|
“Reframing the Environment” Project – Report 1: Baseline Framing Review: Proponents, Opponents, Media (Very
Important Note: The importance of thoughtfully reading this entire
twenty-five plus pager cannot be overstated. The good guys are
referenced in bold blue.
Originally located due to its references to property rights websites,
the interweaving of the author et al to social reengineering and global
control -- which is included in the additional recommended reading that
follows the report -- is most educational. This shows, conclusively,
that the agenda is not about “saving” flora and fauna -- never has
been and never will be. Hazel Henderson’s “Think Global; Act
Local” springs immediately to mind. The understanding of the power of
words, their arrangement and use, marketing strategies, etc., are all
here and visible to the thoughtful reader. The forces advancing this are
evidenced by the numerous references to foundations and grant funding.
Certainly, the power players are showcased, but the simplicity of coming
to grips with understanding the workings of the beast remains. God v.
Satan, and this is made so clear here: http://www.firedupmissouri.com/node/1565
) December
21, 2004 By
Pamela Morgan [director of framing research and senior researcher] for
the Rockridge Institute* and Research Fellow for the Longview Institute;
also referred to as a “cognitive linguist and consultant” here: http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/international/pdfs/giiguide.pdf
Various
email addresses: morgan@longviewinstitute.org,
morgan@rockridgeinstitute.org,
morgan@rockridge.com,
and pmorgan@socrates.berkeley.edu
Introduction
This
report is an analysis of materials provided to the Rockridge Institute
as part of the “Reframing the Environment” project. The goal of this
project is to begin rethinking both environmental issues and, more
broadly, the concepts of “the environment” and “the environmental
movement,” in order to raise the general visibility of environmental
issues as items on the public agenda. This
report discusses the major frames found in the following types of
material: materials produced by the members of the Green Group;
materials produced by opponents of environmental issues (some supplied
by the Green Group, some supplied by Rockridge research); recent media
reports using the search terms “environmentalist” or
“environmental movement,” from one major media outlet (the New York
Times), the Associated Press wire (since AP reports are carried by many
smaller newspapers), and some mid-sized newspapers (e.g., the Buffalo
News). As the project continues, attention will continue to be paid to
the media; the pool for this report was limited for reasons of time. Because
of the number of groups participating, comments on individual materials
will be restricted to illustrative quotations only.** *Also
contributing to the contents of this report with research assistance,
discussion, and/or review: George Lakoff, Caroline Andreolle (especially
with respect to the Resources frame), Kenton de Kirby, Dan Kurtz, Cathy
Lenz, Jason Patent (with respect to the Background on Framing section),
and Fred Block. Background
on Framing Framing
is not just finding the right language. It is not merely
“messaging.” Messaging comes as a result of the process; it is not
the process itself. It is not enough to say the same things in new ways.
Framing
is a fundamental rethinking of what one does and why one does it.
Framing is not short term and tactical; it is long-term and strategic.
This does not mean that one sacrifices the immediate for the distant: no
one needs to lose the trees to save the forest. It does mean that one
places the short-term in a wider and wiser view of the long term. Whatever
“objective” reality may exist is always perceived and conceived in
particular ways. The resulting conceptual structures are called frames.
Frames of the kind that effect social and political change usually have
parts: they are mini-stories. Everything
that human beings understand about the world is understood through
frames. Facts about the world, while necessary, are in and of themselves
insufficient for understanding the world: all facts are framed, and
facts are never understood without frames. If speakers do not suggest a
frame, hearers will impose their own -- which may lead to conclusions
that are undesirable from the speaker’s point of view. This point is
why it is so important to provide alternative frames, not just
alternative facts. Also, when facts and frames are in conflict, the
frames will win out. That is, if someone has a frame in his or her mind,
and someone else points out facts that logically should prove that the
frame is “wrong,” the facts usually will not matter. The facts will
be explained away or rejected. **Please
note that the quotations for any given point are not exhaustive; most of
the points could have been illustrated by references to other groups as
well. Language
is an important part of framing, but framing is ultimately about much
more than language: it is about thinking. Reframing is reconceptualizing.
Values-based reframing is learning to think and talk about issues in
terms of the moral reasons why they are important. For
all their good intentions, environmentalists have been far less
effective than their opponents at enacting a values-based, effectively
framed vision. For over 30 years, the Radical Right and its think tanks
have deliberately worked to achieve greater and greater influence not
only over policymakers, but [also] more generally, and insidiously, over
American culture. This is because the Radical Right understands about
framing. The
Protection Frame: The Story Told by Environmentalists The
dominant story told by environmentalists is one of Protection. Words
that indicate this frame include “protect” and “protection,” of
course, as well as “preserve” and “preservation,”
“stewardship”1 (which has additional nuances not discussed here),
“safeguard,” “defend” and “defenders” and “defense,”
“safety” and “save” and “security,” “champion,”
“destroy,” “jeopardize,” “trample,”2 “attack”
“assault,”3 and words that refer to the law. A review of the slogans
and mission statements of the groups in this study shows how prevalent
this frame is. The words “conservation” and “conserve” evoke
both a sense of protection and a sense of use: one sense of the word
“conserve” means to hold on to something precious in the face of
impending change (the sense associated philosophically with the
political term “conservative”), while the other refers to a sensible
and prudent allocation of the use of something so as to prevent it from
being used up entirely (to “conserve resources,” “conserve one’s
strength”). See below for a discussion of the “use”-related
Resources frame. 1E.g.,
“a great change in humanity’s stewardship of the earth” in
directions of safety, sustainability, health, and diversity of life
(Union of Concerned Scientists). 2E.g.,
“not to let big business trample our environmental laws”
(Partnership Project). 3E.g.,
policy changes that “will cripple many of the safeguards that protect
us from the very worst excesses of the oil, coal, logging, mining and
chemical industries,” removing “vital protections” against the
“coming attack” (Natural Resources Defense Council). The
following is the structure of the Protection frame, which is a version
of an adversarial Struggle story with heroes and villains: There
is a perceived Danger or Threat; a potential Victim; either someone who
is threatening the Victim with the Danger (an Attacker) or an impersonal
Danger (e.g., a hurricane); and a Protector who prevents harm to the
Victim from the Danger, either by stopping the actions of the Attacker,
by preventing contact of the Victim with the Danger, or by eliminating
the Danger. There
are also a Means by which the Attacker intends to carry out the Threat,
and a Means by which the Protector protects the Victim from the Threat. When
this frame is applied to current environmental issues, the following
“mappings” result: Danger/Threat
= loss of habitat; loss of resources (see below for a discussion of the
“Resources” frame); “pollution” (either as a Danger itself or as
a means to another Danger such as damage to people’s health or to
habitat); damage to animals’ health; damage to people’s health;
destruction of quality of life;4 loss of heritage/national treasure;
loss of one’s children’s/grandchildren’s inheritance
(metaphorically: such as wild places to go fishing, etc.5); etc.. Victim
= “the environment”/“nature”; ecosystem(s); individual species;
people; the future/future generations6; etc. Attacker
= “polluters,” corporations; “special interests”7; apathetic or
careless people; people in general (merely by virtue of human activity;
this is an extreme and relatively uncommon position not found in the
materials examined) Means
of Doing Harm = unchecked behavior (often attributed to greed),
including pollution, “development,” and overuse of “resources”
(e.g., overfishing, clear cutting); rollback of regulations; corrupt
influence in particular government administrations; etc. Protector
= environmental groups; concerned citizens; the government Means
of Protection government regulation (including penalties); lawsuits;
boycotts; etc. 4,E.g.,
“maintain our quality of life” (Environmental Working Group);
“People from all walks of life deserve to live, work, and play in
healthy communities” (Physicians for Social Responsibility); “when
that two and a half cents is used to purchase a condom and combined with
HIV counseling and education, it becomes ... an investment in life”
(Population Action International); “to make trails an essential
component of the emerging smart growth and livable communities
movement” (Rails-to-Trails Conservancy). 5E.g.,
a photograph of a father and a toddler and the family dog on a beach:
“We’re saving a place for you” (Nature Conservancy). As
widespread and useful as this frame is, however, there are also (as
always) some problems. Some of the difficulties with this frame are the
following: (1)
The number of different potential mappings for each “role” can
dilute the message. However, this is balanced by the fact that many
groups use the value of Protection as their primary message, resulting
in a unified overall value. The very term “environmental
protection,” as in “Environmental Protection Agency,” reinforces
this unified and unifying value. (2)
The Protection frame relies on a threat or crisis for its motivation,
and a threat frame, which is based on fear, often is ultimately
disempowering for those who do not naturally gravitate to activism.
Asking people to view themselves as co-Protectors by joining or
otherwise supporting an environmental advocacy organization is one way
to counter this, by transforming fear, helplessness and despair into
courage, empowerment and hope. This mapping seems to have worked well at
the beginning of the environmental movement, but by now may be changing
to resonate more with the use of the word “conservation” than with
the use of the word “environmental” (an hypothesis that can be
tested). Its usefulness has also been damaged by the following points (3
and 4). (3)
The Radical Right has been able to pick out one part of the Protection
frame -- the Means of Protection -- and reframe that -- specifically
regulation and to a somewhat lesser extent lawsuits -- as a Threat. As a
result, the Protectors become the Attackers in their Reversed Protection
frame. This point will be discussed separately below. (4)
At the same time, a negatively-evaluated “messenger framing” has
also damaged the term “environmentalist” and seems to be extending
(again, an hypothesis that can be tested) to “environmental”. This
point will also be discussed separately below. 6E.g.,
“for future generations” (many); “protecting our national
legacy” (Audubon Society); “They [the Bush administration and its
“corporate allies”] are stealing America from our children and all
future generations” (Natural Resources Defense Council); “Love
dolphins and the ocean? Make sure your kids can too” (Oceana); working
to “make America’s future brighter and safer” (League of
Conservation Voters). 7E.g.,
“Don’t Let Greedy Special Interests Destroy Wild America!”
