A Repertoire of Interpretations: Master Frames and Ideological Continuity in U.S. Agrarian Mobilization

Abstract

Despite significant contributions, movement frame analyses have tended to focus on ideological construction within and between social movement organizations at single moments in time or during protest cycles. By integrating framing and abeyance concepts, this article extends the framing perspective to examine historical continuities, transformations, and intenveavings of ideological themes in US. agrarian mobilization. We develop the concept of a "repertoire of interpretations" as a means of analyzing the persistence and vanable alignments of three master frames: agrarian fundamentalism, competitive capitalism, and producer ideology. Relationships between these master frames are considered in terms of constitutive and ancillary salience and are explored with reference to abeyance processes.Framing concepts have played a central role in revitalizing and redefining a social psychology of collective action, as well as animating movement theory and research generally (Gamson, Fireman, and Rytina

Vertical Coordination, Producer Response, and the Locus of Control over Agricultural Production Decisions1

“…Prodacer coUective respome from fJ social movement) perspecaiH Recent work on broad-based farm protest movements as agrarian social movements potentially provide useful frameworks for analyzing and understanding the more narrowly constructed and smaller scale producer collective actions outlined in the previous section. In this vein, Mooney and Hunt (1996), writing about farm protest movements in the U.S. from the colonial period to the modern era, argue that there are a set of three reoccurring master frames which inform agricultural protest movements. Further, "the generic form of each is oriented toward providing an interpretation of the role of agricultural production in a developing capitalist economy" (Mooney and Hunt 1996:181).…”

“…According to this ideology, agriculture is primary and ultimately the source of critical social and cultural benefits. Mooney and Hunt (1996) also assert that agrarian fundamentalism has been used successfully to mobilize non-farm people.…”

“…Moreover, such collective efforts are not merely recent reactions; rather, they can be placed within longer term frames, or interpretations, of the role of producers within a capitalist economy. These "master" frames have been instrumental in the creation and success of major agrarian moments and protests in U.S. history (Mooney and Hunt 1996). I conclude by discussing two points: (1) the differences between producer organizing within industrial agriculture and construction of direct marketing outlets; and (2) how research from a social movements perspective can aid efforts to link collective producer efforts with areas of concern to other members of s0ciety, especially consumers.…”

“…I also describe the specific forms coordinated production can take, especially contract types, and the relevance of the form for the control over agricultural production decisions. Then, using Mooney's and Hunt's (1996) contribution regarding ideological continuity in U.S. agrarian mobilization, I argue that recent collective efforts to organize farmers into bargaining units and networks, and the creation of direct markets, in part, are attempts to keep production decisions at the farm-level. Moreover, such collective efforts are not merely recent reactions; rather, they can be placed within longer term frames, or interpretations, of the role of producers within a capitalist economy.…”

“…Structural change and producer collective response has a long history in U.S. agriculture. Using Mooney's and Hunt's (1996) recent contribution on recurrent ideologies of agrarian social movements, this paper outlines recent structural changes and collective responses to those changes with reference to the shifting locus of control over agricultural production decisions.…”