“No Weapon Save Argument”: Strategic Frame Amplification in the U.S. Woman Suffrage Movements

Abstract

US. woman suffragists routinely utilized two types of arguments in their demands for voting rights: justice and reform. The former argument held that women should vote because they were men's equals and therefore should have political rights equal to those of men. Reform arguments stated that women should have the ballot because women, given their unique womanly experiences and perspectives, would bring a unique contribution to politics, making society a more humane place. Although social movement scholars have increasingly studied the framing work of movement activists, few systematic studies of framing activity exist. In this work we examine the circumstances that led the suffragists to amplify one or the other of these motivational frames. We find that the suffragists were quite strategic in their choice of frames, targeting particular audiences and taking advantage of cultural opportunities for frame resonance. We find only limited evidence that their frames were driven by the collective identity of particular groups in the movement.The individuals who participated in the state woman suffrage movements in the late nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries rarely engaged in disruptive and militant activities. The method of gaining voting rights for women that permeated nearly every tactic employed by the suffragists was argumentation. That is, they regularly worked to persuade listeners with their rhetoric that women indeed should be full participants in the democratic system. The suffragists gave public speeches, carried banners in parades, spoke informally on street corners, wrote newspaper columns, distributed handbills, and

Institutionalizing Social Movements: The Dual Strategy of the Korean Women's Movement

“…1999; Moore 1999). State actors engage in “strategic framing” as much as movement activists do (McCammon, Hewitt, and Smith 2004), both to gain advantage and to maintain legitimacy when forging a coalition with SMOs and handling a movement protest. Because the power imbalance between the social movement and the state is not always zero‐sum, examining movement vigor alone is insufficient to understand a movement outcome and a movement–state coalition; instead, state capacity and propensity of exercising political power needs to be studied.…”

“…When analyzing the conditions that lead to a movement outcome and make a movement coalition possible, one needs thus to examine the systemic and proximate opportunities/threats that the state imposes and observe its responses to movement challenges and demands (Burstein et al 1995;Jenkins 1995;Moore 1999). State actors engage in "strategic framing" as much as movement activists do (McCammon, Hewitt, and Smith 2004), both to gain advantage and to maintain legitimacy when forging a coalition with SMOs and handling a movement protest. Because the power imbalance between the social movement and the state is not always zero-sum, examining movement vigor alone is insufficient to understand a movement outcome and a movement-state coalition; instead, state capacity and propensity of exercising political power needs to be studied.…”

Becoming Full Citizens: The U.S. Women’s Jury Rights Campaigns, the Pace of Reform, and Strategic Adaptation

“…But each state granted jury rights to women during World War II, and in all three states we found numerous instances where the jury activists linked their rationales as to why women should be allowed in the jury box to the fact that the United States was at war. In short, we argue that jury proponents in Missouri, Nebraska, and Vermont engaged in strategic framing (McCammon et al 2004;Rohlinger 2002;Zald 1996). That is, they adapted discursively to the shifting cultural and political circumstances of war by altering their arguments to incorporate the war effort into their claims supporting women jurors.…”

“…Movement groups not engaged in strategic adaptation are likely to gain the reforms they seek more slowly (or are unlikely to gain them at all). While social movement scholars are beginning to consider strategic collective action (Andrews 2001;Ganz 2000;Jasper 2004;McCammon, Hewitt, and Smith 2004), no one yet has attempted to develop a precise definition of strategic action, nor have they examined systematically whether such action aids movement activists in their quest for political reform. While it may seem axiomatic to say that strategic collective actors are more likely to achieve their goals, few social movement scholars have explored the role of strategic behavior in winning political reforms.…”

Envisioning Land Seizure

“…In practical terms, this concentration had yielded a significant literature on movement framing (Benford, 1993(Benford, , 1997McCammon, Hewitt, & Smith, 2004;Rohlinger, 2002Rohlinger, , 2006Snow, Vleigenthart, & Corrigall-Brown, 2007). In practical terms, this concentration had yielded a significant literature on movement framing (Benford, 1993(Benford, , 1997McCammon, Hewitt, & Smith, 2004;Rohlinger, 2002Rohlinger, , 2006Snow, Vleigenthart, & Corrigall-Brown, 2007).…”