(Wilderness Society). The
Reversed Protection Frame, the Rights Frame, and the Freedom Frame: The
Story Told by Opponents The
Radical Right and its supporters had to counter the post-1970s success
of the environmental movement’s Protection frame. They have done this
in a clever way. People and groups who oppose environmental advocacy
groups now use a set of three linked frames, all of which are generally
evoked either explicitly or implicitly to counter the environmental
movement: a reversed version of the Protection frame in which the
government and environmentalists are the Attackers; a Rights frame; and
a Freedom frame. The
mappings for the anti-environmentalists’ Reversed Protection frame are
the following: Danger/Threat
= loss of (property) rights; loss of freedom; loss of “heritage”;
loss of one’s children’s/grandchildren’s inheritance (literally:
land possession)8; etc. Victim
= people; the future/future generations; America (including American
values and America’s past/heritage); sometimes (perhaps mentioned less
often than previously) the economy; etc. Attacker
= environmental groups; concerned but misinformed citizens; the
government (i.e., exactly who the environmentalists’ Protection frame
views as the Protectors) Means
of Doing Harm = unchecked behavior (for reasons for the behavior, see
the discussion below of the “messenger frame”), especially
“over-regulation” (or any regulation) and filing of “frivolous
lawsuits”; “eco-terrorism”; etc. (i.e., exactly what the
environmentalists’ Protection frame views as the Means of Protection) Protector
= the anti-environmentalist groups; concerned citizens agreeing with
these groups 8“What
will my kids have left, if I do this?” (i.e., conservation easement) (klamathbasincrisis.org);
“Our land nourishes us through the years and it is the last great gift
that we can give to our children.” (propertyrightsresearch.org).
Means
of Protection rollbacks of regulation; reform of the legal system; fines
and other legal punishments Because
the “Danger/Threat” in this anti-environmentalist version of the
Protection Frame includes the loss of (property) rights, the loss of
freedom, and the loss of “heritage,’ it intersects with and evokes
three more frames. In
the Rights frame, one’s Rights are an object to be owned and the
Holder of the Rights is the owner of the object -- and therefore anyone
who tries to Take Away one’s Rights is a bully or a thief. When mapped
to property rights, it comes out as: Rights = property rights; Holders
of the Rights = property owners; Takers-Away of the Rights = thieves =
the government and environmentalists. Thus, the government and
environmentalists are both attackers and thieves: “[The
environmentalists’] Solution: don’t buy the land, just steal the
rights to it” (propertyrightsresearch.org);
“ ‘If Enron does something like this, people call it theft,’ ...
‘If Oregon does it, they call it land-use planning’ ” (New York
Times, November 26, 2004, A1). This equation is not always as explicitly
expressed, but it underlies many of the radical conservatives’ attacks
on environmentalism, and, stated or not, follows from their Protection
frame and has slanted the assumptions of public discourse. In
this version, all rights are seen as one indivisible package.10 However,
as one environmentalist said, denying that assumption: “ ‘A
landowner has a whole bundle of rights, and the right to prevent
subdivision or to develop is one right that they have [also]’ ”
(emphasis added) (Argus Leader, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, February 9,
2004, 1A) Similarly, a law professor pointed out in connection with the
recent 2004 Oregon Ballot Measure 37 that zoning and environmental
regulations help protect property values: “ ‘If you can build a
little Houston anywhere, or a gravel pit or a shopping center next to
your home, you don’t have maximization of property values’ ” (New
York Times, November 26, 2004, A1). 9E.g.,
filing criminal charges using an 1872 “sailor-mongering” law:
“Prosecutors said the only issue was the violation of the law” (Jim
Teeple, “Miami Judge Dismisses Charges Against Greenpeace
Activists,” Voice of America, May 20, 2004). 10As
they must be, in a whole package that must not be impaired if the
“invisible hand” of Market Fundamentalism is to operate (Fred
Block). However,
in this story the loss of property rights is seen as interchangeable
with the loss of freedom(s), and therefore the powerful Freedom frame is
also present in these attacks on environmental regulations, tending to
prevent a nuanced examination of different rights: “If we allow the
loss of our property rights, then the loss of all other freedoms will
follow”; “Private property is the basis of all free governments” (www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles9/
buy_a_little.htm).11 The Freedom frame has a structure
similar to that of the Rights frame and similar mappings with respect to
who is the hero and who is the villain; therefore, people imposing
regulations that constrain one’s freedom to use what one owns are also
thieves: “Those imposing these restrictions have robbed you, as surely
as if they had used a gun and taken money from your pocket” (propertyrightsresearch.org).
Furthermore,
these frames are supported by appeals to frames of American history:
“At the same time, the easements are eroding that bastion of the
American tradition of freedom, private property ownership” (prfamerica.org).12
Messenger
Framing An
often-overlooked element in framing is the frame associated with the
carrier of a message. How this person or organization is characterized
and understood will either reinforce or undermine the framing of the
messages they deliver. 11This
is an extremely overt statement of a position that is found in varying
degrees of explicitness in right-wing publications, and that underlies
their opposition to environmentalism in the public discourse. The
final weapon in the anti-environmental opponents’ arsenal is the
framing of the environmental “messenger”: namely, government and
environmental advocacy groups/environmentalists. It is not necessary to
describe here the Radical Right’s attack on the first messenger, the
government; they have not hidden their desire for a government so small
that they can, as Grover Norquist has put it, drown it in a bathtub. Nor
have they held back on their actions to undercut regulation. The
other messengers associated with environmental advocacy are the groups
and individuals who present pro-environmental messages. It is
instructive here to look at the words associated in the media with the
words “environmentalist” and “environmental (advocacy) group” to
see how this group of messengers is being framed in the public mind by
being included in news stories that are generally framed as
“neutral”: In
terms of the most common kinds of pairs13: it is environmentalists vs.
business (e.g., Buffalo News, June 17, 2004, B9; Times Union [Albany,
New York], June 17, 2004, B3; New York Times, June 19, 2004, B1; etc.);
it is “Democrats and environmentalists” (New York Times, August 13,
2004, E1, p. 2); it is an assumption that environmentalists need to
endorse a Republican in order to “ ‘avoid being pigeonholed with the
crazy left’ ” (New York Times, July 4, 2004,
14NJ, p. 2); and it is elitist “environmentalists” vs. populist
“conservationists” (e.g., a Recreational Fishing Alliance ad or a
web article from the ideological, conservative Manhattan Institute; see
below). It is people with a masochistic streak: “ ‘This is a car you
have to be an environmentalist to tolerate,’ Mr. DeSalvo said,
pointing to the pale aqua first-generation Prius” (New
York Times, June 13, 2004, sect. 9, p.1). 13Sometimes
the pairings are linked (e.g., farmers and environmentalists together
for open space or environmentalists with housing advocates), but usually
the pairs are oppositional. Similarly, sometimes there are neutral verbs
associated with the actions of environmental advocates, but not as often
as the negative ones. The
following is a list of words that are usually associated with
“environmentalists” or “environmental groups” in mainstream news
reports: criticize, protest, boycott, outraged, skeptical, dislike,
blame, dislike, offensive, battling, not satisfied, (accused by
opponents of) exaggerating, warn, reluctant, block, oppose, worry,
complain, “the usual environmental attack” (New York Times, November
14, 2004, sect. 5, p. 3); visuals are often of protestors, such as
variants of an “activist chained to rail tracks” (Greenpeace
photograph). When
terms like these are found in repeated association with some form of the
word “environmental,” it is hard for the public not to have a view
of environmentalists as strident naysayers, even ones who do so for a
good, protective reason (“environmentalists battling to cleanse
exhaust-polluted air” (New York Times, July 2, 2004, A4). And
sometimes the reason is not so good; it is highly misguided: “Ranchers
wanted the dam so they could have water for their cattle.
Environmentalists opposed it because of the threat to a certain variety
of fish found in the stream” (Herald News (Passaic County, New
Jersey).14 By
these kinds of word associations, environmental activism and advocacy
are seen as a negative kind of disruptive activity, not as a positive
kind of protective disruption of things that should be stopped. Compare
the Mission Statement of U.S. PIRG, which frames activism as protection
and does not use any of the negative words on the above list: “U.S.
