Topic: Anticipating The Opposition Using Framing Research
Carol Kamin, Executive Director of the Children's Action Alliance, set a challenge for FrameWorks: review the op/ed she had successfully placed in the East Valley Tribune in Arizona following the September 11 attack and predict the counter-editorial that ran alongside it. We've attached both pieces for you, but only read them when indicated in this E-Zine, so you can deconstruct them along with us.
We thought Carol's challenge afforded a great opportunity to demonstrate how you can anticipate the opposition, based on your own understanding of the frames you've chosen and the way they are likely to resonate with different audiences. Carol's article is well-written and argues for many of the same child and family services that children's groups have supported in the past. It is innovative and newsworthy, borrowing the frame of September 11 to argue that supporting our children is what government should do in the name of the general welfare. But the counter-attack is inevitable in the framing wars over children's policies; where would the opposition come from? Knowing how to anticipate the opposition's frames gives you an edge - you may decide to re-edit your article to minimize vulnerabilities, or you may decide to get the next op/ed, statement or news release ready to keep up the heat!
To answer Carol's challenge requires consideration of two bodies of research: one from the cognitive sciences on levels of thinking, and the other from recent public opinion data on how Americans think about poverty and low wage workers. What follows is a discussion of each research base, along with its implications for Carol's argument. Next, we anticipate the rebuttal to Carol's article, based on these research perspectives. And, finally, we present the article that actually appeared in response to Carol's. Along the way, we'll revisit some familiar framing concepts like inference, context, primes and default frames. Many of these concepts are further defined in the "Definitions" section of your FrameWorks Toolkit.
This extensive analysis is provided simply to give you a blueprint for future efforts of your own. If you follow this outline, even in a group discussion or back-of-the-envelope exercise, you can get out in front of the public debate and use the crossfire to your advantage.
-
LEVELS OF THINKING
From cognitive linguist George Lakoff we borrow the following definition of levels of thinking:
Ideas and issues come in hierarchies. We define three levels of understanding, as follows:
- Level One: Big ideas, like freedom, justice, community, success, prevention, responsibility, stewardship
- Level Two: Issue-types, like women's rights or the environment
- Level Three: Specific issues, like day care or global warming
These hierarchies track and direct our thinking. Higher-level frames act as primes for lower-level frames, which means that their values and modes of reasoning are applied to lower-level frames. Frame hierarchies are not absolute; different ones can be imposed in different contexts.
Put simply, you can use a Level One "value" to help direct the way people think about a policy issue with which they are unfamiliar. The choice and deployment of the Level One frame can make or break your argument.
So the questions we want to ask in reviewing Carol's op/ed are the following:
- What is the Level One frame?
- How is that frame likely to be interpreted by Carol's antagonists?
- What other cues are there in the article that will support this Level One frame?
You should go ahead and read Carol's op/ed, titled "People Should Also Sacrifice for Family Welfare" now.
Now let's answer the questions about the op/ed. To answer the first question, it sometimes helps to think like a journalist. The editor, reading through the op/ed, had to ask "what is this about?" in order to title the piece. The result was two concepts that popped out of the piece: sacrifice and welfare. Let's look at both briefly. Sacrifice is set up in several places in the article: people "told our elected leaders they were prepared to sacrifice"; "President Bush has acknowledged the need to sacrifice": the "feeling of sacrifice" pervades the land. Similarly, Carol asserts that "promoting the general welfare" should include a broad array of programs for families, and programs provided by government.
How are these frames likely to be interpreted by Carol's antagonists? To answer this question, it is helpful to explore the inferences of the frames. Who should sacrifice in order to provide for family welfare? Who is responsible for a family's welfare? The answer in both cases is the same: the individual family. Remember the illustration we use to explain context in FrameWorks trainings: we first show a picture of cows chewing grass in a field. We explain that some cows are getting sick, and we ask the group to speculate about the cause. Invariably, people work within the frame that has been given them; they ask if the farmer gave the cows bad feed, or if the farmer is experienced, or if the cows have wandered into an adjacent field, or if the cows caught a disease from other cows. We then add in a backdrop that shows an urban landscape, with smoke stacks belching fumes just over the cows' heads, and we ask the group again: why do you think the cows are getting sick? This time, of course, they are able to broaden the scope of their speculation to include environmental causes, and to ask about the relationship of the cows to their air, water and soil. This exercise brings home the importance of getting context into the initial definition of the problem.
