In this article, we provide a response to Teun van Dijk’s criticism of the framing perspective on social movements, as expressed in his article ‘Analyzing Frame Analysis. A Critical Review of Framing Studies in Social Movement Research’. We argue that a more constructive tone is warranted and explain how his criticism is largely based on a selective reading and misinterpretation of the vast literature on framing and social movements. We provide a more detailed explanation of how discourse and related concepts such as schema and ideology are discussed by social movement scholars and critically reflect on his claim that framing as a concept can rather be replaced by discourse and/or various other cognitive/psychological constructs. Finally, we suggest how a discourse perspective and insights from social movement framing can be complementary in increasing our understanding of how movements (and other actors) communicate and with what consequences.

Disasters occasioned by nature, or “acts of God” as they are sometimes called, are infrequent, temporally irregular events such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, floods, and forest fires. All such events are calamitous for the segment of the population experiencing them, but their impact is typically localized rather than geographically generalized. Such is not the case with pandemics, however, as their impact ripples across the globe, leaving few areas untouched. This has been the case with COVID‐19, which has been the most widespread and deadly worldwide pandemic since the Spanish flu of 1918. Historically, attempts to mitigate the spread of a pandemic have typically involved border or community closings, residential lockdowns, mask wearing, handwashing, and other measures specific to the time period. These mitigation directives and efforts, in combination with the unease generated by the virus, predictably generate a heightened state of what Snow and his colleagues call “quotidian disruption.” It is a kind of anomic state in which the taken‐for‐granted patterns of everyday functioning and the routinized expectations associated with those patterns are disrupted. What was once normative and routine is now turned sideways or even upside down. One of the consequences of such disruption is that it gives rise to a heightened sense of fear, which has been posited as one of the major reflex emotions associated with the emergence of a variety of so‐called collective behaviors.

Scholars of collective gatherings or crowds, such as riots, protest events, and collective celebrations, have long been interested in accounting for the coordination that makes collective behavior truly collective rather than the aggregation of parallel individual behaviors. For about 75 years, from at least the time of Gustave LeBon's The Crowd (1897) until the 1970s, one of the dominant explanations was provided by what Ralph Turner and Lewis Killian called “contagion theory.” The idea of contagion conjures up the imagery of some behavioral, emotional, or ideational phenomenon spreading rapidly, uncritically, and uniformly within a collectivity, from one participant to another. People in collective gatherings or crowds, many of which are sponsored by social movements, are portrayed as behaving uniformly, intensely, and often in a fashion at odds with their usual normative behavioral patterns.

Protest activity by homeless people was arguably the most significant social movement by poor people in the United States over the three‐decade period 1980–2010. Newspaper accounts of homeless protests were reported in over 60 cities during the 1980s with more than 500 protest events reported in 17 of those cities between 1984 and 1990. Beyond its empirical importance, homeless protest provides theoretical insight into social movement activity because of the seemingly unlikely possibility of homeless people being able to sustain ongoing mobilization or achieve significant concessions. This entry examines the emergence, organization, and outcomes of homeless protest and concludes with a discussion of how protest by the homeless influences our understanding of social movements more broadly.

The anti‐vaccine movement is arguably one of the more concerning social movements to have surfaced during the first two decades of the current century. Opposition to vaccination is particularly worrisome for its actual and potential impacts to public health, including increased frequency and severity of outbreaks, heightened virus positivity and death rates, and threats to herd immunity. While public reaction against vaccination regimens is hardly a new phenomenon, rarely if ever has such resistance congealed into the type of potent and widespread movement seen today. This resistance has been most pronounced in countries where vaccines are most readily available, particularly for COVID‐19, as in the European Union countries, Russia, and the United States, which is the primary focus of this entry. Moreover, the rise in vaccine skepticism, particularly in the US, is representative of a deepening fault line in the twenty‐first century marked by political polarization, competing social realities, and an erosion of institutional trust.

Social movements are important agents of social, political, and cultural change, dating back from the present to at least the far‐reaching empires of the Greco‐Roman world and the various rebellions and religious movements spawned during that era. This entry sketches a general overview of social movements, accenting their role as carriers of social change, providing a working conceptualization, elaborating the varieties or types of social movements, and identifying the focal issues and questions that animate most research on social movements.

The organizational turn in the study of social movements, dating back to the resource mobilization thesis of the 1970s, was a welcome shift away from depictions of protests as riotous, contagious reactions to strains, breakdowns, and heightened emotionality. This literature refuted the mischaracterization of social movements as akin to mobs. Instead, movements and related protest events were depicted as strategized, highly organized, rational responses to injustices, both real and perceived. The role of spontaneity in protest, therefore, came to be considered as little more than a rhetorical device, or an erroneous, naïve description of how protest works. Recent scholarship has demonstrated otherwise, however, by reconceptualizing and resuscitating the importance of spontaneity in the dynamics of social movements and protest events.

This entry provides conceptual clarification of three forms of misleading information – misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracies – and explores their relationship to social movements. Attention is focused on the conspiratorial variant of disinformation as illustrated by the now long‐standing “New World Order” conspiracy, various COVID conspiracies, the 2020 US presidential election “Big Lie” conspiracy, and the systemically connected conspiracies associated with QAnon.