PIRG is an advocate for the public interest. When consumers are cheated,
or our natural environment is threatened, or the voices of ordinary
citizens are drowned out by special interest lobbyists, U.S. PIRG speaks
up and takes action. U.S. PIRG’s mission is to deliver persistent,
result-oriented public interest activism that protects our environment,
encourages a fair, sustainable economy, and fosters responsive,
democratic government.” 14Rarely,
a distinction is made by the Right between “environmentalists” and
“radical environmentalists”: “I define radical environmentalism as
a mechanism for permitting the collectivist mentality to feed its
impulse to control society. In other words, there are very valid
environmental concerns we all care about; I’ve never run into anybody
who isn’t an environmentalist. No one wants dirty air and water or
wants to pass on that condition to his or her grandchildren,” Donald
P. Hodel, in an interview with the Acton Institute for the Study of
Religion and Liberty, www.acton.org/publicat/randl/print_interview.php?id=224
The
assertion that “environmentalists” put animals before people is
entirely in the open in many right-wing publications: “whereas the
environmentalist mission is exclusionary [i.e., a “priesthood”], the
conservation mission is populist and inclusionary, welcoming humankind
as an integral and legitimate part of nature’s landscape.
Conservationism does not see man as a tapeworm in the bowel of nature.
Symbiosis is possible. And when a choice has to be made, as it sometimes
must, people come first” (www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_commentarysaving_
the_environ.htm).15 It is “kids’ beach vs. seal haven” (Christian
Science Monitor, October 18, 2004, p. 3); or, in an extreme
Radical-Right web article: “These groups seek not to save the land or
the animals, but to diminish the value of human beings and destroy our
ability for self-government” (propertyrightsresearch.org).
The boycott on Chilean sea bass “does nothing to conserve the species,
but simply punishes those fishermen, importers and distributors who are
working hard to act within the law” (letter from the president of the
National Fisheries Institute, Chicago Sun-Times, April 2, 2002). Never
mind that essentially all of the groups whose materials were reviewed
for this report do include the needs of people, and usually quite
explicitly16 -- that is not the message that the public is hearing in
the media. 15
When pro-environmental actions have an “impact on our livelihood ... [w]e
need to find a balanced approach to satisfy the needs of both human
water users and endangered species. While we all believe that endangered
species recovery is important, we cannot do so at the expense of the
Constitution [i.e., private property rights] or the good people of New
Mexico” (Republican U.S. Representative; http://www.news-bulletin.com/news/34672-08-30-03.html
16For
example (and this list is by no means complete), “The Tongass is not a
nature preserve; it is a working forest where people and wilderness
coexist” (National Environmental Trust); “forging an appropriate
balance between environmental protection, human development, social
equity and economic growth” (Center for International Environmental
Law); “The Nature Conservancy embraces the notion that people are part
of the landscape, and is working to develop ways for more people around
the world to live sustainably with, and in, the natural landscape”
while ‘seek[ing] to integrate biodiversity conservation with
compatible, sustainable agriculture”; “human populations engaged in
a variety and varying intensities of land uses -- activities that are
complementary and in harmony with natural processes and undertaken
compatibly with parks and protected areas” (Nature Conservancy);
“building a future in which human needs are met in harmony with
nature” (World Wildlife Fund). When
they are not being nefarious, elitist, “vindictive,” “punitive,”
or over-eager advocates of a controlling, “collectivist,” and
“intrusive” “Left”-ist bureaucracy (www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_commentary-saving_the_environ.htm),
environmentalists are disproportionate (“willing to spend several
billions of dollars to save one statistical life,” www.cato.org/dailys/11-15-02.html;
ignoring the “many benefits that have resulted from taming the once
wild Missouri,” such as flood control, etc. [guest column in the Omaha
World Herald, May 3, 2001]), alarmist (“ ‘I think the
environmentalists kind of jumped the gun’ ” on Chilean sea bass
(Miami Herald, June 20, 2002 1E), inconsistent (“Why do we think one
way about environmental risks but another about public risks in other
contexts?” www.cato.org/dailys/11- 15-02.html),
manipulative (“the decision framework employed by environmentalists
would look absurd in any other policy context if it were stripped of its
emotional baggage,” www.cato.org/dailys/11-15-02.html), and illogical
(“To focus only on the benefits of action rather than on both the
costs and benefits of action, as well as inaction, is logically
indefensible”) (www.cato.org/dailys/11-15-02.html).
They are outdated (“ ‘It’s the environmentalists’ repackaging
the same old arguments’ ” (power industry spokesperson; New York
Times, June 10, 2004, A16), politically motivated (“ ‘There’s a
lot more political science in this report than environmental science’
”; same opponent, Washington Post [and other clips, e.g., Orlando
Sentinel], June 10, 2004, A3), and practitioners of bad science (the
report is “ ‘full of crude methodological assumptions’ ”; same
opponent, same sources). The
old hippie label (“tree-hugger”) only rarely appears directly,17
although environmentalists are often implicitly accused of being naпve
or impractical as well as extreme; one example was an advertisement by
the Recreational Fishing Alliance: “The do-gooders are gathering to do
YOU harm! Join RFA to safeguard your Freedom to Fish! Extreme
environmental organizations are pushing to create vast networks of ‘No
Fishing’ areas off your coast. ... Recreational Fishermen were among
the first conservationists. ...”, accompanied by a drawing of a goofy
housewife, a nerdy teen, a Castro look-alike holding a potted tree, a
guitar playing folkie, and a woman kissing her poodle, among others.
Note the Reversed Protection and Freedom frames, as well as the
opposition of “environmentalist” to “conservationist”. “Environmentalist”
is, in short, a label that people often want to deny: “Dianne Hemme,
another buyer in Terramor [a “ ‘green oriented’ planned
community”], said that while she wouldn’t label herself an
environmentalist, ... [f]or her the community seems like a responsible
way to deal with development“ (New York Times, August 1, 2004, sect.
11, p. 13). The
Other Stories That Environmentalists Tell Other
than the now-turned Protection frame, what stories are environmentalists
telling? Generally,
the Rights and Freedom frames are not found. There are some suggestions,
such as “”defend[ing] the right of all people to a healthy
environment” (Earthjustice), or “promot[ing] human rights” (Center
for International Environmental Law). However,
the most common is the Resources frame, signaled explicitly by such
words and phrases as the following: natural
resources, use, utilize, tourism (and other livelihood words, e.g.,
farming, ranching), managing, sustainable, recreation (and specialized
words, e.g., fishing, hunting, swimming, hiking, etc.). 17
“Tree-hugger” in the New York Times, a bit tongue-in-cheek: “Once,
they [hybrid cars] were curiosities popular mainly with tree-huggers,
but today they are the must-have, can’t-get automotive fashion
statement all over the country, June 13, 2004, sect. 9, p. 1); a
Republican hunter “says he can’t stand the ‘Birkenstock-wearing,
ecoweenies’ at most environmental conferences and [who] tend to vote
Democratic” (Associated Press: date not included in materials). The
word “conservation” can trigger this frame as well as the Protection
frame; in fact, it is probably more likely to trigger the Resources
frame (another testable hypothesis), given the existence outside of an
environmental context of the common phrase ‘conserving resources’
and the Radical Right’s preference for both the word
“conservation” and the Resource-Use frame. A
“resource” is something to be drawn upon for enrichment of some
kind—resources have a “use” rather than existing for their own
sake. In the Resource(s) frame there are the following elements: the
Resource the
User of the Resource the
Purpose of the use of the Resource When
this Resource frame is applied to “nature” or “the environment,”
the following mappings occur: Resource
= nature/the environment; wildlife; plants User
= people (especially families); animals Purpose
= an experience (see below); livelihood/subsistence18 That
is, nature/the environment19 may be a source of food or some other
tangible necessity of life, or the source of an experience: of renewal
(including in opposition to the stresses of civilization,20 aesthetic
experience (“beauty”),21 inspiration, health, spiritual or religious
wonder or awe, family memories, recreation and enjoyment,22 or
adventure23. (There are also negatively-evaluated experiences, where
nature/the environment is the source of danger, fear, or threats such as
disasters, but clearly these are not relevant here.) Usually more than
one of these experiences are presented together.24 18E.g.,
“pristine areas are understood as necessary to maintain clean,
reliable water, to control flooding; to serve as sources for medicinal
compounds; to shelter fish stocks; to act as ‘rebound’ areas for
rejuvenation of nearby lands after catastrophic events; and, indeed, to
be a source of necessary spiritual rejuvenation” (Nature Conservancy); There
are certain logical results of the Resources frame. First, it precludes
any discussion of an inherent “right to exist” of anything in
nature; everything has to be referred to some user. Trees do not have
standing merely because they exist; they have standing because they
supply something to some other being, either for the existence of a
plant or another animal (i.e., ecosystems, habitats), or for the
existence or advantage of human beings. In order to be drawn upon most
effectively, resources need to be managed well; this opens the door to
discussions that center on what constitutes good management rather than
on moral questions of values other than, say, Responsibility or
Prudence. In essence, the Resources frame downplays moral arguments,
other than arguments related to the morality of what is allowable use
and what is not; once it is introduced, it leads directly and inevitably
to “wise use” arguments and to discussions of balancing competing
claims on resources. Such competing claims can certainly be legitimate,
and such discussions can certainly be quite in line with responsible
environmental protection,25 but in other hands they can lead to
contentious conflicts26 and block consideration of arguments based on
other foundations. Taken to its extreme, the Resources frame mandates
the extraction of resources, since they are only there to be used. 19
There are numerous other frames for “nature,” many of which are not
as automatically evoked when the phrase is “the environment,” such
as nature as a nurturer (“Mother Nature”), nature as an opponent
(“nature red in tooth and claw,” or “conquering nature”), nature
as an unspoiled paradise (the Garden of Eden), and nature as part of the
Moral Order (the “Great Chain of Being” in which people and the
natural world are hierarchically ranked, with people above animals,
etc.). The term “the environment,” being of more recent coinage, has
