Find a few (3-4) examples of frames from groups that you feel do a particularly good job of framing, at least related to how they speak to you. Discuss why they work.
Pro Choice-
I think the Pro Choice movement does an excellent job of reframing the abortion debate. It is controversial to say something like "I think women should be able to kill their babies before they are born," but the reframing of "Pro Choice" and a decision for women to make about their bodies is something that really speaks to me as a female-bodied person aware of the context of silencing women in our culture.
Animal Rights-
I think the Animal Rights campaigns are effective in the way they frame their arguments, because, although some might scoff at the thought of putting themselves in the position of an animal, it is something that really speaks to me as an animal-lover and concerned citizen.
Efforts to End Violence Against Women-
Like the other two examples I have offered, this one can cover many different groups, but I am thinking about specifically a few campaigns. There is the White Ribbon Campaign (I may or may not be thinking of the one in Canada) that supposedly manipulates (and upholds) the idea of masculinity to "protect women" from violence (and other men). I think that although this reframing makes me very angry- because it reinforces patriarchal discourse, dangerous hegemonic masculinities, and women's position of lesser and property- it would reach some people (who might participate in violence against women) in a way that I could probably not appeal to them.
10.27.2010
Abolition of the Death Penalty Movement
Find an example of a movement that you agree with presenting their issue or argument and describe how you would reframe it to appeal to a wider audience. Talk about why you made the change and how you hope it to be more effective.
The Movement to Abolish the Death Penalty transcends state lines with campaigns in many individual countries by NGOs, campaigns by INGOs internationally, and even campaigns by the European Union, encouraging the United States as well as countries interested in joining the EU to abolish the death penalty. Human rights discourse is especially active in this debate, operating under the assumption that all human life is sacred. If taking a life is wrong, when the state does it, what does that mean? Is it appropriate punishment for someone who took someone else’s life in the first place? In countries where the death penalty’s existence is controversial, these are the kind of debates that ensue. I think that, to a certain extent, this moral appeal is ineffective and reflective of the fact that (especially in the United States, but also probably globally) we paint a picture of just governments who worry about moral issues. Do I think the US government worries about moral issues? When it comes to life and death matters like sustaining the war sending more soldiers to war, I do not think the US government worries. However, if we appealed to their frugal and (let's face it, China owns us) economically desperate position, it would become clear that the fact that the death penalty is more expensive than life without parole could mean something in the campaign. I am not saying that NGOs don't know this because they certainly do, but I think there is a false assumption that a moral argument is going to win, when the reality is, government always tries to appear moral, but that says nothing about whether it is or not. The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty has a top-ten list of reasons why the US should abolish the death penalty http://www.ncadp.org/index.cfm?content=5 and although I agree with their decision not to bombard people with ten different reasons all the time, there could be work across organizations to promote more than the moral appeal. I think that kind of reframing could force people to call governments out on some of the unnecessary spending.
The Movement to Abolish the Death Penalty transcends state lines with campaigns in many individual countries by NGOs, campaigns by INGOs internationally, and even campaigns by the European Union, encouraging the United States as well as countries interested in joining the EU to abolish the death penalty. Human rights discourse is especially active in this debate, operating under the assumption that all human life is sacred. If taking a life is wrong, when the state does it, what does that mean? Is it appropriate punishment for someone who took someone else’s life in the first place? In countries where the death penalty’s existence is controversial, these are the kind of debates that ensue. I think that, to a certain extent, this moral appeal is ineffective and reflective of the fact that (especially in the United States, but also probably globally) we paint a picture of just governments who worry about moral issues. Do I think the US government worries about moral issues? When it comes to life and death matters like sustaining the war sending more soldiers to war, I do not think the US government worries. However, if we appealed to their frugal and (let's face it, China owns us) economically desperate position, it would become clear that the fact that the death penalty is more expensive than life without parole could mean something in the campaign. I am not saying that NGOs don't know this because they certainly do, but I think there is a false assumption that a moral argument is going to win, when the reality is, government always tries to appear moral, but that says nothing about whether it is or not. The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty has a top-ten list of reasons why the US should abolish the death penalty http://www.ncadp.org/index.cfm?content=5 and although I agree with their decision not to bombard people with ten different reasons all the time, there could be work across organizations to promote more than the moral appeal. I think that kind of reframing could force people to call governments out on some of the unnecessary spending.
