Suchergebnisse

In the last decade the framing perspective has gained increasing popularity among social movement researchers and theorists. Surprisingly, there has been no critical assessment of this growing body of literature. Though the perspective has made significant contributions to the movements literature, it suffers from several shortcomings. These include neglect of systematic empirical studies, descriptive bias, static tendencies, reification, reductionism, elite bias, and monolithic tendencies. In addition to a critique of extant movement framing literature, I offer several remedies and illustrate them with recent work. The articles by Francesca Polletta, John H. Evans, Sharon Erickson Nepstad, and Ira Silver in this special section address several of the concerns raised in this critique and, in so doing, contribute to the integration of structural and cultural approaches to social movements.

Uses contemporary Japan, the Federal Republic of Germany, & the US as case studies to determine the relationship between memories of war & sociopolitical policies. Looking at the influence of the establishment of memorials, celebrations, & commemorations on memories of past wars, it is argued that controversies between conflicting accounts dynamically determine the meaning of past events. The meaning of these past wars & genocides guides present & future foreign policy decisions & social movements. S. Barrera

The recent proliferation of scholarship on collective action frames and framing processes in relation to social movements indicates that framing processes have come to be regarded, alongside resource mobilization and political opportunity processes, as a central dynamic in understanding the character and course of social movements. This review examines the analytic utility of the framing literature for understanding social movement dynamics. We first review how collective action frames have been conceptualized, including their characteristic and variable features. We then examine the literature related to framing dynamics and processes. Next we review the literature regarding various contextual factors that constrain and facilitate framing processes. We conclude with an elaboration of the consequences of framing processes for other movement processes and outcomes. We seek throughout to provide clarification of the linkages between framing concepts/processes and other conceptual and theoretical formulations relevant to social movements, such as schemas and ideology.

Examines the relationship between frames & the older, more political concept of ideology to point out various misrepresentations in Pamela E. Oliver & Hank Johnston's "What a Good Idea! Ideologies and Frames in Social Movement Research" (2000). Misunderstandings include using frame as a synonym for ideology; emphasis on frame as a constructed product rather than a set of dynamic processes; location of the essence of frames in cognition; failure to place frames/framing in social constructionist processes; & giving the framing perspective a social psychological designation & ideology a political sociological one. In addition, Oliver & Johnston never address the ambiguous character of the concept of ideology. It is argued that an understanding of the relationship between framing & ideology be developed to avoid misrepresentations that undermine their usefulness to the study of social movements & related processes. 28 References. J. Lindroth