more scientific associations. Either may be called “sacred,” i.e.,
dedicated to a divine being, which is literal for religious believers
and metaphorical for those who derive a sense of awe from the natural
world (usually the wilderness) but do not worship a deity or deities. 20E.g.,
“enjoy their [the rivers’] peace and beauty as a source of respite
from our busy lives” (American Rivers). 21E.g.,
“have enough power to save this amazingly beautiful place of nature”
(Greenpeace); using “America the Beautiful” as a motif (Scenic
America); the aesthetics of open land: “open land does ... indeed have
a value in and of itself” (Scenic America). 22E.g.,
“Trust for Public Land conserves land for people to enjoy as parks,
gardens, and other natural places, ensuring livable communities for
generations to come”; “for the enjoyment of future generations”
(The Ocean Conservancy); “quality recreational facilities such as
rail-trails” (Rails-to-Trails Conservancy). 23E.g.,
photographs of hikers, kayakers, etc. 24E.g.,
(and not an exhaustive list of examples), “The Colorado River through
the Grand Canyon has matchless scenery and a grand geological display
... unique historical and cultural resources, opportunity for natural
quiet, unique white water recreation, and a chance for high quality
reflective recreation and solitude” (Sierra Club); “a wide variety
of human benefits: a park or playground ... clean water in a drinking
fountain because a watershed was protected, an outdoor classroom in
which to learn nature’s lessons, a favorite landscape preserved for
our children’s children to enjoy, a farm that grows food rather than
houses, a historic site that reveals where we came from so we can better
chart where we are going, a wilderness in which to walk away
civilization’s cares” (Trust for Public Land); “breathtaking
beauty, backcountry recreation, clean air [= health], and irreplaceable
wildlife habitat” (Defenders of Wildlife); “wildlife habitat, safe
drinking water, recreational opportunities, and spiritual renewal while
supporting sustainable local communities around the country” (American
Rivers). At
the very least, it legitimizes that conclusion. In
this way, the Resources frame also mandates the idea that nature and the
environment are separate from human beings, who are the Users of the
natural Resources. In this frame, how “we” engage with this
externality is a matter of decision and choice; our participation in it
is not interdependent. If asked, people would surely accept the idea
that human beings affect and are affected by some aspects of nature/the
environment that they cannot control, but the point is that when the
Resources frame has been invoked, the internal logic of the frame puts
the User in control of the Resource and makes the Resource thus
inherently subordinate to the User’s demands. Many
of the groups reviewed use the word “resources” in their names
and/or their literature. This observation is not a recommendation to
change names! But it is important to point out that by using this word,
environmentalists are harboring a conceptual contradiction that
cognitively undermines many of their positions. The point about framing
is to use frames with a clear awareness of what kinds of thinking and
reasoning they bring with them and what kinds they preclude. 25See,
for example, the declaration that the “goal” is “to protect and
use sustainably America’s rich resources to ensure a high quality of
life for all people, now and in the future” (Izaak Walton League). 26“Conflicts
among individuals and groups vying for the same resources will increase
unless an understanding of the common need for abundant and healthy
natural resources is forged” and a strong foundation of responsible
“outdoor ethics” is laid (Izaak Walton League). Some
groups explicitly hold positions that challenge this aspect of the
Resources frame by making claims of inherent interdependency, even while
using the word “resources.” For these groups, human beings may make
use of aspects of the natural world, but while always recognizing that
we are not truly separate from it. For religiously based groups, human
beings have a special position in but otherwise are no different from
the rest of God’s creation: “The human family stands in unity before
God with other creatures and the natural world ... Humans are creatures,
and as such are intimately connected with the whole creation”
(National Religious Partnership for the Environment). Other groups
emphasize that community and tribal cultures see life as an integrated
whole, of which the natural world is one part and the human world is
another part, both being important and interconnected: “We associate
good citizenship with our human community and nation, but seldom link it
to the natural world [but] ... we are all ‘citizens’ of the natural
world, and as such should have ‘respect’ for the natural community
as a whole” (Defenders of Wildlife); “respects [both the environment
and] local communities” (Center for International Environmental Law);
“”an understanding of the environment based on traditional tribal
cultural and spiritual values” (National Tribal Environmental
Council). Other
“minor” frames are frames of “caring,” “cherishing,” and
“concern” (“every American who cherishes wildlife” and has a
deep caring and concern for America’s treasure trove of wildlife and
natural resources” [American Rivers]; “caring -- the catalyst for
conservation action” [Audubon Society]), and the “treasure” and
“(American) heritage” frames.27 Related
to the Heritage frame is the frame of Restoration, which is also used
frequently. This is a frame that is related to the value of protection,
and also has links to the Legacy frame as well as to the value of
Responsibility. For these reasons it may bear more attention in
succeeding phases of this research, and for lack of space detailed
consideration will be deferred. Linked
Issue Areas There
is only time here to mention some of the issue areas that have been
linked with traditionally “environmental” issues in the materials
reviewed. Health is the most common, both human health and the health of
the environment (or parts of it). Other associated areas are human
rights, national security, and values such as “fairness” and
“justice.” This area will be revisited and expanded in succeeding
phases of this project, since it will be important in reframing. Conclusion
The
environmental movement was very successful with its use of the value and
frame of Protection. Recently, however, the anti-environmentalists have
discovered a way to turn that frame on its head, so that it works
against environmentalists. At the same time, the mainstream media as
well as Radical-Right ideological media has emphasized the
confrontational aspects of environmentalism’s protective actions.
Environmentalists are positively framed in the media only if one first
accepts their actions as positive, and given the Radical Right’s
attack on both regulation and the courts, this is becoming increasingly
problematic. 27“These
places are national treasures” (National Parks Conservation
Association); “a network of some of the most spectacular of our
natural treasures,” including “national conservation areas, national
monuments, wild and scenic rivers, national scenic and historic trails,
wilderness areas and wilderness study areas” (Friends of the Earth);
“protecting our great natural heritage” (Audubon Society); “a
national treasure belonging to all of us,” with us as “stewards of
this public trust” (The Ocean Conservancy). “Finding new ways to
protect our oceans will further define America’s greatness”
(Environmental Defense). For
both of these reasons, the Protection frame has become less effective.
The Resources frame, also common, has some built-in difficulties, since
it guides people to think of a purpose for the Resources, especially
human purposes. Some of the minor frames found in the groups’
materials, such as Restoration and Interdependence, deserve more
consideration; they will be more thoroughly analyzed in the second and
third phases of this project. This
analysis is not intended to understate the gravity of the current
situation, nor to suggest that groups engaged in the adversarial
struggle to protect the environment should stop doing so. Far from it.
However, the dominant Protection frame needs to be supported and
supplemented with new framing strategies, as the Radical Right continues
to work to undermine its efficacy in public discourse. http://www.grist.org/pdf/muck-lakoff-report.pdf
Related,
recommended reading in order to better understand the mechanisms used to
advance the GangGreen / GangGreed agenda: The
Rockridge Story http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org The
Rockridge Institute began as a study group of eight senior scholars who
shared a long history of social activism and a deep frustration with the
rightward shift of U.S. politics. We knew that ideas and language make a
difference in political battles and we realized that we had the talents
and ideas to create change. Even more importantly, we knew that there
was a long tradition in this country of policy rooted in progressive
moral values and that this tradition had been lost. Rockridge
exists because two facts are increasingly obvious. First, the
conservative movement’s long-term investment in ideas has given it an
enormous advantage in U.S. politics. The largest right-wing think tanks
spend four times as much as the largest progressive think tanks, and
they are cited in the media four times as often. Their dense network of
research organizations has made it possible for them to dominate the
political debate. Second,
progressives need to clearly articulate a unified moral vision and a
shared strategy for framing political debates in order to advance a
sustainable and more just society. The
Rockridge approach is to: Reframe the terms of political debate; Develop
public policies rooted in a progressive moral vision; Unify progressives
through a coherent, compelling moral language; Build links with
activists, policymakers, the media, academics, and other key groups to
influence the public agenda. Rockridge
is very different from other think tanks. We are concerned with
re-framing the debates, not with counterpunching on the same terrain
with established assumptions. Reframing is about more than creating new
language; there is not only a language gap, but also an idea gap.
Progressive thought is about more than lists of issues and programs; we
need to be able to think about issues from the perspective of
fundamental progressive values, and to think across issue areas. Progressives
need a set of strategic initiatives that achieve multiple goals across
issue areas. Reframing requires a major rethinking of the conceptual
infrastructure of progressive thought. This
is a major job that has taken conservatives forty years, but we need to
do it faster -- with a unique combination of the best available
knowledge from the social sciences and new knowledge from cognitive
science and linguistics. Our
goal is to shift the terms of the debate with both new ideas and new
language to capture the moral high ground that the right wing has
appropriated over the past four decades. Over
the last nine months, Rockridge has gone from thought to action. We have
raised funds from foundations and individuals who recognize the value of
our work. http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/newsletter/archives/rrnews.4.04.pdf
===== Rockridge
Institute (Framing) is Offering an Online Convention on Faith Issues We
cannot let the Republicans take faith hostage for their political gain!