10.20.2010
Protest Repression
Find a news story or video about the repression of protest groups in the United States in the past ten years, since the Battle in Seattle (what Wikipedia calls the “World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity“ and 9/11. Reading the protest zone article and the one about organizing after Seattle might help. Post the video or link and talk about what you found. Are the actions justified? Do they effect your feelings about the society we live in (positively or negatively)?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/miam-n26.shtml
In 2003, the demonstrators who came to Miami to protest the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) ministerial meetings were harassed and brutalized by the police. Over one hundred protesters were treated for injuries, twelve were sent to the hospital and two hundred fifty were arrested. The Bush administration funded the local police effort to stop the protests with $8.5 million. I think that the fact that the police and government combined to repress actions of free speech/ protest and dissent is alarming when we call ourselves a "free" and "democratic" country. Obviously, in this class, we have talked about other more covert forms of repression (like the climate, political opportunity structures), but this overt display is particularly troubling.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/miam-n26.shtml
In 2003, the demonstrators who came to Miami to protest the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) ministerial meetings were harassed and brutalized by the police. Over one hundred protesters were treated for injuries, twelve were sent to the hospital and two hundred fifty were arrested. The Bush administration funded the local police effort to stop the protests with $8.5 million. I think that the fact that the police and government combined to repress actions of free speech/ protest and dissent is alarming when we call ourselves a "free" and "democratic" country. Obviously, in this class, we have talked about other more covert forms of repression (like the climate, political opportunity structures), but this overt display is particularly troubling.
Going After Ellen
I wrote a letter to Ellen DeGeneres about the homophobic climate in the United States, a letter that urged her to act. Although I do admire and appreciate Ellen's contributions to my experience as a queer-identified individual, I wanted to be critical of her actions and stances in my letter, letting her know my dissatisfaction with the overplay of fighting for equal marriage rights for gay people and invisibility of the struggles of queer-identified people of color as well as trans-identified individuals that I see in the LGBTQ movement. In order to explain all of this, I had to first let Ellen know the context of oppression and repression in which I see the recent suicides and highlighting of bullying queer (or queer-suspected) teens. Ellen's coming out in 1997 and continued fight to make the world a more open space for people to identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, etc. are both exponential improvements to the hostile climate that preceded it. I cannot overplay how much I appreciate the flack that Ellen, in the public eye, took on behalf of all of us who would eventually come out as "not straight" in some way, and with this acknowledgment, I wish to push Ellen to further her activism by really taking a stand and naming what exactly is going on in our country. And the name that I suggest to Ellen is the extreme homophobia that still informs much of our policies, but especially the hearts and minds of people whom bullied/outed the teens that committed suicide. And to be integrative, I will include that in our culture we dichotomize gender, race, ability, and even age, employing the rationale of binary opposition, or to define something by what it is not to explain away any differences. Of course, with binary opposition comes the groupthink of "us" versus "them" that always ends up with the depiction of "them" as lesser, deficient, or evil.
10.13.2010
Nonviolence in WWII
We’ve looked at nonviolence in a democracy (the civil rights movement), a colony (India), and an authoritarian state (Serbia under Milosevic), but one of the most common arguments against nonviolence is that there are some people who cannot be fought without violence. Due to Godwin’s Law, this gets translated into something like, “Of course nonviolence works against civilized democracies, but it couldn’t have done anything about Hitler.” Read the examples of nonviolence during World War II linked on Blackboard, give us a summary of one of the actions and talk about your opinions on this question.
I really enjoyed reading about the nonviolent acts against Hitler because so far in my learning about Hitler and Germany during WWII, I had never heard about such action. Although even the action I would view as successful in each country only affected those in their specific country on a direct level, it seems like the action by the Danes inspired others to act out in spite of the Nazis. Even though the Danes wished to remain neutral and not be involved in WWII, they were pulled in by German occupation and eventual martial law. The Danish army did not take up arms, but maintained peace so that the nonviolent actions like sabotage could be successful. For example, Danes who were put to work manufacturing German weapons and artillery used tactics like the slaves had used against their masters in the 1800's, enacting a type of accomodationist attitude while in actuality trying their best to mess up and slow production. I think that the Danish nonviolent actions could have continued to be successful if the militant underground had not gotten so many people killed, and I think that is the major issue with nonviolence... People en masse don't seem to be ready to enact this style of resistance.
I really enjoyed reading about the nonviolent acts against Hitler because so far in my learning about Hitler and Germany during WWII, I had never heard about such action. Although even the action I would view as successful in each country only affected those in their specific country on a direct level, it seems like the action by the Danes inspired others to act out in spite of the Nazis. Even though the Danes wished to remain neutral and not be involved in WWII, they were pulled in by German occupation and eventual martial law. The Danish army did not take up arms, but maintained peace so that the nonviolent actions like sabotage could be successful. For example, Danes who were put to work manufacturing German weapons and artillery used tactics like the slaves had used against their masters in the 1800's, enacting a type of accomodationist attitude while in actuality trying their best to mess up and slow production. I think that the Danish nonviolent actions could have continued to be successful if the militant underground had not gotten so many people killed, and I think that is the major issue with nonviolence... People en masse don't seem to be ready to enact this style of resistance.