Working within the frame, those who need to sacrifice to provide for a family's welfare are the adults in that family. Think of how George Bush countered Al Gore's foreign policy proposals in the second presidential debate with his quick critique of nation-building: "I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations." The frame has a kind of tight logic to it that does not allow you to explore beyond its boundaries. But doesn't government have a role?
The answer to that question, the very question Carol tried to set up, forces us to examine what other cues there are in the article that might lead us to discount a role for government and to substitute a personal responsibility frame. Ask yourself: what is the main story line in the press coverage of welfare reform? A failed government program that victimized people. So… how do you provide for the general welfare? Each person takes care of his or her own welfare. Government is the problem, not the solution. This mindset essentially undermines the fact that Carol offers solutions - but these are government and taxes.
While Carol's article was really "about" a far more complex network of ideas than "sacrifice and welfare," once the editor assigned the header to the article, she was truly mired in these frames because they then acted as primes. What's a prime? A prime is a conceptual frame that is typically activated through language (though images are possible as well). Like any conceptual frame, it structures an issue, highlighting certain things, imposing certain values, and bringing with it certain modes of thought and reasoning. Conceptual frame A is a prime when it is activated before another frame B and when it remains active while B becomes active. When this occurs, the values and modes of reasoning of frame A are applied to frame B, and may even override aspects of frame B if the prime is strong enough. Put simply, if I asked you to think about your financial status in the 1990s, and then asked what you thought of Clinton's performance as President, your answer would likely be different than if I asked for your opinion on marital fidelity, and then asked for your appraisal of President Clinton. The prime remains active and directs the subsequent appraisal.
Seen through the prism of "sacrifice and welfare," this op/ed was even more likely to provoke a backlash based on people's longstanding responses to those concepts.
The op/ed tried to rebut this frame by saying that September 11 demonstrated a new sense of commonality, connectedness, and community and should help us rally around family and child well-being. Carol might have lost the artistry of the Constitution, but she would have saved herself the damage prompted by using some strongly valenced frames - sacrifice, welfare, obligation, etc. - which drive this op/ed to default to personal responsibility. The reason this occurs is partially because of the power of frames, and partially because of the way Americans have learned to think about poverty, welfare, and personal responsibility. Let's now take a look at this second body of work.
- A QUICK REVIEW OF PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT SACRIFICE AND WELFARE
- Charity and generosity toward the needy are appropriate responses.
- Each individual is responsible for his or her own success and failure.
- With hard work comes reward.
- The goal is equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
- Anyone can achieve the American Dream.
- 81% agree that they would be willing "to pay a little more in taxes to take care of children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities who are unable to support themselves" (Kellogg Foundation, Bonney and Company, November 1998).
- More than three-quarters of Americans (78%) agree that "people should take responsibility for their own lives and economic well-being and not expect other people to help" - and 47% strongly agree. They reject a systemic cause for poverty, with 71% agreeing that "most people who don't get ahead should not blame the system, they have only themselves to blame" - and 36% strongly (Washington Post/Harvard University/Kaiser Family Foundation, August 1998).
- Two-thirds reject the notion that "success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control" - and 28% completely disagree and two-thirds that "many people today think they can get ahead without working hard and making sacrifices" (Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, November 1997).
- Two-thirds (68%) see the U.S. economic system as "basically fair, since all Americans have an equal opportunity to succeed" (Gallup, April/May 1998).
- 81% believe the US to hold "plenty of opportunity and anyone who works hard can go as far as they want" (Gallup, April/May 1998).
