About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

71 Soc. F. 677 (1992-1993)
Frame Disputes within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement

handle is hein.journals/josf71 and id is 693 raw text is: Frame Disputes within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement* ROBERT D. BENFORD, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Abstract Social movement organizations (SMOs) devote considerable effort to constructing particular versions of reality, developing and espousing alternative visions, and attempting to affect various audiences' interpretations. Conflicts regarding such interpretive matters, referred to as frame disputes, are ubiquitous within movements. Using a multimethod strategy, this study analyzes the dynamics of interorganizational frame disputes within the nuclear disarmament movement, including their organizational and ideological contexts, conditions conducive to their emergence, patterns observed, and their effects. Three generic types of disputes are identified and elaborated: diagnostic, prognostic, and frame resonance disputes. Of the 51 disputes observed, all but two involved SMOs from two or more different movement factions. More disputes occurred between the movement's most moderate and radical factions than between other factions. Intramural conflicts were both detrimental and facilitative of the disarmament movement and its SMOs. In the most extensive review to date of social movement literature, McAdam, McCarthy and Zald (1988) conclude that we know little about the dynamics of collective action past the emergence of a movement (728). Until recently, even less was known about grievance interpretation and communication processes, the essence of movement dynamics. Scholars have begun to address this lacuna by attending to various movement interpretive processes including public discourse (Gamson 1988; Gamson & Modigliani 1989; Steinberg 1989), frame alignment (Benford 1987; Snow & Benford 1988,1992; Snow et al. 1986), grievance interpreta- tion and reality construction (Benford & Hunt 1992; Ferree & Miller 1985; Gusfield 1981; Klandermans 1992; Mauss 1975; Tarrow 1992; Turner & Killian 1987), and collective identity (Friedman & McAdam 1992; Gamson 1991; Hunt 1991; Hunt & Benford 1994; Melucci 1980, 1985, 1988, 1989; Pizzorno 1978; Taylor & Whittier 1992). * This is a revised version of a paper presented at the annual meetings oftheMidwestSociological SocietyApril6-91989, inSt.Louis.Iamgrateful to ScottA.HuntMichelleHughesMiller David A. Snow, and two anonymous reviewers for their advice and comments on earlier drafts. Please direct correspondence to the author at the Department of Sociology, University of Nebraska- Lincoln, 703 Oldfather Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588-0324. 0 The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, March 1993, 71(3):677-701

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most