Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Framing Intro

    Uploaded by

    paulo henrique duque
    This document provides an introduction to framing theory. It defines framing as using conceptual structures or schemas to think about issues. Framing involves telling stories that shape how people understand topics. The author discusses how framing is important for social change by shaping perceptions. An example is how proponents of tax cuts reframed taxes as an "affliction" rather than a civic duty through repeated use of the term "tax relief". The document also notes that facts alone may not change frames and that effective communication involves reframing underlying values and worldviews rather than just presenting new facts or messages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Framing Intro

    Uploaded by

    paulo henrique duque
    26 views5 pages
    This document provides an introduction to framing theory. It defines framing as using conceptual structures or schemas to think about issues. Framing involves telling stories that shape how people understand topics. The author discusses how framing is important for social change by shaping perceptions. An example is how proponents of tax cuts reframed taxes as an "affliction" rather than a civic duty through repeated use of the term "tax relief". The document also notes that facts alone may not change frames and that effective communication involves reframing underlying values and worldviews rather than just presenting new facts or messages.

    Original Title

    FramingIntro

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document provides an introduction to framing theory. It defines framing as using conceptual structures or schemas to think about issues. Framing involves telling stories that shape how people understand topics. The author discusses how framing is important for social change by shaping perceptions. An example is how proponents of tax cuts reframed taxes as an "affliction" rather than a civic duty through repeated use of the term "tax relief". The document also notes that facts alone may not change frames and that effective communication involves reframing underlying values and worldviews rather than just presenting new facts or messages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    26 views5 pages

    Framing Intro

    Uploaded by

    paulo henrique duque
    This document provides an introduction to framing theory. It defines framing as using conceptual structures or schemas to think about issues. Framing involves telling stories that shape how people understand topics. The author discusses how framing is important for social change by shaping perceptions. An example is how proponents of tax cuts reframed taxes as an "affliction" rather than a civic duty through repeated use of the term "tax relief". The document also notes that facts alone may not change frames and that effective communication involves reframing underlying values and worldviews rather than just presenting new facts or messages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    INTRODUCTION TO FRAMING

    Written by Kao-Ping Chua


    AMSA Jack Rutledge Fellow 2005-2006
    February 10, 2006

    [Author’s note: The primer cites the work of cognitive scientists and framing theorists
    George Lakoff and Lawrence Wallack. Text that is not attributed to these experts
    represents the thoughts of the author, who fully acknowledges responsibility for any
    errors or misrepresentations in this primer].

    WHAT IS FRAMING?

    The term “framing” comes from cognitive science, which defines a frame as a conceptual
    structure involved with thinking. To paraphrase an example used by the framing expert
    George Lakoff, saying the word “elephant” evokes the elephant frame, which is
    associated with the terms “animal,” “big”, “grey”, “floppy ears”, etc.1 The elephant
    frame might be depicted schematically as follows:

    Animal

    Big
    Elephant

    Grey

    Floppy ears

    The above is a simplified diagram, as “animal”, “big”, “grey”, and “floppy ears” each
    have secondary associations of their own.

    Framing can be thought of as telling a story about the world. The elephant frame tells a
    story about a big, grey, animal with floppy ears called “elephant.” More broadly, there is
    a popular American cultural narrative in which hard working people who pull themselves
    up by the bootstraps will succeed in life. This "hard work equals success" frame is an
    important way in which many Americans think about the world. Frames are
    fundamentally about our relationship to the world and how we view it.

    WHY IS FRAMING IMPORTANT?


    The essence of social change is changing perceptions, which itself is the territory of
    framing. George Lakoff illustrates the power of framing to effect social change by
    analyzing the term "tax relief", which is an often-used term used to refer to cutting taxes.
    To quote Lakoff:

    "The word relief evokes a frame in which there is a blameless Afflicted Person who we
    identify with and who has some Affliction, some pain or harm that is imposed by some
    external Cause-of-pain. Relief is the taking away of the pain or harm, and it is brought
    about by some Reliever-of-pain.

