I am pessimistic, so I do not think that this post by Laura Quilter will be the last nail in framing’s coffin.
But in a sane world, it would be.
Again, I would refer counsel to the case Scarcity v. Abundance, 9 CRN 2007. Framing assumes that the discursive capacity of the public sphere is finite, and that people who speak publicly must be cajoled into doing so in certain predetermined ways. Spontaneity and sincerity go by the wayside: airtime is precious and must be used in an efficient, coordinated manner.
But LQ is right. A mass of differing voices is far more effective in the long run. Throwing a million metaphors at the polis, you’re likely to find hundreds that work. Framers would have us all use a handful. They are ahead of their time, but their time was 1956.
It’s true that a handful of well-crafted slogans, broadcast in rather centralized fashion, have mobilized a frightening mass of hateful thugs on the other side. But they suffer attrition as their members tire, or die, or wake up.
Framing creates political monocultures. Monocultures’ common trait is that they must be managed intensively. With diversity, emerging self-organization becomes a possibility.
And we have nothing but room for differing voices.
Framing is a technique of persuasion, not a concept to build a movement around. That persuasion has replaced information in our public interactions has not made us stronger or smarter. Or nicer.
well, i have missed most of this discussion on the side. so consider me woefully unframed, or uninformed.
i think laura’s post makes total sense—that the cacaphony of ideas and reasonable discussion is essential. that this process helps clarify issues, and helps us mere mortals resolve what we can or should do about them.
but i’ve always thought of framing on a smaller scale: looking at a problem through various lenses, trying to identify the issues that seem most important and possible solutions that seem most workable, and then to “frame” them in a way that i think is reasonable and persuasive. in that sense, i think of framing as a bottom-up process, one that i use personally all the time.
at the level where folks presume to speak for an entire sector of others, the process seems [to me] more like: here are our talking points. go forth and spread them. now, i’m sure there is deliberation before the talking points are produced, and others urged to spread them—the difference is that it is not personal deliberation, and no one set of talking points on any single issue is going to perfectly reflect everything one might want to consider.
why is it so unacceptable to have a variety of opinions and discussions under the umbrella of a general position that many people accept? maybe we won’t agree on the details, but so what? ordinary civilian non-famous people can agree on some stuff, wildly disagree on other stuff, and still be friends. still work together for common goals. not be robot people.
hell, i’m an athiest, and a couple of people i love well are ministers. i’d rather cut out my tongue than vote republican, but one of my best friends is one of them. i think i’m more interested in finding common ground on stuff that matters to me, than in finding reasons gratuitously to spit at other people.
it has annoyed me to no end, hearing rhetoric about how people like me are demons, traitors, blah blah blah, just because i like the constitution and hate the war. surely there can be better discourse and more civility on the side of reason.
i sure hope some of this makes some sense. bad day; reasoning processes are not exactly optimal.
Laura Quilter says:
Yes. And, it’s fundamentally a principle - as used by marketers - of intentionally manipulating the masses to a particular point of view. The argument on the Left has been openly FRAMED to me on more than one occasion that FRAMING is the only possible way to make stupid sheep people be stupid sheep advancing OUR agenda, ie: OUR stupid sheep.
I don’t dig dishonest manipulation in general, and propaganda as political tool of coercion in the specific.
In my most cynical moments, I can start spouting about ‘sheep’ too.
A lot of people do behave like sheep.
But I don’t trust the Lefty FRAMERS’ agenda any more than the Righty ones.
And less information, more heavily edited and controlled dumbed down and edited for maximal manipulative effect cannot be my solution.
Love that. Sums it right up.
And: the master tools et cetera.
Back in the 30s, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis identified “euphemism” as one of the core techniques of the propagandist. I think “framing” is a shiny new euphemism for engaging in propaganda.
There’s a nice site on the IPA and their techniques:
http://www.propagandacritic.com/
One interesting note about the history of the IPA—it essentially folded due to public disapproval of its criticisms of US propaganda used to smooth the way for entering WWII. I think the arguments being made against framing are useful to think of in this historical context—even if our goal is a good one, we must attend to ethical methods of arguing for it.
nashe hit it on the head with “propaganda.”
i am not opposed to persuasion—trying to involve others using an argument that we think is right and hope will appeal. use it all the time, in fact. we all do, in everyday life as well as larger situations.
but i don’t see that process as being the same as propaganda: “here is what we all have to say, don’t ask questions, dissent means betraying the cause.”
“Framing” = “Propaganda” = “Talking Points” = “Newspeak” “= “Party Line”
“There’s nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight.”