comments_image -

Fear of framing

Challenging the popular notions of what this buzzword is all about.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

It's the end of Week Two here in the Echo Chamber, and it seems like an appropriate moment to address some fundamentals of progressive framing: what it is and isn't, as well as investigating why some progressives are resistant to the concept of framing in general.

Reframing pokes at a number of sore spots for people on the Left. Some of those spots include:

1. Our insistence that the Facts Alone Will Set Us Free.

2. Our resistance to ideas that feel like marketing and "selling."

3. The challenge that we might be fundamentally mistaken about how things operate.

4. The idea that framing is some kind of "magic bullet" to fix our problems. (Though no one is suggesting that it is.)
As Peter Teague noted in an article on framing earlier late last week, the word "framing" has come to mean the same thing as messaging or spin. This kicks the purpose of the overall progressive reframing project off-kilter in many ways. Says Teague:
Despite attempts to fight the tide, framing has come to mean finding better words and images to communicate with various audiences (the president broke the law by authorizing spying). The problem (and I think it's serious), is that we're proposing "frames" that are actually messages within frames, that evoke frames of which we remain oblivious. In the name of fixing a problem (we don't have a clue what the frames are in which we're operating) we're actually perpetuating it.

I think getting this right matters, because what framing really points us to is a deep rethink that forces us to challenge our assumptions and identities and that will require a reorganization of many of our efforts. It is not sloganeering, messaging or spinning, all of which leave our assumptions, identities and institutions comfortably in place.

It is this last statement about the larger challenges that many find the hardest pill to swallow. Teague continues on to discuss the impact on our organizations and leaders being too heavily invested in how things are at the moment to seriously challenge any of these notions, and thus, the hard work is up to us.

But we are all invested heavily in how things are, and it's going to take a lot of hard-pill-swallowing for all of us to challenge our identities and assumptions as progressives. Take Sore Spot #1, for example -- our stubborn addiction to preaching from the Fact Pulpit. As AlterNet's executive editor, Don Hazen, says in the introduction to George Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant":

Progressives have been under the illusion that if only people understood the facts, we'd be fine. Wrong. The facts alone will not set us free. People make decisions about politics and candidates based on their value systems, and the language and frames that invoke those values.

Thus, we have to dig deeper and examine closely just what those values are, and how we tap into them. Study after study shows that the majority of Americans share values considered progressive when asked. (Jim Hightower talked about some of them in a recent article.) For many, trying to understand the psyche of Americans and to reach out to that hits sore spot #2 -- that we are somehow spinning and selling messages people would otherwise be resistant to.

This is pretty self-defeating, in my book: assuming from the start that people don't want to hear what we have to say. My own general assumption is that people desperately want to hear a progressive vision based on their values, but we haven't really given them that, or communicated it in a way that they can see or feel part of the big picture. In a recent interview about progressive book publishing, Colin Robinson talked about progressives' general distaste for marketing, which, in many ways, is related to the resistance to framing:

The Left has always had a very suspicious attitude towards marketing. The idea with a lot of people on the Left is that if you have to sell something to someone, that probably means that they don't want it, and there's something sort of unethical about it. The idea is that you should plant your standards and wait for people to rally around it. Well, that's just not good enough.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Alternet Special Coverage - Occupy Wall Street
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Obama Caves to the Right, Will Announce "Compromise" on Contraception Coverage

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Go Hungry! Fat Cat New Hampshire Republicans Aim to Ban Lunch Breaks

By Steven D | Booman Tribune

 
 
Employers Have Had to Provide Birth Control Coverage Since 2000

By Joan McCarter | Daily Kos

 
 
Who Cares What The Bishops Think? Old Catholic Guys Do.

By Sara Robinson | Alternet

 
 
Coup in Maldives Threatens Ousted President Mohamed Nasheed, a Leading Voice for Island States Threatened by Global Warming

By Amy Goodman | Democracy Now!

 
 
Finally! Trader Joe's Signs on to Fair Food Agreement for Farm Workers

By Tara Lohan | AlterNet

 
 
The Inside Scoop on the Budding Romance Between Walmart and Monsanto

By Maria Tchijov | Food and Water Watch

 
 
North Carolina Considering Amendment That Would Roll Back the Rights of Both Gay and Straight Couples

By Jonathan Weiler | Independent Weekly

 
 
Ellen Degeneres Strikes Back at Anti-Gay Bigots Who Are Boycotting JC Penney Because She's Their New Spokesperson

By Lauren Kelley | AlterNet

 
 
Unbelievable: Man Beats Wife, Judge Orders Him to Take Her Out to Red Lobster and the Bowling Alley

By Melissa McEwan | Shakesville

 
 
 
Reverend Billy Talen
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]