Angels versus Devils: The Portrayal of Characters in the Gun Policy Debate

Abstract

This research examines the role of the devil shift and angel shift in interest group rhetoric using the case of gun policy. The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) suggests that the devil shift-whereby political actors characterize their opponents as more malicious and powerful than they actually areis common in intractable policy debates. Through an analysis of e-mails and press releases by two gun control organizations and two gun rights organizations, I examine how groups portray themselves and their opponents. I identify two dimensions relevant to these portrayals: (1) whether a character in a policy narrative is portrayed as good or evil, and (2) whether a character is portrayed as strong or weak. The findings indicate that while the devil shift is present, the angel shift-that is, the glorification of one's own coalition-is more common in gun policy groups' communications. Two alternative characterizations, which I call the angel in distress and the devil diminished, are also present. The use of these character portrayals varies significantly across political coalitions and as a function of communication purposes. The results suggest a need to reconceptualize character portrayals to better understand how they operate as narrative strategies in the NPF.Political words and actions are often imbued with drama and emotion. As political actors vie to shape public opinion, build coalitions, and increase their ability to bs_bs_banner

Narrative Strategies in the Gun Policy Debate: Exploring Proximity and Social Construction

“…For example, when a group posts to Facebook, the post is visible to the group's followers, who, in turn, can share it with others who are predisposed to agree with the group's aims, though they have been previously uninvolved . While prior research has examined framing by gun policy groups, these studies have focused on other communication venues, including member newsletters, emails, and press releases (see Merry, ; Smith‐Walter, Peterson, Jones, & Reynolds Marshall, ; Steidley & Colen, ). By analyzing Facebook posts, this research provides a broader understanding of gun policy groups' narrative strategies.…”

A Bridge in Flux: Narratives and the Policy Process in the Pacific Northwest

“…This finding is both telling and important for future research that explores the cohesiveness of advocacy coalitions in various policy contexts. Merry () finds that character usage varies significantly across advocacy coalitions. However, less is known about character usage within coalitions.…”

“…“Weak” strategies include “angel in distress” and “devil diminished.” Although this represents an important divergence in the NPF literature, this study uses the previous methodology as a starting point for analyzing this strategy in the context of the CRC policy issue. Future research should explore Merry’s () important contribution to theory building in the NPF and confirm the existence of these newly proposed coalitional strategies.…”

“…Other authors (Crow et al, ; Heikkila et al, ) similarly used this methodology with mixed results. Merry (, p. 6) diverging from previous studies, argued that this methodology “precludes the possibility that the devil shift and angel shift represent two separate phenomena and fails to differentiate the treatment of various characters in policy narratives.” Merry proposes a new model, or typology, that differentiates between powerful and weak narrative strategies that could be used by coalitions. “Powerful” strategies include the angel–devil shift.…”

“…Merry (, p. 4) explains that “winning” coalitions are “groups on the winning side of a debate [that] are expected to focus on ‘winners’ or (powerful characters) as a way of maintaining their ‘minimum winning coalition’ and thus preserving the status quo.” Accordingly, winning coalitions tend to use the angel shift. Conversely, Merry (, p. 4) defines “losing” coalitions as “groups on the losing side of policy debates [that] are expected to highlight losers, or those burdened by the status quo … and are expected to use the devil shift in their narratives.” This study adopts this definition of winning/losing coalitions moving forward in characterizing the Anti‐CRC and Pro‐CRC coalitions. Similar to Heikkila et al (), this study explores these intercoalitional differences in the use of narrative strategies but does so in a local policy context.…”