Educación El Plan propone:

Social movements cannot always impose their interpretations of events on others as their construction of reality is challenged by others who do not support them. That is, the process of framing in social movements is a contested arena (Benford & Snow, 2000; Mc Adam,

McCarthy& Zald, 1996; Noakes, 2005; Zald, 1996). It is “the subject of intense contestation between collective actors representing the movement, the state and any existing

countermovement” (McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald, 1996, p. 16). According to Benford and Snow (2000), activists who are engaged in the construction of collective action frames cannot “construct and impose on their intended targets any version of reality they would like,” because they face different challenges from movement opponents (p. 625).

Boscarino (2016) defined frame contestation as “an explicit and confrontational engagement with opposing frames and framers” (p. 285). There are framing contests between movements and counter-movements; between movements and the media; and between

movements and authorities. The framing contests between movement and countermovement are mainly to “demonstrate who has the most support and resources at their command” and “to persuade authorities and bystanders of the rightness of their cause” (Zald, 1996, p. 269).

According to Benford and Snow (2000), counter-framing is any “attempts to ‘rebut, undermine, or neutralize a person’s or group’s myths, version of reality, or interpretative framework’ (Benford, 1987, p. 75)” (p. 626).

Opponents of social movements challenge different aspects of movements’ frames. For example, Benford and Snow (2000) pointed out that they mainly challenge the diagnostic and prognostic collective action frames. But Zald (1996) argued they challenge the mobilization frames as well. As discussed in the preceding section, media and movements are also engaged in “the struggle over framing” (Gamson & Wolfsefeld, 1993, p. 18). Frame contestants use

different framing tactics.

Opponents of movement frames used different techniques to counter-frame collective action frames. For example, in her study on the frame contestation between two interest groups of energy policy—the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)— Boscarino (2016) identified four framing techniques: discrediting frames, utility frames, perversity frames, and

character frames. For example, the study indicated that the EDF used the discrediting frame technique against the Sierra Club’s utility claims by accusing it of “presenting misleading information on energy usage” (p. 297). Also, while the Sierra Club used the “futility frame” to “assert that the competing proposal was inadequate and would not solve the problem at hand,” the EDF used the “perversity frame” by claiming “their opponents plan would actually

exacerbate energy issues” (p. 298). Both groups used character frames to “delegitimize” their opponents (Boscarino, 2016, p. 299).

In their study on frame competition between supporters and opponents of abortion in the United States, McCaffrey and Keys (2000) identified three strategies: “polarization-vilification,” “frame saving,” and “frame debunking” (p.56). McCaffrey and Keys’ study indicated that the

New York State National Organization for Women (NYSNOW) used the dichotomy of ‘us vs. them’ to polarize conservatives who opposed abortion. In their analysis of the polarization- vilification strategy used by NYSNOW in National NOW Times newsletter McCaffrey and Keys (2000) said:

This newsletter [National NOW Times] suggested that there was ‘a nationwide criminal conspiracy’ and that ‘these fanatics have instituted a reign of terror against women nationwide.’ Antiabortion activists ‘have use illegal violent tactics to close clinics, including smashing medical equipment, invading clinics and intimidating patients and medical staff. (p.51).

McCaffrey and Keys’ study also revealed how NYSNOW debunked their opponents’ use of the term, ‘pro-life’ saying “‘the pro-life is a term used to make anti-abortion, and anti-choice seem positive and good’ (Mid Suffolk NOW June 1987’” (p. 53). In addition, the study showed

NYSNOW used a frame saving strategy, for example by arguing they were ‘pro-choice, not pro- abortion.

Scholars also argued that state officials are also engaged in the activity of counter- framing the collective action frames of social movements. That is, as social movements are “signifying agents” engaged in the construction of meanings (Snow and Benford, 1988), states are also “active signifying agents engaged in the construction and maintenance of official frames” (Noakes, 2005, p. 105). McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald (1996) argued states engage in counter-framing activities, especially when they realize “the movement is able to establish itself as a serious force for social change” (p.17).

Scholars established some similarities between social movements’ collective action frames and government officials’ frames. The first being both social movements and states (state agencies) are “signifying agents” engaged in meaning construction. The second, both

movements’ collective action frames and official (state) frames of an issue value frame resonance (Noakes, 2005). Benford and Snow (2000) referred to frame resonance as “the credibility of the preferred frame and its relative salience” with target audiences (p. 619). Another similarity, according to Noakes (2005), is like social movements, state officials also “draw on familiar repertoires of interpretations to construct official frames” (p. 101).

Accordingly, states not only ensure their frames have cultural resonance but also aim to preserve “political legitimacy” and maintain “sentiments attaching citizens to the state’s activities” (p. 104).

Scholars also compared the impact of a movement’s collective action frames with official frames. For example, Noakes (2005) argued that official frames of issues have a greater chance

of winning than the collective action frames of movements because of the differences in the amount of resources each has at its disposal. According to Noakes:

In terms of both materials and cultural resources, state managers enjoy significant advantages over social movement entrepreneurs and that the official frames they

construct have a greater chance of triumphing in the struggle for cultural supremacy than do collective action frames mobilized by social movement entrepreneurs. (p. 105).