An imperious, closed sandbox? A rejoinder to Van Dijk’s critique of the framing perspective on social movement mobilization

In this article, we provide a response to Teun van Dijk’s criticism of the framing perspective on social movements, as expressed in his article ‘Analyzing Frame Analysis. A Critical Review of Framing Studies in Social Movement Research’. We argue that a more constructive tone is warranted and explai...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Discourse studies 2023-04, Vol.25 (2), p.297-308
Main Authors: Snow, David A, Vliegenthart, Rens
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Communication
Discourse
Frame analysis
Mobilization
Social movements
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In this article, we provide a response to Teun van Dijk’s criticism of the framing perspective on social movements, as expressed in his article ‘Analyzing Frame Analysis. A Critical Review of Framing Studies in Social Movement Research’. We argue that a more constructive tone is warranted and explain how his criticism is largely based on a selective reading and misinterpretation of the vast literature on framing and social movements. We provide a more detailed explanation of how discourse and related concepts such as schema and ideology are discussed by social movement scholars and critically reflect on his claim that framing as a concept can rather be replaced by discourse and/or various other cognitive/psychological constructs. Finally, we suggest how a discourse perspective and insights from social movement framing can be complementary in increasing our understanding of how movements (and other actors) communicate and with what consequences.
ISSN:1461-4456
1461-7080
DOI:10.1177/14614456231155079