Frame Development and Alignment in the U.S. - 1967-68

INTRODUCTION

The proposed project involves an analysis across three cities in the late 1960's of the framing techniques used by individuals to justify their attitudes toward issues of race, policing, and rioting. Frames, a term coined by Goffman (1974), refer to schemata used by individuals to organize, perceive, and make sense of their experiences in the world. These frames may or may not reflect reality and are constantly evolving as events and existing personal attitudes interact. The construction of frames regarding race, protest, and violence was especially prominent and quite necessary in the late 1960s when following the peak of the civil rights movement, some of the some of the worst rioting our nation has ever seen occurred. Many Americans were shocked by the outbreaks and were forced to reconsider old frames and develop new frames to reconcile previously held attitudes with their observations of race relations and urban violence. In turn, these personal frames formed the basis for subsequent political and social trends.

Given the importance of these frame alignment processes (Snow et al., 1986), I propose a detailed examination of reaction to rioting across three U.S. cities: Birmingham, Alabama; Atlanta, Georgia; and Cleveland, Ohio. The first two will be used to examine framing processes as they occurred within the of general political atmosphere and social arrangements of the South. Cleveland will be used not only to provide a comparison with the North, but also to examine the changes in frames across time within a single regional setting.

To carefully examine these issues, I will analyze transcribed interviews conducted in these cities during 1967 and 1968. These interviews, conducted by the Lemberg Center for the Study of Violence at Brandeis University, focus on individual beliefs about, and reactions to, desegregation, race relations, riots and rioters, police and police tactics, government, discrimination, and social change. From these interviews and accounts of events, I will extract and explicate the frames developed by individuals, specifically those frames dealing with race, police, and riots. I will then analyze how the frame definition process aligns individuals according to shared frames, and examine what personal characteristics and outside forces are involved in these development and alignment processes. Frames expressed by individuals may be inconsistent with each other - particularly in times of upheaval and transition. Therefore I will also examine the consistency of frame definitions and alignments offered by individuals. Finally, I will take this comprehensive framing information and compare it across the three cities paying particular attention to temporal, regional, and political influences. The results of the study will describe both the development of personal frames in response to events, and their similarities and differences across time and region.

BACKGROUND

During the past 15 years, the concept of framing has become a popular research and theory focus among scholars studying social movements and other contentious political behavior (Snow et al. 1986; Noonan 1995; Ellingson 1995; Tarrow 1992; Snow and Benford 1988; Benford 1993; Snow and Benford 1992; Johnston 1991; Zald 1996; McAdam 1996). The concept of framing revolves around the notion that a social movement is dependent upon the social construction and portrayal of reality, especially on the part of movement and counter-movement organizations (see Snow and Oliver 1995 for a review). Much of the research has examined how groups go about altering the frames of individuals and other groups in the hopes of garnering support (Snow et al. 1986; Benford 1993; Snow and Benford 1992). Special attention has been given to the roll of the media in influencing changes in framing by the general public (Gamson 1988), inter- and intra- organizational framing processes, alignments, and disagreements (Benford 1993), and the ways in which movement organizations have altered their frames to suit different goals and tactics (Snow and Benford 1992). Much of this work has been geared toward the concept that frames are conscious constructions developed by groups and organizations with the goal of influencing public opinion and events (Snow and Oliver 1995).

While it is important to understand some framing processes on the organizational level, this level of analysis takes for granted the effects of framing efforts on individual framing processes. But individual frames do not just exist, rather they are formed in response to events, personal feelings, and the efforts at frame alignment made by organizations. Individuals use overarching or "master" frames (Snow and Benford 1992) as the basis for issue-specific frames and as a means of justifying their already existent attitudes. They then align themselves with other individuals according to these frames, sometimes overtly and other times quite unknowingly. Rather than using frames in a pro-active manner such as is often attributed to social movement organizations, individuals are also acquiring and developing frames from past collective events.

I propose to study this oft neglected second conceptual area through the use of a unique data set that was compiled during an important period in U.S. history when personal frames were being developed in response to a large variety of influences, and when personal attitudes were so volatile that personal framing became an increasingly important social coping mechanism. The Lemberg Center for the Study of Violence at Brandeis University gathered a great deal of data about race and riots in the late 1960's and early 1970's. As part of their study, they conducted interviews in many major U.S. cities (40-60 per city) with various community members reflecting a cross section of backgrounds and attitudes. The opportunity to examine these previously unanalyzed interviews provides a unique opportunity to analyze the framing mechanisms of the period.