- Government is incompetent (33% of stories reflect this theme).
- Low wage workers are caught between a rock and a hard place, often through the unintended social consequences from reform efforts such as TANF, and must struggle to make it (32% of stories).
- Low wage workers can't climb the economic ladder, though the forces that prevent them from doing so were rarely explored (17% of stories).
- People are falling behind and the world cannot slow down for those who cannot keep up the pace (17% of stories).
- People on public assistance are freeloaders, prisoners of welfare, and/or undeserving or unappreciative workers (15% of stories).
- If children are not getting what they need, who is responsible?
- If parents are not climbing the ladder of opportunity, whose fault is it?
- If people are not being rewarded, is work the problem or the solution?
- Who needs to sacrifice in order for these people to achieve --- the people who are failing or the system that is failing them?
- THINKING LIKE THE OPPOSITION
- The lesson of September 11 is that we must all pitch in to secure our safety. We must secure the safety of our families and our neighbors. That means requiring more from everyone, not letting some off the hook.
- The economic stability of families is not a government issue, it's a private issue, resolved by workers and the market. Right now, the market is having some problems, but people who really want to work can still find jobs.
- The only people who can ensure the welfare of children are their parents; and the best thing they can do right now is to guard their personal safety by setting limits and instilling values and to set a good example by working hard and saving for the future.
- Government is not the solution. Government is the problem. It has created the dependency that holds poor people in thrall, and makes them victims of the welfare system instead of striving to climb the economic ladder.
- The people who should sacrifice are the families themselves; if they put their children first and work hard like the rest of us, they will make it. They don't need 3 cars and 5 TV sets. If mothers stay home with children, they will secure their safety and their futures. Families will need to sacrifice to make these choices, but they will be better for it.
- Promoting the general welfare does not mean giving people a free ride. The firefighters, police officers, rescue workers and clean-up crews are hard at work every day earning a living the old-fashioned way: they earn it. Their hard work should not be taxed in order to support those who don't pay their way. That's not fair.
- Arizona can best respond to September 11 by securing its own future: making sound investments and providing ways for people to invest who know how to build wealth. Those ships will lift all boats, and that's why they have tax credits.
- THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT REVEALED
- FRAME MANAGEMENT
- omitting the word welfare, for starters. Even though she used the word as a double entendre, the original meaning is a firebrand to the imagination.
- rethinking the "sacrifice" frame --- which has the same inherent vulnerability as the "nation-building" trap that caught Candidate Gore.
- doing more earlier and more proactively to establish the "united we stand" frame and the notion that we're all in this together, which would have made it more difficult - unpatriotic, even - to oppose her problem definition. This was her own Level One choice, but it got trumped by the opposition's manipulation of the above two frames.
- mixing private and public solutions, so she couldn't be so easily cast as a big government promoter, making her opposition's attack at least in part on private enterprise.
- making it more difficult for the authors to wrap themselves in the mantle of beneficence by showing how little Arizonans give, and what their private donations could buy in the way of schools, after-school programs, etc.
In a meta-analysis of public opinion research over the past three years conducted for Doug Gould & Associates with funding from the Ford Foundation, Meg Bostrom identified five core values that characterize Americans' reasoning about poverty and low-wage workers:
While Meg presents a copious amount of data to substantiate these values (you can read the full report online at www.douglasgould.com), here are just a few relevant excerpts from her exhaustive review of American public opinion:
Additional insights can be gleaned from an analysis of the portrayal of low-wage workers in the media, also sponsored by Douglas Gould and Company (see "Between a Rock and a Hard Place" online). This comprehensive analysis of 24 media outlets over a six-month period from February 1 to July 31, 2001 included major national daily newspapers, news magazines, NPR, CNN and the major TV networks as well as wire services. Here is a summary of the five leading news frames (some stories reflect more than one theme, and are counted in multiple categories):
The media content analysis makes the clear point that issues related to the working poor are more likely to be covered as "troubles" than "issues," to borrow C. Wright Mills' useful distinction (The Sociological Imagination, Oxford University Press, 1959: 8). Troubles "occur within the character of the individual and within the range of his immediate relations with others." By contrast, issues "have to do with matters that transcend these local environments of the individual and the range of his inner life....An issue is a public matter: some value cherished by publics is felt to be threatened." As long as the problem is defined as being personal, it is then by definition internal to the individual and not appropriately solved in the public domain. Policy solutions become a non sequitur.
