Framing a ‘social problem': Emotion in anti‐abortion activists' depiction of the abortion debate

Abstract

Social psychological research on activism typically focuses on individuals' social identifications. We complement such research through exploring how activists frame an issue as a social problem. Specifically, we explore anti-abortion activists' representation of abortion and the abortion debate's protagonists so as to recruit support for the anti-abortion cause. Using interview data obtained with UK-based anti-abortion activists (N = 15), we consider how activists characterized women having abortions, pro-abortion campaigners, and anti-abortion campaigners. In particular, we consider the varied ways in which emotion featured in the representation of these social actors. Emotion featured in different ways. Sometimes, it was depicted as constituting embodied testament to the nature of reality. Sometimes, it was depicted as blocking the rational appraisal of reality. Our analysis considers how such varied meanings of emotion shaped the characterization of abortion and the abortion debate's protagonists such that anti-abortion activists were construed as speaking for women and their interests. We discuss how our analysis of the framing of issues as social problems complements and extends social psychological analyses of activism.

The Volatility of Collective Action: Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Data

“…For these reasons, we have become drawn to the idea that some of the powerful identities that map out the fault line of action include identities based on opinions about how the world should be (Bliuc, McGarty, Reynolds, & Muntele, 2007;McGarty, Bliuc, Thomas, & Bongiorno, 2009;Smith, Thomas, & McGarty, 2015). An opinion-based identity is an identity as a supporter or opponent of a particular issue, for example, as pro-versus antiglobalization (Cameron & Nickerson, 2009), pro-life versus pro-choice (Ntontis & Hopkins, 2018), or as "Remain" versus "Leave" in the Brexit debate (Hobolt, Leeper, & Tilley, 2020;Van de Vyver, Leite, Abrams, & Palmer, 2018). Yes, the world is populated by categories and institutions, but those categories and institutions are themselves full to the brim with factions, camps, wings, and so on.…”

Antiabortion Rhetoric and the Undermining of Choice: Women's Agency as Causing “Psychological Trauma” Following the Termination of a Pregnancy

“…Psychological language can be of particular rhetorical potency in mobilization processes, since it can be mobilized to problematize social issues and promote one's political positions in a rather depoliticized, "objective" manner (Hopkins, Reicher, & Saleem, 1996;Ntontis & Hopkins, 2018). Similarly, emotion language can be used to work up versions of actions, identities, and events in flexible ways depending on speakers' orientations, connoting either rationality and authenticity or irrationality and subjectivity (Edwards, 1999).…”

“…First, the employment of psychological discourses allowed antiabortionists to identify all post-abortive women as potentially traumatized and oppose abortion on the basis of "objective" medical rather than moral criteria (Hopkins et al, 1996;Lee, 2003). Second, it allowed them to avoid characterizations of being "anti-choice" and rather present themselves as prowomen and as representing their health and interests (Cannold, 2002;Friedman, 2013;Lee, 2003;Ntontis & Hopkins, 2018;Saurette & Gordon, 2013). A corollary is that supporters of abortion were undermined as irrational and as harmful for women (Hopkins et al, 1996;Ntontis & Hopkins, 2018;Rose, 2011).…”

“…Second, it allowed them to avoid characterizations of being "anti-choice" and rather present themselves as prowomen and as representing their health and interests (Cannold, 2002;Friedman, 2013;Lee, 2003;Ntontis & Hopkins, 2018;Saurette & Gordon, 2013). A corollary is that supporters of abortion were undermined as irrational and as harmful for women (Hopkins et al, 1996;Ntontis & Hopkins, 2018;Rose, 2011).…”

“…Meanwhile, the parallel identification of both the "child" and "fetus" categories is used to place emphasis on the act ("killing") rather than on the label ("fetus" vs. "child") and the debate associated with it. Overall, action taken by women to terminate the pregnancy was sometimes treated as counternormative and as disrupting the natural process of motherhood (also see Ntontis & Hopkins, 2018). Thus, women's agency was constructed as self-harm, which allowed antiabortionists to legitimize their positions without directly referring to issues surrounding women's choice.…”