) the contentof proposedframingactivity,(2) the mannerin which the organizationsor the movementshouldattemptto affectthe interpretations of variousaudiences,or (3)the audiencetowardwhich the framingactivity in questionshouldbe directed.3In thesecondstage,thecontextof the disputewas noted includingthe date,the SMOsinvolved,the factionsof the movementthey represented,the place, and the outcomeof the dispute.In the thirdstage of the codingprocedure,two codersindependentlyclassifiedeachof theframedisputes accordingto the threegenerictypes previouslydelineated:diagnosis,prognosis, and frameresonance.(Seethe Appendix.)Thecodersagreedon 86%(44of 51) of the cases (Cohen's c=.79,p
