Frame Analysis Theory (1960s)

Social movement framing theory attempts to understand the way in which social movements and social movement actors create and use meaning, or how events and ideas are framed. This meaning work has become a keyway in which social movements are understood and analyzed. Benford &Snow (2000) point out 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” (p. 612).The idea of frame analysis comes from the work of Erving Goffman (1974). Goffman argued that people frame experiences in order to organize and understand the world around them. Much like a picture frame excludes things while focusing attention on others, so does framing. Framing helps people interpret the world based on their social position and their previous experiences. Every social interaction that occurs is understood through a frame of reference within which people react based on their perception of the situation and the way they perceive the people with whom they are interacting. In the study of social movements, collective action frames are used to bring people together and incite them to action. Benford and Snow (2000) explain, “Collective action frames are action-oriented sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of a social movement organization (SMO)” (p. 614). A social movement organization is a formal group that functions as part of a broader social movement and that often provides the resources for the broader social movement. SMOs deploy collective action frames in order to create a set of meanings which will inspire people to act collectively towards some goal.

Social movement framing analysis focuses on four broad areas: (a) the creation and use of collective action frames, (b) framing processes, (c) opportunities and constraints, and (d) the effect of framing on movement outcomes and other processes (Benford and Snow 2000: 612-13). Within each of these broad areas there are sub-categories of analysis.

Collective Action Frames

Collective action frames are an important part of any social movement mobilization. As Gamson and Meyer (1996) explain, “collective action frames deny the immutability of some undesirable situation and the possibility of changing it through some form of collective action. They define people as potential agents of their own history”(p. 285). Collective action frames, then, define a situation as problematic, but also give people a sense that a problem is something that can be overcome through concerted efforts therefore leading to collective action. Collective action frames are under-stood as having three core framing tasks: diagnostic framing, prognostic framing and motivational framing (Benford and Snow 2000: 615).

Diagnostic Framing

Diagnostic framing refers to the identification of a problem. In order for any social movement to be successful to any degree a problem must be identified. If there is no perceived problem then it is difficult if not impossible to mobilize potential adherents. Framing theory, like Resource Mobilization theory, assumes that at any given moment there are enough grievances in the world to incite people to action. Unlike Resource Mobilization theory though, framing theory assumes that it is not solely about the SMO’s leaders’ ability to garner resources which contributes to growth and mobilization of social movements, but instead it is about their ability identify--or frame--problems correctly. As Jenness (1995) explains, “One way in which social conditions come to be seen as social problems is through the work of social movements” (p. 146). Jenness notes that the Gay/Lesbian Rights movement, like the Women’s Movement, successfully.

Theories of Social Movements framed violence against gays a as a social problem, thus creating a powerful diagnostic frame for the movement to use. After having diagnosed the problem, the movement was able to move forward towards solutions. Many diagnostic frames include what has been referred to as an injustice frame. Injustice frames identify victims of some injustice and amplify the victimization (Benford & Snow, 2000). Injustice framing is more successful if there is a specific target -- someone or something that is responsible for the injustice and at which moral indignation can be directed (Gamson, 1995). On the other hand there is danger in focusing anger too narrowly on a specific thing or individual. As Gamson (1995) further explains, “As long as moral indignation is narrowly focused on human actors without regard to the broader structure in which they operate, injustice frames will be a poor tool for collective action, leading to ineffectiveness and frustration…”(p. 92). Injustice frames and diagnostic frames, then, cannot be the only way in which problems are framed. Frames must also include an analysis of the potential solutions to the problems that SMOs have identified. Prognostic framing provides this analysis.