Bringing Down a Dictator
Respond to Bringing Down a Dictator (if you missed class, it looks like there is a version of the filmonline). Talk about a) your personal response to the film, b) talk about one element from the CANVAS manual that you saw in practice in the film, and c) what you are going to take from the film for your movements and other work.
I thought the film was really interesting and it was cool to see a student action that ended up being so successful that was also so recently. It really motivates and inspires me to get back into action. Practically all the CANVAS steps were in the film –undoubtedly because Srdja Popovic/OTPOR produced it following the success of their resistance movement. The movement’s vision of the future was very intentional and specific: a Serbia where people had the right to voice, health, and a government they wanted. This vision was detailed enough to garner support enough to create the change; the participation in a fair election producing a president who represented the people. Popovic proposed the idea that power does not exist monolithically but that there are six sources of power: authority, human resources, skills and knowledge, material resources, intangible values and sanctions.
I thought the film was really interesting and it was cool to see a student action that ended up being so successful that was also so recently. It really motivates and inspires me to get back into action. Practically all the CANVAS steps were in the film –undoubtedly because Srdja Popovic/OTPOR produced it following the success of their resistance movement. The movement’s vision of the future was very intentional and specific: a Serbia where people had the right to voice, health, and a government they wanted. This vision was detailed enough to garner support enough to create the change; the participation in a fair election producing a president who represented the people. Popovic proposed the idea that power does not exist monolithically but that there are six sources of power: authority, human resources, skills and knowledge, material resources, intangible values and sanctions.
10.06.2010
CANVAS- Communication
Find an example of communication by a social movement and evaluate it through Chapters 9 and 10 of the CANVAS manual.
I think that the Tea Party Movement's communication, especially for the specific Virginia Convention that is coming up October 8-9, definitely employs some of the tactics mentioned in the CANVAS manual. For example, in the soundbite (link below) that I listened to, you can hear a lot of rowdy, angry people in the background, indicating both that a great number of people is unhappy with the Obama administration and is ready to take action. On the strategic/emotional objective continuum, this tactic is supposed to invoke mob mentality and action (action that it seems like they don't care whether if it is constructive or destructive, but I'm probably making a judgment there). In sum, they employing a target communication of agitation, tapping into people's emotions and dissatisfaction, promoting that Obama (the opponent in this case) is irritating. The soundbite also includes repetition of the phrase, "Can you hear me?" said by a few different dissatisfied voices. Concluding with the statement that, "Washington is not listening" they invite the listener to do something about the "Obamacare" situation- come to the Virginia Tea Party Convention.
http://www.vateapartyconvention.com/TeaPartyConvention.mp3
I think that the Tea Party Movement's communication, especially for the specific Virginia Convention that is coming up October 8-9, definitely employs some of the tactics mentioned in the CANVAS manual. For example, in the soundbite (link below) that I listened to, you can hear a lot of rowdy, angry people in the background, indicating both that a great number of people is unhappy with the Obama administration and is ready to take action. On the strategic/emotional objective continuum, this tactic is supposed to invoke mob mentality and action (action that it seems like they don't care whether if it is constructive or destructive, but I'm probably making a judgment there). In sum, they employing a target communication of agitation, tapping into people's emotions and dissatisfaction, promoting that Obama (the opponent in this case) is irritating. The soundbite also includes repetition of the phrase, "Can you hear me?" said by a few different dissatisfied voices. Concluding with the statement that, "Washington is not listening" they invite the listener to do something about the "Obamacare" situation- come to the Virginia Tea Party Convention.
http://www.vateapartyconvention.com/TeaPartyConvention.mp3
Loyalty Pie
When I started to do this exercise, I was thinking there might be a few different ways to do it. I think that the categories listed in the chapter, Political Party, Religious Groups, State, Expanded Family, Hobbies, Friends, Family are somewhat covered in my chart but probably to the degree accurate to me. However, I like my way of doing the exercise better because then in the family section, I can count myself as a sister, a child, and a Lovebug (I don't really like the term girlfriend and I know it's one of those disgusting pet names, but it's all the language I have right now. Also, I use critical thinker to identify myself politically, unaffiliated with a party, but active (at least in thinking at this point- that's why I use "thinker"). Instead of doing percentages for my chart, I did parts- 1 part educator (instead of teacher/instructor to show that I am committed to do this in and outside of the classroom) and critical thinker, 2 parts sister, rugby captain, child, and friend, and 3 parts Lovebug and learner (also I picked this instead of student to show that it doesn't only happen at school). While I look over what the reading says more, I think I may have did this wrong, so below is another version of my pie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)