When social movement scholars write about protest, they typically reference protest events occurring in public spaces. These events encompass various types of protest activities such as marches, rallies, demonstrations, pickets, strikes, and vigils, which may occur as stand‐alone activities or in various combinations thereof, such as marching to the site of a rally or demonstration. Inasmuch as such events are often sponsored and organized by an anchoring social movement or coalition of movements, there is little question but that the analysis of protest events is fundamental to understanding aspects of the dynamics and operation of social movements. Yet, it is argued in this entry that the tendency to treat protest and protest events as parallel terms for the same phenomena constricts our understanding of protest in a number of ways. First, most protest events function as the public face of an existing movement or as the upsurge of an underlying animating sentiment pool. Much like the metaphoric tip of an iceberg, protest events generally signify a broader and deeper base of organizational and/or corresponding cognitive and affective support or sentimentality, which are too often overlooked. Second, a research focus on protest events also implies that protest which doesn't congeal into public, collective, embodied protest events rarely merits analytic attention. Thus, by yoking protest to protest events, as if they are the same, the broader character and multidimensionality of protest is glossed over and misconstrued.

This chapter examines the relationship between right-wing populism and the construction of superfluous populations. Focusing on the anti-pluralistic dimension of right-wing populism, and its footing in identity politics, it is argued that one of the key characteristics of right-wing populism is the construction of two strikingly different 'superfluous peoples': one that has been framed as forgotten and superfluous but is now framed as a worthy candidate for populist rescue and resurrection, and another that is framed as superfluous, and thus out of place and unworthy. Drawing on the work of Hannah Arendt, among others, the concept is elaborated and theorised as a necessary, albeit not sufficient, element of right-wing populism.

Chapter 22 The Framing Perspective on Social Movements Its Conceptual Roots and Architecture David A. Snow, David A. SnowSearch for more papers by this authorRens Vliegenthart, Rens VliegenthartSearch for more papers by this authorPauline Ketelaars, Pauline KetelaarsSearch for more papers by this author David A. Snow, David A. SnowSearch for more papers by this authorRens Vliegenthart, Rens VliegenthartSearch for more papers by this authorPauline Ketelaars, Pauline KetelaarsSearch for more papers by this author Book Editor(s):David A. Snow, David A. SnowSearch for more papers by this authorSarah A. Soule, Sarah A. SouleSearch for more papers by this authorHanspeter Kriesi, Hanspeter KriesiSearch for more papers by this authorHolly J. McCammon, Holly J. McCammonSearch for more papers by this author First published: 05 October 2018 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119168577.ch22Citations: 30 AboutPDFPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShareShare a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Summary This chapter on the framing perspective in relation to social movements is divided into two overlapping sections. The first situates the framing perspective on movements historically and theoretically; the second elaborates the perspective's evolving conceptual architecture. Citing Literature The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, Second Edition RelatedInformation

Social and political movements have a wide range of effects. The biographical consequences of social movements are one of them. They can be defined as effects on the life-course of individuals who have participated in movement activities, effects that are at least in part due to involvement in those activities (see McAdam 1989; Goldstone & McAdam 2001; Giugni 2004 for reviews). Other types of effects include political and cultural outcomes. Political consequences are those effects of movement activities that alter in some way the movements' political environment. Policy outcomes, a special category of political outcomes consisting of changes in legislation or other policy measures induced by social movements, are among the most often studied. Cultural outcomes are those effects of movement activities that alter in some way the movements' cultural environment. They are perhaps the most difficult to study empirically as they are not easily identified, they depend on a wide range of other actors and events, and often they make themselves felt only in the long run. In addition, one can also imagine the existence of that which [...] GIUGNI, Marco. Biographical consequences of activism. In: David A. Snow, Donatella della Porta, Bert Klandermans, and Doug McAdam. The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements. Oxford : Blackwell, 2013. p. 138-144 DOI : 10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm013

Predating even the Greco-Roman era, social movements have served as a driving force in the engine of history and continue to function as critical carriers of social change. This chapter lays out the different theoretical lenses through which scholars have conceptualized social movements and their attendant phenomena. It teases out the shared characteristics of social movements as well as their distinguishing features of differentiation. The chapter highlights the focal themes and questions that guide the study of social movements. Building on the examination between social movements and historical change, Tilly argued that movements must be understood not only in terms of the period in which they exist, but by their repertoires of contention, or the strategies and tools they use to advance their claims. Social movements launch history into trajectories of change that are often unknowable and unanticipated, or can only be understood by scholars in time.

We begin the concluding chapter by returning to the fact that ‘who’ constitutes a sex offender changes across time, space, and place, in accordance to the temporally relevant understanding of sexual mores of their time, will continue to change—despite some underlying tenants of what is considered most ‘evil.’ We then tie discussions of biopolitics, masculinities, emotions, precarity, stigma, and abjection together and draw out implications for policy, practice, and programming, answering the greater questions of what such realities mean for sex offenders, criminal justice staff, and societies more generally. We show how we attempted to move the discussion of the chimeric sex offender away from its more damaging cleavages that, in the end, reinforce conceptions of sex offenders as permanently sick and dangerous and explain that, what sex offenders teach us, is that there are many pitfalls internationally that …

This chapter argues that the study of social movements can function as an important bridge for understanding the relation between the individual and society, between structure and process, and between psychology and sociology. It shows that not only does the sociological study of social movements have much to contribute to social psychology, and vice versa, but that exclusively sociological or exclusively psychological analysis yields a truncated understanding of the dynamics of social movements. The sociological study of the organizational characteristics of social movements de-emphasizes psychological explanations for movement emergence. A social movement is a set of opinions and beliefs in a population which represents preferences for changing some elements of the social structure and/or reward distribution of a society. The resource mobilization approach shifts the analysis of social movements from the characteristics and dispositions of individual participants to the structure and operation of movement organizations.