But there is a further problem that arises from a careful reading of these two reports. Poverty is framed in the media and understood in public opinion as internal to the person. Moreover, as George Lakoff suggests (Moral Politics, University of Chicago Press, 1996), that personal failure is likely to be judged as moral in nature - the result of moral weakness, like lack of discipline, etc. At this point, the problem definition drives even further away from policy solutions. The only relevant solution is to fix the person. And the most appropriate antidote to moral weakness, at least in the American lexicon, is work. Here we see how welfare reform becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: it is not necessary for welfare reform to remove the individual from the condition of poverty in order to be deemed successful, but rather it is only necessary for it to prescribe work as the corrective for moral weakness. It only needs to "fix" character, not condition, since the problem has been defined as such.
So let's return to Carol's op/ed and its dual Level One frames of sacrifice and welfare. Given what we've now examined in media frames and public opinion:
So, here is FrameWorks' answer to Carol's challenge. Here is what we think the "other side" of the argument looked like in the East Valley Tribune (before we actually read it):
We promise we didn't take a peek at the real thing till right this minute!
Now, read the counter-argument editorial, titled "Protection, Not Provision." So what have we here?
The header gives us a big clue: "Protection, not provision." So the safety frame is being used to trump Carol's collective sacrifice frame, which is now being recast as "provision" (as in government hand-outs).
The subtitle is powerful as well: "Experience shows limits to role of government in child welfare." By inference, Carol's position is "inexperienced." And the header got the dreaded "W" word at the top, so we could all be primed to see the rest of the article through the lens of our attitudes to welfare.
The first couple of paragraphs establish the "charity and generosity toward the needy" credentials of the authors. In this sense, they are simply deflecting charges of hard-heartedness.
The fourth paragraph begins to get down to business with the assertion that "the best way to help these people isn't always through government-Indeed, the lesson of 40 years of failed federal welfare policy is that impersonal government assistance undermines both individual initiative for self-improvement and effective private efforts to help the needy." Sound familiar? Government is the problem, not the solution. It creates dependency, which is the real source of the problem (moral weakness). Charity and generosity are the appropriate response, not policy changes.
As the article progresses, it moves more and more in the direction of protecting those who work from those who don't and want the rewards without the sacrifice. "The Founders established (this republic) to protect citizens working hard for what they want from bandits trying to take it away." Freeloaders, prisoners of welfare, and/or undeserving or unappreciative workers. "Thankfully, Arizona's lawmakers have found ways to allow hard-working citizens to keep more of what they earn."
We didn't foresee the explicit policy solutions being touted here, but they have frame consistency. This editorial is "about" freedom, so freedom to choose private versus public schools is integral to the piece. Since schools are seen as the doors to opportunity, this argument rests on giving poor kids better schools, which are private not government schools, so they can better themselves. And, finally, charity is the only answer.
What could Carol have done to anticipate the opposition's frames, even if she had seen the Tribune's editorial coming? Well, she wouldn't need to alter the content or the core recommendations, certainly, but she could do some frame damage control by:
Surely, nothing in this editorial came as a surprise to a long-time veteran of Arizona politics like Carol. But it shouldn't come as a surprise to any child advocate familiar with the dominant media frames of welfare and work, and the public opinions they help to shape. What this kind of anticipatory frame analysis allows you to do is to pick your fights, and to line up your best frames.
With thanks to Carol Kamin for sharing her experience and providing the material for this exercise.