Join other democrats in defining/framing our issues of morals and
beliefs. Was lucky enough to talk with George Lakoff at the media
conference in St. Louis and he was amazed at the amount of energy here
in the Midwest! His goal is to work with the Democratic Party in framing
issues so that citizens get our messages and can stand with us on the
issues. The Rockridge Institute http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org
has partnered with a coalition of progressive religious organizations to
host an online conference on the Rockridge Forums. This exciting event
is bringing together progressives, Rockridge framing researchers, and
religious leaders from across America to discuss the role of progressive
religious values in public discourse. http://www.firedupmissouri.com/node/1565
===== Senior
Staff Biographies – The Longview Institute [one
biography excerpted] The
Longview Institute 2140
Shattuck Ave., Suite 709 Berkeley,
California 94704 510-204-0646 Pamela
Morgan
(Director, Strategic Framing Project) explores the relationship
between language, belief, action, policymaking, and context. Most
of her work has focused on politics, which she investigates from the
standpoint of cultural cognitive models; political discourse; propaganda
and persuasion; political symbolic and conceptual systems;
images; and the use of stereotypes, categorization, metaphor and
analogy. Dr. Morgan has worked on the framing of international,
leadership, children's and teens', health, and environmental issues for
advocacy groups and other nonprofits, as well as for governmental
agencies such as the Indian Health Service. Projects have included a
video on the International Criminal Court (scriptwriter and framing
consultant, for the United Nations Association of the United States,
working with former ambassador David Scheffer and the Aspen Institute),
the cross-cultural reframing of health materials (workshop leader,
trainer, and interviewing consultant, for the Indian Health Service; to
be repeated and extended August 2004), international agriculture
extension (framing consultant with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the Aspen Institute), and environmental and tax reform projects.
Dr. Morgan holds a Ph.D. in cognitive linguistics from UC Berkeley
and a Ph.D. in history from UC Santa Barbara. Publications include
articles and talks on the framing of political speeches and
controversies (e.g., Newt Gingrich, the Clinton impeachment, Gerry
Adams of Northern Ireland); and user's guides, for example: Competition,
Cooperation, and Connection: How These Metaphors Affect Child
Advocacy (for the FrameWorks Institute); Global Interdependence in
Agriculture: A Users' Guide for Effective Communication, (consultant
to author C. Radomski, for the USDA/Aspen Institute) and Framing Social
Issues: Does "The Working Poor" Work? (with George Lakoff, for
the Rockridge Institute). The
Longview Institute is a project of the Tides Center,
a tax exempt research and educational
institution organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of
the IRS Code. Our mission is to advance
public policies leading to a more just, democratic, environmentally
sustainable, and humane society. We do not endorse or oppose
any particular candidate or party. http://www.longviewinstitute.org/press/staffbios
===== Oil,
War and Competition Metaphors April
30, 2002 From:
pmorgan@socrates.berkeley.edu
Next
message: Asa Stepak: "Re: OIL IS WEAPON" Previous
message: Eleni Koutso: "Re: COMPETITION IS WAR" To
the list: The
COMPETITION IS WAR metaphor discussed by Sunny Pang (23 April) is part
of a larger metaphorical group, itself one of three major metaphorical
groupings: COMPETITION, COOPERATION, and what I have previously called
SYSTEMS and what I am now calling (INTER)CONNECTION.
WAR is only one of the source domains in the COMPETITION "metaphor
family" (as I have been calling these large groupings); others
include (TEAM) SPORTS, RACES, GAMES, PREDATION, and HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT.
The COMPETITION and (INTER)CONNECTION groupings are equally rich in
source domains. Sometimes, as in the case of TRADE, areas of life are
not inherently COMPETITIVE, COOPERATIVE, or INTERCONNECTED, but become
so only by our choice of how to construe them, thus allowing for
apparent membership in more than one of the three families. There are
some other interesting properties of these families as well. I've
given some talks & lectures on these in the last few years, and am
nearing completion of a book, but in the meantime I can send out a basic
paper that I wrote some time ago on these groupings (including their
internal structure). There is also a brief "highlights"
version written for a non-academic audience on the website of FrameWorks
Institute (Washington, DC), available at http://frameworksinstitute.org/products/issue11framing.shtml
Pamela
Morgan, Dept. of Linguistics, UC Berkeley http://hci.ucsd.edu/cogling/1443.html
===== Global
Interdependence in Agriculture: A User’s Guide for Effective
Communication CSREES
– The Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service http://www.csrees.usda.gov Introduction (Important Note: This is Systems Theory at its most blatant, making ‘warm and fuzzy’ statements that most people would not dare question, though they know ‘something’s wrong,’ though they aren’t sure just what. That’s why it’s so vitally important to learn what such a ‘language volley’ is all about, and what it’s designed to do: achieve ‘consensus’ -- or, put more simply, ‘conned senses’ -- and stop resistance through professional use of good-sounding gibberish, with a smattering of truth for flavoring, and carefully designed wording and sentence structure, one that at key places uses the passive voice. The truth has been put into bold black for ease in spotting; the rest is Language Deception, and there is a Control Agenda being used. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, far from its farmer-friendly roots, has become a global Medusa with a Control Agenda that financially benefits only a powerful few. Extensive use of words like “us” and “we” appeal to emotions and make readers feel included, though nothing could be further from the truth. When the reader arrives at the end of the following ten paragraphs, and looks back to see how much was in bold black, it may be a real shock. Think of a sideshow magician and the illusion that is used to separate people from their money. There’s no difference here, other than the scope of the illusion and the fact that people are being separated from their money, but more: from their freedom, independence and all they hold dear as Americans.) Interdependence has always been a reality of the global environment. People around the world share the same air, are touched by the same oceans, and are affected by the same weather patterns. In today’s high tech world, the connections between countries bind us together in innumerable, intricate ways. From concerns about global warming and the spread of food-borne illnesses to water safety and biodiversity, the issues of today do not stop at our borders. Many in the agricultural community recognize the critical importance of engaging colleagues and clientele in a public debate about our role in the world. In our increasingly interconnected world, Americans must understand what is happening beyond our borders, and make their voices heard in U.S. policy and programs. We believe that as Americans better understand global systems and the U.S. role in solving world hunger and poverty, they will actively support international agricultural development and cooperation efforts. Our ultimate goal is to build an informed, influential constituency, committed to ending world hunger and poverty, and to preserving our global environment for future generations. USDA and its university partners can provide leadership in the international arena, utilizing the expertise of the system to infuse a global focus into teaching, research, and extension programs. The result will be faculty, staff, students, and a public better prepared for effective engagement in this interconnected world -- better able to be responsible global citizens. Some of us have been talking and teaching about global interdependence for years, sometimes feeling like we’re talking to a brick wall. This guide explores some new, hopefully more effective, ways of talking about global interdependence -- in ways designed to move people from understanding to action. We examine commonly held perceptions and “frames” that shape peoples’ thinking, and make recommendations for presentations and written materials. The guide is intended to help us better understand what people believe about international agriculture and development so that we are all better equipped to discuss international work with colleagues, clientele, and the public. This guide is a “work in progress,” an ongoing learning experience as we cooperate in identifying the best ways to talk to agricultural and rural audiences about global issues. We greatly value your ideas, experiences, and comments in this process. Please send your feedback to: Carol Radomski radomski605@cs.com or Hiram Larew at hlarew@reeusda.gov or 202-720-3801 Cognitive linguist Pamela Morgan has identified and described three “families” of metaphors: competition, cooperation, and interconnection (or systems). This provides a useful way of grouping metaphors and their effects on the audience. Competition: Competition metaphors are characterized as having two or more competitors reaching for the same goal, but only one can “win.” Common competition metaphors include races, combat, winners and losers. FrameWorks research found that when topics were introduced with competition metaphors such as these, the audience tended to fall into a self-interest frame of reference. This reinforced the belief that the U.S. is already doing more than its share and others should be doing more. Cooperation: Cooperation metaphors involve two or more entities that choose to work together to attain the desired goal. When discussions were opened with cooperation metaphors, people were more open to potential cooperation and collaboration. Morgan has identified metaphors based on team players, partnerships, working groups, family and community as among the most common cooperation metaphors. Interconnection: Interconnection metaphors evoke a “systems” frame. All parts are equally important and all are necessary for the functioning of the whole. As described by Morgan, this metaphor family includes people, animals, plants, the environment, machines, buildings, fabrics, webs, and networks. Although FrameWorks did not test all the metaphors, when people were primed with interconnection metaphors about the global environment, they were more likely to see the importance of investing in other countries’ educational and social institutions. While
both cooperation and interconnection metaphors are preferable to
competition metaphors, it is important to note that only interconnection
metaphors are based on the premise that all parts of the whole are
equally important and necessary. This kind of systems thinking is more
likely to promote a sense of global interdependence, equality, basic
human rights, and respect for all peoples. http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/international/pdfs/giiguide.pdf
===== The
FrameWorks Institute: FrameWorks Collaborators – Biographies
of FrameWorks Institute Staff and Research Collaborators Susan
Nall Bales is President of
the FrameWorks Institute and an integral contributor to the development
of strategic frame analysis. She is also a visiting scholar at Brandeis
University's Heller School for Social Policy and Management. A veteran
communications strategist and issues campaigner, she brings more than 20
years of experience in public interest research, communications and
project management to FrameWorks. For six years, Ms. Bales served as
director of strategic communications and children's issues at the Benton
Foundation where she pursued a research agenda to explore and explain
public attitudes on children's issues to nonprofit policy and service
organizations, as well as designing and managing several multimillion
dollar mixed media campaigns on children's issues. She is the founding
editor of www.connectforkids.org,
an award-winning website on children's policy issues, and the recipient
of the number one ranked public service advertising campaign in the
nation in 1997. At Benton, Ms. Bales studied the media practices of
public interest organizations, creating and critiquing numerous national
public education campaigns. She has initiated, supervised and reported
on several national public opinion surveys [that] probe the public's
understanding of and support for children's programs. These include Kids'
Clout (July 1990), State of the Child (January 1992) and Mandate
for Children, for the National Association of Children's Hospitals,
and Great Expectations (1997). Before coming to the Benton
Foundation, Ms. Bales served for four years as Vice President for
Communications at the National Association of Children's Hospitals,
where she established a national communications and advocacy network.
