Frame Disputes within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement

Social movement organizations (SMOs) devote considerable effort to constructing particular versions of reality, developing and espousingalternativevisions, and attempting to affect various audiences' interpretations. Conflicts regarding such interpretive matters, referred to as 'frame disputes," are ubiquitous within movements. Using a multimethod strategy, this study analyzes the dynamics of interorganizationalframe disputes within the nuclear disarmament movement, including their organizational and ideological contexts, conditions conducive to theiremergence, patterns observed, and their effects. Three generic types of disputes are identified and elaborated: diagnostic, prognostic, andframe resonance disputes. Of the 51 disputes observed, all but two involved SMOs from two or more different movement factions. More disputes occurred between the movement's most moderate and radicalfactions than between otherfactions. Intramural conflicts were both detrimental andfacilitative of the disarmament movement and its SMOs. In the most extensive review to date of social movement literature, McAdam, McCarthy and Zald (1988) conclude that we know little about "the dynamics of collective action past the emergence of a movement" (728). Until recently, even less was known about grievance interpretation and communication processes, the essence of movement dynamics. Scholars have begun to address this lacuna by attending to various movement interpretive processes including public discourse (Gamson 1988; Gamson & Modigliani 1989; Steinberg 1989), frame alignment (Benford 1987; Snow & Benford 1988,1992; Snow et al. 1986), grievance interpretation and reality construction (Benford & Hunt 1992; Ferree & Miller 1985; Gusfield 1981; Klandermans 1992; Mauss 1975; Tarrow 1992; Turner & Killian 1987), and collective identity (Friedman & McAdam 1992; Gamson 1991; Hunt 1991; Hunt & Benford 1994; Melucci 1980, 1985, 1988, 1989; Pizzomo 1978; Taylor & Whittier 1992). *This is a revisedversion of apaperpresentedat the annual meetings oftheMidwestSociological Society,April6-9,1989, in St.Louis. Iamgrateful to ScottA.Hunt,MichelleHughesMiller,David A. Snow, and two anonymous reviewersfor their advice and comments on earlier drafts. Please direct correspondence to the author at the Department of Sociology, University of NebraskaLincoln, 703 OldfatherHall, Lincoln, NE 68588-0324. i) The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, March 1993, 71(3):677-701 This content downloaded from 157.55. 39.137 on Fri, 27 May 2016 05:34:23 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor. org/terms 678 / Social Forces 71:3, March 1993 Although often empirically grounded, the bulk of these developments have been theoretical. Few analyses examine how well these concepts stand up empirically. McAdam, McCarthy and Zald (1988) suggest that "what is needed is more systematic, qualitative fieldwork into the dynamics of collective action at the intermediate meso level . the level at which most movement action occurs and of which we know the least" (729). With these considerations in mind, this article analyzes empirically the negotiated and often contentious nature of grievance construction and communication processes within the nuclear disarmament movement by focussing on intramovement frame disputes.