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

Bibliographic Data

ID5965796
AuthorsDavid A Snow (University of California, Irvine, corresponding author), R Vliegenthart (0000-0003-2401-2914, Wageningen University & Research, The Netherlands)
Year2023
Volume25
Issue2
Pages297-308
Publication date2023-04-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueDiscourse Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1461-4456 • E-ISSN: 1461-7080
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/14614456231155079
OpenAlexW4322768851
LanguageEN
Citations received8
References cited41

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

Constructive · Criticism · Epistemology · Ideology · Political science · Politics · Social movement · Sociology · Law · Philosophy · Political Conflict and Governance · Populism, Right-Wing Movements · Psychology · Social Media and Politics · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access