METHODOLOGY

The first phase of the project will involve an in-depth qualitative examination of all the interviews for each of the three target cities. By examining each individual's interview responses, I will be able to give definition to the various frames expressed in regards to race, police, and riots. The framework established in this first step will provide a comprehensive picture of the attitudes and frames that shaped the social scene of each city as well as establishing the basis for the following analysis. I will then reexamine the interview data, extracting quotations that will provide a rich source of information to be used in the creation of a concrete explication of all the frames.

Phase two will involve four steps. The first will be the compilation and examination of the various frames, within each city. I will compare frame development and alignment processes across racial as well as ideological lines. This will establish the relationship of frames to one another within the confines of one city's social influence, establishing a dynamic picture of the ways individuals within these cities developed frames and then related to one another as a function of them. The second step will consist of a comparative analysis of the two southern cities, Birmingham and Atlanta, examining patterns indicative of regional similarities in underlying attitudes as well as differences emerging from the markedly different social and political atmospheres of the two cities. Step three will involve an analysis of Cleveland, a northern city, at two different time periods, one before the summer of heavy rioting in 1967 and one after to examine the changes in frames and alignments over time in response to major, frame altering events. The final step will be a comparison between the two southern cities and Cleveland. Through this analysis I will be able to construct a view of nationwide similarities and differences, examining the effects of regional influences on frame development and alignment.

SCHEDULE

August 24 - September 30: Phase 1 - Data Compilation

1. Qualitative Examination of Interviews

2. Extraction of Quotations

October 1 - November 20: Phase 2 - Data Analysis

Step 1

1. Compilation of frame data within each city.

2. Examination of alignment and development patterns within each city.

Step 2

1. Comparison of frame data between southern cities.

2. Comparison of alignment and development patterns between cities.

Step 3

1. Comparison of frame data between Cleveland '67 and Cleveland '68

2. Comparison of alignment and development patterns across time.

Step 4

1. Comparison of frame data between southern cities and Cleveland

2. Comparison of alignment and development patterns between regions.

November 21 - December 13: Phase 3 - Composition and Revision of Report

COLLABORATION WITH FACULTY SUPERVISOR

My advisor, Professor Dan Myers, focuses much of his research on social movements and collective action. A significant portion of this work investigates rioting in the 1960s and 70s. Throughout my project I will consult Professor Myers for his expertise with this historical period as well as his previous work with framing theory. Professor Myers also controls the Lemberg Center archives from which I will extract my interview data. I will consult with him regularly to discuss progress through the various stages of my project. I will also meet with him to discuss means of data compilation and analysis as well as to gain assistance in dealing with as yet unseen difficulties that may arise through the course of the project. Finally, Professor Myers will review drafts of my report, with the eventual intention of submission to a sociology conference and/or an academic journal.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Benford, Robert D. 1993. "Frame Disputes within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement." Social Forces 71:677-701.

Ellingson, Stephen. 1995. "Understanding the Dialectic of Discourse and Collective Action: Public Debate and Rioting in Antebellum Cincinnati." American Journal of Sociology 101:100-144.

Gamson, William A. 1988. "Political Discourse and Collective Action." International Social Movement Research 1: 219-244.

Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis. New York: Harper.

Johnston, Hank. 1991. Tales of Nationalism: Catalonia 1939-1979. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

McAdam, Doug. 1996. "The Framing Function of Movement Tactics: Strategic Dramaturgy in the American Civil Rights Movement." Pp. 338-355 in D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, and M. N. Zald, Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Noonan, Rita K. 1995. "Women against the State: Political Opportunities and Collective Action Frames in Chile's Transition to Democracy." Sociological Forum 10: 81-111.

Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986. "Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review 51: 464-481.

Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford. 1988. "Ideology, Frame resonance, and Participant Mobilization." International Social Movement Research 1:197-217.

Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford. 1992. "Master Frames and Cycles of Protest." Pp. 133-155 in A. D. Morris and C. M. Mueller, Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Snow, David A. and Pamela E. Oliver. "Social Movements and Collective Behavior: Social Psychological Dimensions and Considerations."Pp. 571-599 in K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, and J. S. House, Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Tarrow, Sidney. 1992. "Mentalities, Political Cultures, and Collective Action Frames: Constructing Meanings through Action." Pp. 174-202 in A. D. Morris and C. M. Mueller, Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Zald, Mayer N. 1996. "Culture, Ideology and Strategic Framing." Pp. 261-274 in D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, and M. N. Zald, Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.