For eight years, she served as President of Public Affairs Research
& Communications, where she designed and managed communications
campaigns for more than 75 nonprofit clients. Ms. Bales currently serves
on the I Am Your Child Foundation National Advisory Group. Ms. Bales
graduated with honors from the University of California at Los Angeles,
and received her M.A. degree in literature and language from Middlebury
College. Lynn
Davey is National Field
Director for the FrameWorks Institute. Dr. Davey directs state and
regional work for FrameWorks, and collaborates with FrameWorks'
communications professionals and scholars to adapt framing research to
the needs of the field. Dr. Davey comes to FrameWorks from the Maine
Children's Alliance, where she served as Vice President for Research and
directed the Maine KIDS COUNT Project for six years. Davey served for
two years as the Chair of the National KIDS COUNT Steering Committee,
which helps the funding agency, the Annie E. Casey Foundation,
coordinate the national network of state-level KIDS COUNT projects.
Davey was also professor of psychology at St. Joseph's College, Maine,
where she instituted the college's Department of Psychology. Davey
created major programs of study in both Psychology and Human Development
and served as chair of the Department for seven years. Davey earned her
B.A. from the University of Notre Dame and her M.A. and Ph.D. in
Developmental Psychology from The Catholic University of America. She is
a member of the American Psychological Association, the Society for
Research on Adolescence and the Society for Research in Child
Development. Dorian
Friedman, FrameWorks'
Editorial Director, brings to her position a broad range of experience
in public policy and journalism focused on domestic social issues. In
her new role, she assists in project management and development of
editorial content for the Institute's diverse clients. For four years,
Dorian served as vice president of policy at The Welfare to Work
Partnership, a national effort of the American business community to
help individuals on public assistance secure good jobs and eventual
economic self-sufficiency. She oversaw the organization's government
affairs activities and directed its survey research in collaboration
with the international polling firm, Wirthlin Worldwide. She also helped
develop The Partnership's varied publications, including "best
practice" guides promoting corporate social responsibility and
progressive hiring practices. Previously, Dorian spent nine years as a
reporter, editor, and deputy director of research with U.S. News &
World Report, where she covered social policy trends and human interest
stories. She also contributed to team coverage of the 1992 and 1996
presidential campaigns and traveled in the White House press corps with
Presidents Bush and Clinton. From 1985 to 1988, she was privileged to
serve on the legislative staff of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, of
New York, assisting him on policy issues related to welfare reform,
poverty, housing, and families & youth. Dorian holds a B.A. in
politics from Brandeis University, and an M.S. in journalism from
Columbia University. Franklin
D. Gilliam, Jr. is Professor
of Political Science/Policy Studies and founding director of UCLA's
Center for Communications and Community. He has recently accepted the
post of Associate Vice Chancellor for Community Partnerships at UCLA, a
newly-created position within the office of the Executive Vice
Chancellor. In this position, Dr. Gilliam will develop a new Institute
for University Partnerships, which will bridge community needs with UCLA
research, teaching, K-12 outreach programs, health services, and
cultural activities. He has been collaborating with Susan Bales on the
development of strategic frame analysis for more than a decade and is a
major contributor to FrameWorks' research in the area of media effects
testing. Dr. Gilliam received his B.A. from Drake University and his
Ph.D. from University of Iowa. He has also taught at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Grinnell College, and the University of Dar Es
Salaam, Tanzania. Most recently, he has taught with former Vice
President Al Gore at Columbia University, Fisk University, and Middle
Tennessee State University. Professor Gilliam has served as the Research
Director for the California Commission on the Status of African American
Males and as Chair of the B.A. and M.A. Programs at the Center for
African-American Studies, UCLA. Dr. Gilliam is the author of the Farther
to Go: Reading and Cases in African-American Politics (Harcourt Brace)
and, with Shanto Iyengar, the forthcoming Race, Television News, and
American Politics: Script-based Reasoning About Crime and Welfare
(Princeton University Press). Dr. Gilliam has also published in the
American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political
Science, Social Policy Report, Urban Affairs Review, Journal of
Politics, Nieman Reports, Harvard International Journal of
Press/Politics, Social Science Quarterly, Public Opinion, Legislative
Studies Quarterly, Government and Policy, Sociological Inquiry, Public
Opinion Quarterly, Political Psychology, Ethiopian Review and The
Source. His paper (with Seth Masket) was voted the "best
paper" in black politics at the 2000 meetings of the Western
Political Science Foundation. Over the last five years Dr. Gilliam has
consulted on a wide range of projects focusing on race and media for
groups such as the Aspen Institute, the National Funding Collaborative
for Violence Prevention, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Rockefeller
Foundation, the W.T. Grant Foundation, the Youth Law Center, the
MacArthur Foundation, Children Now, Council on Foundations, National
Governor's Association, and the Charles S. Benton Foundation. Dr.
Gilliam serves on the Board of the National Funding Collaborative for
Violence Prevention. Public
Knowledge, Inc. founded by
veteran communications strategist Meg Bostrom, is a
communications research organization and frequent collaborator of the
FrameWorks Institute. Public Knowledge has worked closely with the
FrameWorks Institute and other researchers to develop Strategic Frame
Analysis. The organization has researched public opinion and analyzed
communications strategies on a variety of social issues, including the
environment, children’s issues, foreign policy, health care, and the
working poor, among others. Meg
Bostrom, President of Public
Knowledge LLC, is a veteran communications strategist with a unique
perspective resulting from her rich and varied experiences as
communicator, public opinion analyst, advertising agency executive, and
political consultant. With degrees in both communications and public
opinion research, Meg’s work is grounded in a cross-disciplinary
focus. Meg started her career as a political pollster: Senior Analyst at
Greenberg Lake, Vice President at Mellman Lazarus Lake. In both of these
capacities, Bostrom consulted for a variety of nonprofit groups,
political candidates, foundations, national associations, and
corporations. Her work entailed designing, implementing, managing, and
analyzing qualitative and quantitative data to advance public
understanding of, and support for, social issues, political candidates,
and public policies. In this capacity, she has conducted hundreds of
national opinion surveys, focus groups and opinion summaries. More
recently, she served as Executive Vice President of Strategic Planning
at Trahan, Burden and Charles, an advertising and communications agency
headquartered in Maryland. In this capacity, she was responsible for
determining communications strategy, and was at the center of developing
well-targeted campaigns, creative brand repositionings, and effective
new product introductions for clients. Bostrom counts among her current
and former clients organizations such as the Kaiser Family Foundation,
the Ford Foundation, the Advocacy Institute, the Human Rights Campaign
Fund, and the Center for Policy Alternatives, among many others.
A Chicago native, she received her bachelor’s degree from the
University of Illinois, graduating with honors, and holds a master’s
degree in public opinion research from the University of Connecticut. Pamela
Morgan is a linguist and
historian whose work focuses on the relationships among cultural
cognitive models, social and historical context, and the meaning of
words. Her research has emphasized American political and business
language in public discourse, including work for FrameWorks on
children's oral health and other children's issues, violence, and a
monograph on cultural cognitive models. Morgan has taught linguistics,
history and American studies at the University of California, Berkeley
and the University of California, Santa Barbara. A frequent contributor
to FrameWorks projects, she also directs projects for the Rockridge
Institute on progressive social issues. Cultural
Logic http://www.CulturalLogic.com
is a research firm which consults with the FrameWorks Institute and
serves as a key member of the research team, including contributing to
the research applications. Cultural Logic adapts current cognitive and
social science methodologies to research on public interest issues in
order to uncover the cultural models that underlie opinion and behavior.
Their techniques include cognitive elicitations (semi-structured,
one-on-one interviews), rapid ethnographic assessment, analysis of media
and other public discourse, and "preflighting" messages for
communications campaigns. Working with the FrameWorks Institute,
Cultural Logic has helped to develop the methodology of strategic frame
analysis. It has provided research to the W. T. Grant Foundation,
National Funding Collaborative on Violence Prevention, Aspen Institute,
Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Climate Message Project. Axel
Aubrun, a co-founder of
Cultural Logic, has a background in psychological anthropology. His
academic research takes an interdisciplinary approach to problems of
communication and motivation, and he has taught in the area of cultural
anthropology at the University of California at San Diego. He also has
experience in non-academic approaches to communications; he was manager
of public relations for an advertising firm in San Diego. Joseph
Grady is a co-founder of
Cultural Logic. Formerly a professor of linguistics in the English
Department of the University of Maryland, his research and publications
focus on the relationship between metaphor and other aspects of thought
and communication. In addition, Dr. Grady has extensive experience
applying linguistic knowledge to projects in the business world; he
spent a number of years as a consultant for Lexicon Branding Inc., where
he helped to develop and analyze brand names. Copyright
2005, The Frameworks Institute. http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/collaborators/index.shtml
Strategic
Frame Analysis: Strategic
frame analysis is an approach to communications research and practice
that pays attention to the public's deeply held worldviews and widely
held assumptions.
