Narrative and Legitimacy: U.S. Congressional Debates about the Nonprofit Sector

Abstract

This article develops a theory about the narrative foundations of public policy. Politicians draw on specific types of narratives in order to connect the policies they are proposing, the needs of the public, and their own needs for legitimacy. In particular, politicians are drawn to policy narratives in which they themselves occupy the central and heroic character position, and where they are able to protect the scope of their jurisdictional authority. We demonstrate how this works through a historical analysis of congressional debate about the nonprofit sector in the United States. Two competing narratives framed these debates: (1) a selfless charity narrative, in which politicians try to empower heroic charity workers and philanthropists, and then stay out of the way; and (2) a masquerade narrative, in which fake charities are taking advantage of the nonprofit tax exemption, in order to pursue a variety of noncivic and dangerous activities. Members of Congress quickly adopted the masquerade narrative as the dominant framework for discussing the nonprofit sector because it provided a more powerful and flexible rhetoric for reproducing their political legitimacy. By developing innovative elaborations of the masquerade narrative (i.e., identifying new categories of "false heroes"), while remaining faithful to its underlying narrative format, politicians were able to increase the persuasive impact of their legislative agendas. We argue that the narrative aspects of political debate are a central component of the policy-making process because they link cultural and political interests in a way that involves the mastery of cultural structure as well as the creativity of cultural performance.

Making Sense of Climate Change: How Story Frames Shape Cognition

“…In their review of this literature, the authors specify a clear definition of narrative structure that is usefully applied to the framing application used here. Policy narratives have (1) a setting (Ney, ; Verweij et al, ); (2) a plot (beginning, middle, end; Stone, ); (3) characters (heroes, villains, and victims; Jacobs & Sobieraj, ; McBeth, Shanahan, & Jones, ); and (4) the moral of the story (Jones & McBeth, , p. 340; Ney, ; Verweij & Thompson, ). Using the NPF structural characterization of narrative allows for a more nuanced understanding of stories, where specific structures (e.g., characters) can be observed to determine their influence on how individuals organize information.…”

Changing the record: Narrative policy analysis and the politics of emissions trading in New Zealand

“…Howlett (2014) notes that major policy innovations are rare, sometimes because decision makers ignore developments that conflict with the status quo, and sometimes to avoid failures for which they can be held accountable (Schmidt, 2010). Radical shifts in narrative dominance and policy can occur, however, where gaps between policy and reality trigger "tectonic plate-like readjustments to existing policies" (Howlett, 2014, p. 397;Jacobs & Sobieraj, 2007). Radical shifts in narrative dominance and policy can occur, however, where gaps between policy and reality trigger "tectonic plate-like readjustments to existing policies" (Howlett, 2014, p. 397;Jacobs & Sobieraj, 2007).…”

Narrative change, narrative stability, and structural constraint: The case of prisoner reentry narratives

“…2 Schools, religious institutions, political parties and many other formal and informal social groups promulgate, evaluate, and legitimate various narrative conventions. Polleta et al (2011) suggest that institutional conventions shape narratives because storytelling is a way that organizational logics are communicated and because individuals within institutions (employees, clients, patients, prisoners) are evaluated based on whether the stories they tell are consistent with these logics (see also Jacobs and Sobieraj 2007). Institutions – whether they are welfare bureaucracies, courts of law, or workplaces – may impose particular narratives and “discipline” those who fail to conform (Foucault 1977; Fox 1999; Rose 2000).…”