Here in political science major-land, where Queenie is currently living and working, it’s all about framing. Queenie had heard of framing before. It was one of the things that people used to have meetings about when she was younger, back across the ocean in intuitive politics-land, where she used to live and work.
As far as I can recall, political debate would be largely based on ‘stuff I heard from my constituents’ or ‘shenanigans that the other lot got caught doing’ terms, until such time as an election loomed. Then, after a bit of fund-raising and strong-arming of the labour movement in return for three pages of the election platform, large sums of money would be handed over to people who had formerly worked for the party, but had gone on to complete a DCU Masters in media or politics of some sort. Armed with this Masters, and the je ne sais quoi of having been outside politics for a while, these people would talk at length about ‘framing’ the debate. Everyone would nod intelligently, think and talk a lot about framing, and vast sums of money would be spent on said framing of message.
Everyone did it. The people that did it best won the election. They were generally the people with enough money to get the lads over from the States, where you can do a whoppingly expensive BA, MA and PhD from Stamford in framing.
That was the accepted wisdom.
I never let on I didn’t have a clue what they were talking about. I can be terribly literal-minded sometimes, so I used to just try and see everyone’s policies in terms of window frames.
Ours were always plain, white sash windows with no doo-dahs and no anti-burgler devices.
A certain type of person goes for that kind of frame, but most people like a bit of decoration I found.
Here, you don’t get a job in politics unless you’ve written a thesis on framing. Or you’re Queenie. Or your mam was a big head in the party. Or you’re in the labour movement. Or whatever.
Anyways, the antecedents of the framers don’t matter. An election is looming.
So I’d better get my toolkit together.
I assume the other lot are at it too. They’re stealing our frame, as far as I know. And I suspect they’re redecorating it in greenbacks. Eighty four million of them in the last seven weeks. And a smell of a tax cut. To make it more palatable.
That's a pretty effective way of doing it, if I remember rightly.
That’s another blog post – the art of waving a tax cut in front of a hungry, gullible audience. Right-wing parties are great at it. Left wing parties get accused of immaturity when they try it. Why is that?
But back to my original question. What the hell is framing about when it’s not about putting in windows?
I went searching. This is from some US college Democrat site:
As any high school debater knows, the proposition of a debate is framed as an attack upon the status quo: “Resolved, that the blah blah should yadda yadda the zamma zamma.
This proposition advocates a change in the status quo—the current state of affairs, the way things are. The burden of proof is upon the affirmative who argues for this change. In the stock issues case, the affirmative asserts the need for a change, presents a plan for a change, and establishes the benefits of the change produced by that plan. And the affirmative’s responsibility is to define the terms of the proposition—which also is its privilege, as it can frame the definitions as it wishes.
The negative is charged with defending the status quo from the affirmative’s attack. And other than in exceptional cases, the negative is obligated to accept the affirmative’s definitions.
Those are the rules of the game—at least in “real” debate.
Okay now Queenie knows how to do the actual framing, which is what she does for a living anyway:
Identify problem, (excoriate government), outline solution (cost it, which is more than they ever do), cast dispersions on government for not thinking of it first, persuade people it’s doable.
That’s the arguing. Queenie can do that. Apart from the persuading. That can be tricky.
But what’s the frame they’re talking about like I’m supposed to know?
Back to Basics
Is that a frame?
Merriam-Webster Online definition:
To frame: to construct by fitting and uniting the parts of the skeleton of (a structure)2 a : PLAN, CONTRIVE <framed a new method of achieving their purpose> b : SHAPE, CONSTRUCT c : to give expression to : FORMULATE d : to draw up (as a document)3 a : to devise falsely (as a criminal charge) b : to contrive the evidence against (an innocent person) so that a verdict of guilty is assured c : FIX 7b4 : to fit or adjust especially to something or for an end : ARRANGE
So it could be to plan, to contrive, to shape or construct, to formulate or to arrange (I’m going to assume it’s not fix). Okay, now we’re getting places.
Let’s have a look at an example.
Here’s another use of the word, this time from one of those dreadfully dreary American political blogs:
As a result, 'impeach the President' could very well be the frame that engulfs both the White House and the American public in the week to come.
A frame that engulfs.
Wow.
A frame that’s a noun.
That’s no use. Yet.
Let’s find another example.
Here’s one - a speech made by Holley Ulbrich, from South Caroline, about framing the property tax debate. She says:
It’s all about framing…(yes, we knew that Holley). Yes we need (to know the arguments and the figures, yadda yadda). But more than that, we need to acknowledge that beyond the reasoned debate there are emotions and values and ways of looking at the world.
Oookaaaay…. Queenie can grasp that. It’s called other people’s points of view. All part of democracy.
Holley continues:
Unless we can refocus that framework (of policy makers), we aren’t going to have any impact on public policy.
I’m paraphrasing Holley here because I’m working off a pdf file.
Holley continues some more:
Framing is grounded in values.
I didn’t know that. But when you think about it, other people’s point of view is grounded in their values. So yeah, I can go with that.
The second essential part of the framing challenge is to define the problem in such a way that you generate recognition, empathy and concern among voters.
I wonder is this in any way related to the time-honoured political tactic of scaring the fuck out of the poor bastards? As in the British Tories and crime/ immigrants/ trade unions.
Possibly it’s a framing style. Gothic framing possibly, with writhing serpents devouring hapless sinners on the latticework.
Holley goes on to frame her issue over about five pages. She lost me after page one, but I get the sense that she’s anti-business property tax. She continues her lesson eventually, though:
Before we can get our legislators to sing to our tune, however, we need to listen in on the other song.
The other song being the opposition. She goes on to excoriate the opposition as a bunch of red-neck libertarian free-loaders, who attack any attempt by ‘big government’ to collect revenue, before saying:
Once you look through that frame, the problem definition and their policy recommendations make sense.
Well of course, Holley, go to the top of the class. If you put yourself in someone’s shoes and look through their eyes, things always make sense.
So if we go back to Marriam-Webster, framing in the political sense is ‘shaping, constructing’, and to a lesser extent, ‘arranging’.
Okay, I have a handle on it now.
Now that I have a handle on it, no small achievement for literal-girl, here’s another question. How do you find your audience, and put yourself in their shoes (other than in the time-consuming manner of ‘listening to your constituents’), in order to frame the debate in a way that should get them to recognise, empathise and show concern about the issue?
I mean, you can’t go look at everyone else’s windows and build a matching set now can you?
And how do you get people who have been taught since birth to be individuals to join with you in a massive ‘framing’ love in?
I went back to Holley with bated breath.
Holley doesn’t get that far.
Damn damn, I was getting places.
She does make an interesting comment about values, though. She says that there are six values that come up over and over and over again in polling (which is of course the answer to the first of my questions). They are:
Freedom, honesty, fairness/ justice, loyalty/ community, compassion, and tolerance.
That’s what people say when asked.
When asked.
Nobody asks you what you’re voting for, though. At least not in the ballot box.
You’re all alone in there.
Thinking about what kind of windows you’d like to put in your dream home.
So, to get them to have a big framing love in, you gotta give them a crack at their dream home.
That would be pretty pricey wouldn't it.
yeah.
No comments:
Post a Comment