    The Relief frame is an instance of a more general Rescue scenario, in which there is a
    Hero (The Reliever-of-pain), a Victim (the Afflicted), a Crime (the Affliction), A Villain
    (the Cause-of-affliction), and a Rescue (the Pain Relief). The Hero is inherently good, the
    Villain is evil, and the Victim after the Rescue owes gratitude to the Hero.

    The term tax relief evokes all of this and more. Taxes, in this phrase, are the Affliction
    (the Crime), proponents of taxes are the Causes-of Affliction (the Villains), the taxpayer
    is the Afflicted Victim, and the proponents of "tax relief" are the Heroes who deserve the
    taxpayers' gratitude."2

    The point is not at all here that proponents of tax cuts have been able to come up with a
    clever phrase. Rather, the point is that they have been able to reframe taxes as an
    affliction in part by using the term “tax relief” over and over – on radio, in newspapers,
    on TV, in Congress, everywhere. The popularization of the term has made it more
    difficult for opponents of tax cuts to articulate their case for taxation. “Tax cuts” is an
    emotionally neutral term, but “tax relief” engenders a much more visceral response – a
    story about an oppressive government burdening people with heavy taxes. It is one thing
    to be against “tax cuts”, but it is more difficult to be against “tax relief”, even though they
    amount to the same thing.

    Proponents of tax cuts did not just stop by framing taxes as an affliction. They were also
    able to successfully reframe taxes as enabling government to be wasteful and as being
    anti-American. Thus, any discussion of the taxes that evoked the "tax" frame also evoked
    "government waste", "anti-American", and "affliction." The way people think about
    taxes has been fundamentally changed. In a sense, people’s brains were literally rewired.

    The following schematic, used purely for the purposes of illustration, represents how the
    tax frame may have changed over the past few decades.
    Duty Affliction

    Taxes Investment in Taxes Anti-American


    America
    Enables the Government
    government waste
    to help others
    BEFORE REFRAMING AFTER REFRAMING

    FACTS VERSUS FRAME


    A central tenet of frame theory is that when facts do not fit a person's frame, the fact is
    not internalized. As Lakoff writes, “If the truth doesn’t fit the existing frame, the frame
    will stay in place and the truth will dissipate.”2 If a person believes that taxes are an
    affliction, he or she might be less inclined to believe a report about how tax cuts can
    actually hurt the economy. Conversely, someone who believes that taxes are an
    investment in America is more likely to believe the report. In both cases, there is often a
    lack of critical questioning: if the fact doesn't fit the frame, it's ignored, and if the fact
    does fit the frame, it's accepted. This is not an indictment of human thought so much as it
    is a fact of how humans think.

    There is a common myth that people, once faced with the bare facts, will be persuaded to
    side with the truth. In reality, the truth does not always set one free; rather, the truth
    matters most when it fits pre-existing worldviews and frames. This suggests that a
    persuasive tactic would be to change people's frames rather than present facts that
    conflict with their frames.

    REFRAMING VS. MESSAGING


    There is often confusion between the concepts of reframing and messaging:
    • Reframing (changing frames) – The process of reframing is difficult and requires a
    considerable investment of time. However, social change ultimately does not occur
    without it, as the root of social change is a change in worldview. For example,
    reframing taxes so that it seen as a duty rather than an affliction requires clear and
    repeated articulation of the moral basis for taxation. The rewiring process will take a
    long time, but it needs to occur if one is interested in maintaining government
    programs.
    • Messaging – messaging is about generating a way to convey a particular idea. In its
    most shallow form, messaging is simply advertising or marketing, the domain of PR
    firms.

