Frame Disputes or Frame Consensus? “Environment” or “Welfare” First Amongst Climate Strike Protesters

Abstract

Present debates suppose a close linkage between economic, social, and environmental sustainability and suggest that individual wellbeing and living standards need to be understood as directly linked to environmental concerns. Because social movements are often seen as an avant-garde in pushing for change, this article analyzes climate protesters’ support for three key frames in current periods of social transformation, i.e., an “environmental”, an “economic growth”, and a “welfare” frame. The analyzed data material consists of survey responses from over 900 participants in six Global Climate Strikes held in Sweden during 2019. The article investigates the explanatory relevance of three factors: (a) political and ideological orientation, (b) movement involvement, and (c) social characteristics. The results indicate that climate protesters to a large degree support an environmental frame before an economic growth-oriented frame, whereas the situation is more complex regarding support for a welfare frame vis-á-vis an environmental frame. The strongest factors explaining frame support include social characteristics (gender) and protestors’ political and ideological orientation. Movement involvement has limited significance. The article shows how these frames form a fragment of the complexity of these issues, and instances of frame distinctions, hierarchies, and disputes emerge within the most current forms of climate change demonstrations.

Voices of a generation the communicative power of youth activism

“…The overall sociological profile of youth climate activists has been highlighted in several recent studies, mostly focusing on the Global North (Wielk 2020 ; Nairn, 2019 ; O’Brien et al, 2018 ; Kleres & Wettergren 2017 ) although Fisher (2016) is a refreshing exception. De Moor et al ( 2020 ) emphasized the large mobilization of a new age cohort (school pupils), especially girls; however, they also pointed towards a higher educational bias (see also Emilsson, Johansson & Wennerhag 2020 ). Scholars have also tried to capture the variations of political demands inside the movement.…”

“…O’Brien et al ( 2018 ) distinguished between dutiful (reformist) , disruptive (norm-challenging) and dangerous (mobilizing alternatives) dissent, arguing that these models of activism – and their creative combinations – will be needed for youth climate activism to have an impact. Other scholars also highlight how the radical potential of the movement might be overshadowed by the unifying perspective (Marguardt 2020 ; see also Ellisson et al 2020 ; de Moor et al 2020 ).…”

Media and the Climate Crisis

“…But more importantly, they have strengthened the ambition of demanding more decisive action from the seemingly "climate-friendly" established politicians and parties. (On the sociological and political character of the youth movement, see De Moor et al, 2020;Emilsson et al, 2020, Han & Ahn, 2020Marquardt, 2020).…”

The desirability of transitions in demand: Incorporating behavioural and societal transformations into energy modelling

“…These knowledge gaps must be explored, by looking at where and why unexpected transformations take place [103] , what are the root causes and drivers of these new waves of transformation, how transformational leadership plays a role and spills over to the masses, and how grassroots innovations for decarbonisation [104] can move beyond business-as-usual for transformative change [105] , [106] . Such an agenda can help co-produce cutting-edge knowledge with societal end-users in combining horizontal (across diverse social groups, across space) and vertical (across time) dimensions of societal scenarios towards shared futures, and address the 'failure of imagination' [107] on climate change, from an interdisciplinary perspective.…”