This approach was developed at the FrameWorks Institute by a
multi-disciplinary team of people capable of studying those assumptions
and testing them to determine their impact on social policies.
Recognizing that there is more than one way to tell a story, strategic
frame analysis taps into decades of research on how people think and
communicate. The result is an empirically-driven communications process
that makes academic research understandable, interesting, and usable to
help people solve social problems. Quite simply, framing refers to the
subtle selection of certain aspects of an issue in order to cue a
specific response; as researchers have shown, the way an issue is framed
explains who is responsible, and suggests potential solutions conveyed
by images, stereotypes, messengers, and metaphors. The advantage of
strategic frame analysis is that it allows the research to document and
deconstruct the frames currently in the public consciousness and to
understand their impact on public policy preferences. Additionally, it
allows us to test and validate, through different disciplines, both the
negative frames and the potential positive reframes that can further an
issue's salience. Finally, the effectiveness of the recommendations we
make can be demonstrated; while we hope we are "creative" in
our approach to communications, our findings are rooted in the social
and cognitive sciences. We can explain what works and why it works, and
demonstrate this across the research. How
can you learn more about strategic frame analysis? [Visit] the links
below to read more about strategic frame analysis and how it can be
applied to non-profit communications and advocacy. The FrameWorks Perspective: http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/strategicanalysis/perspective.shtml The Seven Stages of FrameWorks Learning: Adapted from Jeanne Ryer, Endowment for Health, New Hampshire. Learning to frame and reframe is hard. It's hard to think this way initially, and it's hard to do it differently, even once you master it. Knowing that you are passing through some predictable stages can help ease the angst. Or at least that's what our framing colleague Jeanne Ryer intended, when she codified the following: Denial, in which you can't believe that what you've done in the past doesn't work, even though you know better, and can only dimly see how you might do it differently. Wonder and Ah-Ha!, in which suddenly everything you see is Framing! Framing! Framing! Paralysis, in which you are afraid to frame because you know the bad frames are in you. Assimilation, in which you hunker down, read and think more, and try to learn how to get yourself unstuck. Awkwardness, in which your frame has the head of a cat and the tail of a dog, but you recognize it and keep trying. Integration, in which you successfully reframe a piece and it works, and you keep doing it, and it works better. Conversion, in which you realize that you had better share your knowledge with your colleagues and coalitions or their frames will undermine yours. http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/strategicanalysis/sevenstages.shtml
Resources
on Strategic Frame Analysis: http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/strategicanalysis/resources.shtml
[A[n
interview with Susan Nall Bales, President of FrameWorks: http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~hfrp/eval/issue16/bales.html
What
type of research FrameWorks conducts: Our Research Efforts http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/strategicanalysis/research.shtml
[K]inds
of products FrameWorks produces to apply research findings for practical
use? [D]escriptions and examples of the various tools and products
FrameWorks can produce for its projects: http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/strategicanalysis/productstool.shtml
[O]ther
places on the web where you can learn about strategic frame analysis:
[V]isit the web sites of FrameWorks' collaborators, where you can find
valuable information about strategic frame analysis and cognitive
processes. Center on Communications and Community at UCLA: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/issr/ccc/
Cultural Logic on the Cognitive Approach: http://www.culturallogic.com/approach.htm
http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/strategicanalysis/index.shtml
The
FrameWorks Institute: Our Projects http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/clients/index.shtml (One
of the “Projects”) Global Interdependence / The Global
Interdependence Initiative In
1999, the Aspen Institute asked the FrameWorks Institute to conduct
original communications research for their Global Interdependence
Initiative (GII). GII is an effort to better inform, and more
effectively motivate, American public support for forms of U.S.
international engagement that are appropriate to an interdependent
world. The Initiative convenes a Working Group of chief executives
representing a wide range of American-based organizations with expertise
in global issues, such as Save the Children, CARE, the Sierra Club, and
United Nations Association-USA. The Global Interdependence Initiative
has been supported by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Rockefeller
Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The purpose of the
research that GII commissioned, as defined by the GII members, was to
"develop and deploy a way of talking about international engagement
that will make global issues more salient and more mobilizing in the
eyes of the American public....(and enabling) citizens' groups to argue
on behalf of specific causes within a coherent, consistent, ethical and
practical worldview that promotes cooperative international engagement
across a broad range of issues and appeals to a broad range of
audiences." The GII Working Group proposed a number of hypotheses
for raising the salience of international engagement, which had been
suggested to them by various consultants, and asked FrameWorks to
examine these in FrameWorks' research. These hypotheses included: (1)
the public doesn't care strongly about international issues; (2) people
need to see their own self-interest to care; (3) you can prime
international concern by going through a domestic issue; and (4) the
public suffers from compassion fatigue, stimulated by media coverage.
Additionally, many of the organizations within GII wanted assistance in
demonstrating an appropriate role for the United States in a global
interdependent world, using metaphors such as the "good
neighbor," and they wanted to test the appeal of their current
arguments for such a role among the general public. FrameWorks conducted
more than a dozen research studies, including a literature review,
content analyses of print and broadcast media, in-depth cognitive
interviews with the public and policy makers, a review of existing
survey research and a new national public opinion poll, cognitive
analyses of metaphorical framing of international issues, and media
effects testing of typical television news coverage of international
issues. Collaborating with FrameWorks on this research were Franklin D.
Gilliam Jr. (UCLA's Center on Communications and Community), Meg
Bostrom, Axel Aubrun and Joseph Grady (Cultural Logic), George Lakoff
(University of California, Berkeley), Center on Media and Public
Affairs, and Susan Moeller (Brandeis University). Based on this
research, FrameWorks determined that none of the original hypotheses
proved to be true. Instead, FrameWorks found the public cares strongly
about international issues, and its conceptual model is more about
social and moral values than self-interest. The problem is that the
public thinks the U.S. is doing more than its fair share. This
impression is influenced by the fact that other countries are virtually
unseen in media coverage. Still, while media coverage frames most
international issues as global mayhem, its impact on public opinion is
not as pernicious as might be expected. Exposed to this coverage, people
still want to do all they can to prevent international problems and to
alleviate suffering. And yet, the public does not know whom to hold
accountable for international problems. In order to apply these
learnings, FrameWorks designed and conducted a series of presentations
and workshops for staff of the GII member organizations. FrameWorks also
developed a toolkit, a fully narrated CD-Rom presentation, and numerous
application materials for their ongoing use. The full research reports: http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/products/global.shtml
Applications of the GII research: http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/products/giiapplications.shtml
http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/clients/aspen.shtml
===== Don’t Think of
the Environment: Enviros recruit Lakoff for reframing project, but
concerns mount that he might leave them in the lurch March 29, 2005 By Amanda Griscom Little
A onetime adviser to Howard Dean,
who hails him as "one of the most influential political thinkers of
the progressive movement," Lakoff is author of the election-year
best-seller “Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame
the Debate,” which solidified his rep as a top-tier Democratic
strategist. A professor of linguistics at the University of California,
Berkeley, he is widely seen as the meta-thinker who can rearticulate
liberals' core values and help invigorate the flagging progressive
movement. Environmental leaders, too, are
turning to Lakoff for guidance as they grapple with a values dilemma
similar to that of progressives at large. The past few months have seen
much heated debate about how best to revive environmentalism, if it can
be revived at all. But even before Michael Shellenberger and Ted
Nordhaus's much-ballyhooed "Death of Environmentalism" paper
spurred a combustive mix of introspection and vitriol, green leaders
last year signed a high-dollar contract with Lakoff to help them revamp
their messaging strategy and increase their political power. Now, that ambitious project appears
to be floundering. In April 2004, a coterie from the
Green Group -- a behind-the-scenes coalition of 20-plus national
environmental organizations whose leaders plot big-picture strategy via
listservs and semi-regular meetings -- convened for a weekend getaway at
a conference center on the Wye River in Maryland. Lakoff was the guest
of honor. With his standard stump speech on crafting values-based
messages and political strategy, he won the hearts and minds of those
assembled. Framing -- Lakoff's much-touted
specialty -- is purposeful use of concepts and language to
recontextualize debates and change the way the public views an issue, or
the world. Lakoff often cites examples of the political right's
masterful use of frames: death tax, partial-birth abortion, war on
terror, ownership society. The left, he says, has some serious catching
up to do. That point hit home with green leaders, who have seen too many
of their public messages land with a dull thud. Soon after the retreat, American
Rivers President Rebecca Wodder, who was the 2004 chair of the
coalition, contacted Lakoff about launching a long-term project with his
Rockridge Institute. "We hired George to help us develop a
methodology for communicating more effectively," Wodder told
Muckraker, "for reframing environmental issues in a way that they
have more traction, more importance." Sources close to the project say
that Wodder and Lakoff negotiated a budget of roughly $350,000 for the
venture, which would include three phases: First, a diagnosis of the weaknesses
in the environmental movement's communications strategy. The second and third phases would
involve more challenging efforts to clarify the values of the movement
and recast its approach to messaging. Both the Nathan Cummings Foundation
and the Wyss Foundation agreed to pony up funds for the project. Wyss didn't respond to
Muckraker's requests for information about its grant, but Peter Teague,
director of the environment program at Nathan Cummings, waxed
enthusiastic: "This is an incredibly audacious thing, right, to say
we're going to reframe environmentalism? And coming from the Green
Group? Wow!" Teague, who was instrumental in
introducing Lakoff into green circles, approved $50,000 in Cummings
money to fund the project's planning process,
which is slated to conclude in May. And that's just the down payment.