    Unfortunately, some believe that framing is solely about messaging – coming up with the
    catchy vehicle for delivering a message. As the cognitive scientist and framing expert
    Lawrence Wallack notes about the fight over Social Security, “I frequently hear people
    talk about framing Social Security when they are simply coming up with a clever
    message and suggesting some numbers that might ‘convince’ people. The real issue is
    not about Social Security but the role of government and the relationship we have with it.
    A message won’t work when the larger frame has been set and is in opposition to the
    message.”3

    LAKOFF'S LEVELS OF ANALYSIS


    How can you frames be used to achieve social change? To answer this question, consider
    George Lakoff’s three levels of analysis3:
    Level 1: Values and principles: like equity, justice, fairness, prosperity, etc.
    Level 2: Issue categories: environmental issues, human rights issues, moral issues, etc.
    Level 3: Programs and policies: housing, education, health care, etc.

    Welfare Reform Illustration

    Level 1: Values and Principles


    Conservative Liberal/Progressive
    Self-discipline, Reward for work, self- Obligation to the collective good, shared
    determination, rugged individualism, personal responsibility, unequal starting places need
    responsibility, government hurts remedies, government helps
    Level 2: Issue Categories
    Moral behavior, taxes, education Poverty, social welfare, inequality
    Level 3: Programs and Policies
    Tax cuts, business incentives to create Child care, universal access to health care,
    opportunity, short term “boot strap” help for housing, educational assistance so people
    individuals, medical savings accounts can take advantage of opportunity
    Basic Argument
    Welfare hurts rather than helps by Welfare helps by giving people the basic
    undermining the very attributes that people necessities they need to be successful. It
    need to be successful (hard work, self- makes people independent by providing a
    discipline etc). It makes people dependent helping hand. It encourages moral behavior
    rather than independent. It rewards immoral of the society by sharing with those who are
    behavior by giving people something that they disadvantaged. It is a manifestation of our
    have not earned, thus worsening the problem. obligation to the collective good.

    It is a common mistake to try to communicate to people on Level 3 (programs and


    policies) instead of Level 1 (values and principles, which are themselves frames). As
    many observers have noted, people don’t necessarily vote according to their economic
    self-interest; rather, they tend to vote according to their values.1 The Level 3 technical
    details of an issue are important for policy makers, but for the average person, it is much
    more important to appeal to and activate values frames.

    Talking to people about an issue on the level of values activates values frames, and the
    process of activating this frame in relation to a particular issue associates that value with
    the issue, thus changing the frame of the issue. Welfare can be reframed as a natural
    extension of the value of shared responsibility if advocates consistently talk about welfare
    in those terms. The task before those who wish to use framing to achieve social change is
    not to find a clever message, but rather to insure that the way in which they talk about
    their cause links to positive values, thus changing the frame of the issue.

    CONCLUSION
    The importance of framing cannot be underemphasized in the fight for social change.
    Changing worldviews - the territory of framing - is an essential ingredient for reform.
    Yet, it must be emphasized here that framing is not the only ingredient; it must be
    accompanied by sound policy, grassroots support, and electoral politics that put people in
    power who are amenable to the desired change.

    It must be further emphasized that framing has its limitations. As some have pointed out,
    no matter how much reframing is done, people will never like paying taxes.4 They may,
    however, see it as something that is more a part of being a dutiful American who cares
    about investing in the country, and less as an affliction by government bureaucrats who
    will fritter taxpayer dollars away on ineffective social programs. In the end, those who
    are interested in effecting social change must thoroughly understand both the power and
    limitations of framing.

    REFERENCES
    1. Lakoff, G. Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate.
    Chelsea Green: White River Junction, 2004.
    2. Lakoff, G. “Simple Framing.” Available online at
    http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic/simple_framing, accessed
    January 2006.
    3. Wallack, L. “Framing: More than a Message.” Available online at
    http://www.longviewinstitute.org/research/wallack/levels, accessed January 2006.
    4. Bai, M. “The Framing Wars.” New York Times, July 17, 2005.

    You might also like