Multi‐Organizational Fields and Social Movement Organization Frame Content: The Religious Fro‐Choice Movement*

Abstract

As an explanatory method in studies of social movements, analyses of collective action frames have generally focused on the variable efficacy of the frames of social movement organizations (SMOs)in the mobilization of potential participants. However, this work has for practical reasons used the acknowledged analytic simplification that SMOs only target potential participants–and not opponents, elite decision makers, or the media–when constructing their frames. To incorporate multiple targets into future studies of SMO frame construction, this paper expands on the idea of a multi‐organizational field. I propose that the characteristics of the targets in the field and the social structural and cognitive boundaries between them determine SMO frames. This perspective is demonstrated by analyzing changes in the collective action frames of SMOs in the religious pro‐choice movement from 1967 to 1992. I argue that this perspective may explain findings where a frame fails to “resonate” with potential participants–the frame may not have been created with them in mind.

The Cognitive Dimension of Social Movements' Europeanization Processes. The Case of the Protests against ‘Fortress Europe’

“…While frame analysis has mainly focused on the interaction processes taking place within a SMO, few studies have analysed framing-processes taking place within a coalition or a network of SMOs (for exceptions see Evans, 1997;Gerhard and Rucht, 1992;Marullo, Pagnucco and Smith, 1996). Even less studies have examined the framing processes taking place within coalitions across borders (for exceptions, see Geddes and Guiraudon, 2004;della Porta and Caiani, 2009).…”

La cobertura mediática de una acción "conectiva": la interacción entre el movimiento 15-M y los medios de comunicación

“…Finalmente, autores como Walsh et al (1993), Evans (1997) y Benford y Snow (2000) argumentan que las características del públi-co a quien se dirige un movimiento social son importantes a la hora de determinar el discurso y éxito de la movilización. Discursos distintos llaman la atención de públicos dis-tintos.…”

“…Finally, authors such as Walsh et al (1993), Evans (1997) and Benford and Snow (2000) argue that the characteristics of the public to whom the social movement is directed are important in determining the discourse and the success of the mobilization. Different discourses draw the attention of different publics.…”

Frames and Their Consequences

“…Far from existing in isolation, activists operate in a "multiorganizational field" made up of allies, competitors, antagonists, authorities, and third parties (Curtis and Zurcher 1973;Klandermans 1992;Caroll and Ratner 1996;Evans 1997). They invent and modify frames to take advantage of strategic opportunities and demands created by those other actors.…”

“…While allies may compel movement groups to adopt more encompassing, universalistic frames (Caroll and Ratner 1996; and see Ferree and Roth [1998] on how organizational insularity produces exclusivist frames), opponents, too, shape movement frames. Since ignoring rival frames puts a group at risk of seeming off-topic or evasive, movement groups often find themselves forced to counter, debunk, co-opt, or conform to opponents' frames in their own public statements (Evans 1997, Esacove 2004. For example, anti-abortion activists have adopted an individual rights frame, championing the fetus's "right to life," even though many of them recoil at the overemphasis on rights in American society and are much more attuned to duties than rights (Williams 2004).…”