In the Nathan Cummings grant description, the endeavor was envisioned
as "a multi-year reframing initiative designed to positively change
public perception of the environmental movement." When asked
to confirm rumors that the total budget for the project would be in the
range of $350,000, Teague replied, "Yeah, easily." We Was Framed! But the fate of the audacious
venture is far from clear. In December, Rockridge submitted to Green
Group leaders a draft of the diagnostic phase of the project, which
Lakoff was scheduled to discuss at a conference in January. But with
little advance warning, Lakoff cancelled his appearance. "He flaked," said a
top-level Green Group participant who spoke on condition of anonymity.
"He's in big demand right now, and the project apparently wasn't
a priority. He has bigger fish to fry." Buck Parker -- executive director of
Earthjustice and Green Group chair for 2005, who has worked closely with
Wodder on the project -- cast the situation more gently: "Rockridge
has a lot going on and needed to extend the timeline." Neither Lakoff nor his staff
responded to repeated requests from Muckraker for clarification on the
status of the project. It appears to have been on hold for about three
months, and some insiders have said the deal looks likely to peter out.
"The last official notice that was sent around said that they were
canceling the [January] conference," said the anonymous Green Group
participant. "I've heard absolutely nothing since, except rumors
that Lakoff is dropping the ball." The project leaders, however, are
confident that it will move forward. "I think everybody is still on
board," said Parker. But the scope and intent of the effort seem to
be in flux: "We're revamping the project to focus more on where are
we now than where we're headed -- what's working, what's not working in
terms of the frames that are currently in use," Parker said. When
pressed to explain the decision not to look ahead, he said they might
tackle that later: "This is the first of many steps." Wodder was less forthcoming: "We
are going to keep the details of our discussions about the timeline and
deliverables between ourselves and Rockridge Institute.” Teague, for his part, said he was
still waiting to see what would come of the final project proposal due
in May. As it is, the only definitive result
of the project thus far is the 20-page report [PDF] http://www.grist.org/pdf/muck-lakoff-report.pdf
evaluating the environmental movement's current use of frames, written
by a Rockridge Institute staffer, Pamela Morgan, with "research
assistance, discussion, and/or review" from Lakoff and others at
the institute, according to the paper's footnotes. "The basic data needs refining
and more work," said Parker, but he sees the paper as a
"good beginning step" that will lead to a more detailed
examination down the line. The aforementioned anonymous Green
Group source, on the other hand, characterized the submission as
"basically a piece of crap, like a grad student paying not a whole
lot of attention must have produced it." The paper, which aims to explain why
current environmental frames are failing, is peppered with statements of
the obvious. "For all their good intentions, environmentalists have
been far less effective than their opponents at enacting a values-based,
effectively framed vision," it reads, adding that
anti-environmentalists have achieved towering influence over American
culture "because the Radical Right understands about framing."
The paper centers on the thesis that
environmentalists rely mostly on "the Protection Frame" to
communicate their message and concludes, unhelpfully, that the
"dominant Protection frame needs to be supported and supplemented
with new framing strategies, as the Radical Right continues to work to
undermine its efficacy in public discourse." Suffice it to say that as a
launching point for a $350,000-plus project, it does not inspire
confidence. And it begs the question of how
helpful a diagnosis can be if no treatment is in the works. A Case of Elephantiasis The elephant in the Green Group's
living room, of course, is the divisive "Death" paper, which
was funded -- not coincidentally -- by Teague. He has pushed the debate
about the future of environmentalism on a number of fronts, and seems to
relish his role as an agitator. After joining Nathan Cummings in
2002, Teague made his first grant from the foundation to Lakoff, whom he
"wanted to make available to all grantees, so they could turn to
him whenever necessary." And it was Teague who brought Lakoff
in during the development stages of the Apollo Alliance, a coalition
that aims to link environmental protection to job creation, with which
both Shellenberger and Nordhaus have been closely involved. The controversial authors cite
Lakoff as an influential mentor. "He is a genius ... he was one of
the inspirations for 'Death of,'" said Shellenberger. "As far
as I'm concerned, it's a great thing that the Green Group folks are
interested in drawing from his theories. I just hope they realize they
need to do a deep and thorough rethink of their vision and political
strategy, not just devise better language for the same old failing ideas." Nordhaus was also skeptical.
"If all they want is for George to whip up some magic words and
packaging to make all their problems go away, it's not going to
work," he said. When signs arose that Lakoff
might drop out of the reframing effort, Teague proposed Shellenberger
and Nordhaus as possible alternatives to head up the stalled project,
according to sources. Not surprisingly, the major environmental group
heads allegedly negged [negated] that idea. Who wants to work with
people who have called you a corpse? The Green Group leaders who spoke
to Muckraker said they know perfectly well that the movement needs to
adapt to changing political circumstances and find ways to better
connect with the public. And they emphasized that their interest in
working with Lakoff preceded and was in no way influenced by
Shellenberger and Nordhaus's paper. Said Wodder, "For years we've
looked ourselves in the mirror and asked, Are we too wonkish? Are we
just talking into the mirror? What are better ways to communicate? These
are clearly very challenging times for us, but we are always looking at
ways to be more effective." Sierra Club Executive Director
Carl Pope, the most outspoken critic of the Death paper, believes Lakoff
can help the movement gain new focus and clarity. "Sierra Club has
been working with Lakoff for a long time,"
he told Muckraker. "It's been hugely valuable to understand
that frames determine the way the mind works. They are metaphors that
articulate values, expectations, understandings." Pope cited
"polluter pays" as one of the most effective environmental
frames: "It invokes the universal
if-you-spill-the-milk-you-have-to-clean-it-up principle," he
said, adding that "energy independence" is becoming another
useful frame for highlighting the freedom inherent in clean energy
sources. But will clever new terminology do
the trick, or do the environmental community's needs run deeper?
"When you have inarticulate frames, you get murky about your
values," said Pope. "We need to recover the clarity of our
moral vision, and you can't do that without recovering the clarity of
language and frames." Parker, likewise, sees deeper value
in the framing exercise. He wants the project to help broaden the
environmental community's focus beyond Beltway political work to
encompass a more expansive, values-based vision: "I regard [the
Lakoff project] as a down payment in a larger effort to reinvest the
capital of the environmental movement -- instead of investing it all in
the specific issues, we need to invest it in a more holistic view. We
need to build a broader base." But some in the environmental
community argue that true political power-building requires a more
pragmatic strategy. "We need to wrap our minds around a fundamental
fact: We lack electoral and political power. We don't have 51 committed
environmental votes in the Senate," said Mark Longabaugh, the
recently departed senior vice president for political affairs at the
League of Conservation Voters. "We didn't lose the vote on drilling
in the Alaskan wilderness two weeks ago; we lost it last November. To
make real and sustained legislative progress, we don't need framing. We
need to rededicate ourselves to the hard political work of winning
elections." Teague sees another problem behind
the environmental community's lackluster performance: the strictures of
shortsighted funders. "The way that foundations do their business
is probably a big part of the problem," he said. "We divide
ourselves up according to different 'issues,' and then we make groups
jump through hoops to fulfill the very specialized objectives that we've
defined." He added that the funders have failed to put feedback
mechanisms in place that require organizations to challenge their own
assumptions and engage in a collective debate. "If the grantmakers
really took a hard look at their own strategies," said Teague,
"we might just realize that we've met the enemy, and it is
us." Even Lakoff, if he ever gets around
to finishing his Green Group commission, can't solve the deeper
structural problems of the movement. And while he could help enviros
reap important political gains from new frames and a savvier
communications strategy, green ground is being lost by the day as the
reframing process narrows its scope and loses its steam. ----- Amanda Griscom Little writes Grist's
Muckraker column on environmental politics and policy and interviews
green luminaries for the magazine. Her articles on energy and the
environment have also appeared in publications ranging from Rolling
Stone to The New York Times Magazine. Source:
http://blogs.utiligeek.com/towardpeace.php/2005/04/03/little
===== Framing
topics (Note: This is lengthy, and much like the first report -- though in much more detail -- but refers to “Progressive frames: our new Overt Language.” Also refers to “Ready-to-use” frames. This is the “how to” book for changing a Constitutional Republic, and freedom, and property rights, into the same thing people came here and founded America to escape.) http://demspeak.com/?q=book/print/200
===== At
this URL, please see “Comments – 36” if nothing else, for its
reference to supporting “liberal think tanks” and listing of both
the Longview [read LONG VIEW] Institute and Rockridge Institute. You may
also want to scroll down to the list… |