The present investigation builds on the previous studies discussed in section 2.2 by analysing a dataset of occurrences of „feminism‟, „feminist(s)‟ and „feminist‟ using the textual-conceptual functions introduced in section 1.4. To test the convictions of previous research, I use a set of five frames similar to those identified by Jaworska and Krishnamurthy (2012, p. 417). These frames are based on common patterns that previous studies have identified in how feminism is portrayed in the media, and provide a benchmark for the analysis in chapters 5-7. The five frames are:
1. Positive/negative portrayals.
2. Geographical and temporal placement. 3. Universality/complexity.
4. Changes and oppositions. 5. Complexity of portrayals.
The „Positive/negative portrayals‟ frame reflects differences in previous studies‟ conclusions concerning how feminism is portrayed. There is a consensus among the studies discussed in section 2.2.2 that newspapers portray feminism in a negative light, but two of the more recent studies discussed in section 2.2.3 - Dean (2010) and Mendes (2011a, 2012) - contend that portrayals are in fact more mixed. In particular, my own analysis addresses several patterns of negativity found in previous studies: the notion that feminism is dead or irrelevant (Callaghan et al., 1999; Christie, 1998; Rhode, 1995), the association of feminism with political extremity and stereotypes such as a lack of femininity and homosexuality (Callaghan et al., 1999; Buschman & Lenart, 1996; Jaworska & Krishnamurthy, 2012), people‟s (particularly young women‟s) rejection of feminism (Redfern & Aune, 2010; Walby, 2011), and the use of quotes from feminists themselves to dismiss feminism (Mendes, 2011b, p. 492).
44
The „Geographical and temporal placement‟ frame is based on previous studies‟ findings concerning where and when feminism is portrayed as existing. In terms of geography, research suggests that feminism is portrayed as a largely western phenomenon (Baumgardner & Richards, 2001; Jaworska & Krishnamurthy, 2012), while temporally it is located firmly in the past – in particular around the time of the second wave of the 1960s and 1970s (Dean, 2010; Jaworska & Krishnamurthy, 2012). On the other hand, recent research suggests that there is also a renewed emphasis on more contemporary forms of „new feminism‟ (Dean, 2010; Jaworska & Krishnamurthy, 2012; Mendes, 2011a, 2012), albeit that this concept is often treated with a degree of scepticism by writers (Jaworska & Krishnamurthy, 2012, p. 416).
The „Universality/complexity‟ frame recognises two differing opinions in the existing literature: that feminism is portrayed as a single, universal movement (Callaghan et al., 1999; Douglas, 1994), or that it is portrayed as complex, consisting of different varieties (Dean, 2010; Mendes, 2011a, 2012). Studies that argue that feminism is portrayed as in some way universal argue that feminism is perceived as “monolithic” (Douglas, 1994, p. 274) and that a small number of well-known feminists are taken as representative of the whole movement (Baumgardner & Richards, 2001, p. 79). On the other hand, studies that argue that feminism is portrayed as complex point to the fact that the movement is described as dividing into different types (Dean, 2010) and that it is defined according to what it is not rather than what it is (Marling, 2010), with coverage suggesting uncertainty about what feminism means and who can be a feminist (Mendes, 2011a, p. 132).
The „Changes and oppositions‟ frame stems from previous studies‟ observations of how newspapers portray shifts in what constitutes feminism over time, and oppositions not only between feminism and other bodies (for example between feminists and other women), but also within feminism itself. In particular, studies note a move from the second wave to the third wave, and from feminism to post-feminism (Dean, 2010; Jaworska & Krishnamurthy, 2012; Mendes, 2011a). Oppositions are drawn between feminists aligned to these different varieties of feminism, as well as between more and less politically-inclined feminists in general (Dean, 2010; Jaworska & Krishnamurthy, 2012; Mendes, 2011a, 2012). Oppositions are also noted between feminists and other people, including non-feminist women (Lind & Salo, 2002; Rhode, 1995; Taylor, 2003).
The final frame, „Complexity of portrayals‟, draws on the findings of the studies of 2000s newspapers discussed in section 2.2.3. While these studies contend that media portrayals of feminism are not as negative as previous studies have suggested, they also observe that support for particular types of feminism is connected to a dismissal of other types (Dean, 2010; Jaworska & Krishnamurthy, 2012; Mendes, 2011a, 2012), that positive portrayals of feminism tend to come from a “defensive position” (Mendes, 2011a, p. 10), and that articles are often presented as an argument with a hypothetical, less supportive individual (Dean, 2010, p. 397), with an emphasis on the repudiation of popular negative perceptions of feminism rather than the putting forward of more positive ideas about it.
45
2.4 Summary
This literature review has provided an account of the denotative and connotative meanings attributed to „feminism‟ in feminist literature, demonstrating that the lexemes under investigation are considered to have contested meanings. The overview of previous studies of feminism in the media in section 2.2 demonstrates that most research finds that feminism is portrayed in a negative light, and that much existing research considers this to be a cause of people‟s lack of understanding of, and support for, feminism (Buschman & Lenart, 1996; Callaghan et al., 1999; Lind & Salo, 2002). However, as section 2.2.3 demonstrates, several 2000s-based studies have contended that not all media portrayals of feminism are necessarily negative (Dean, 2010; Jaworska & Krishnamurthy, 2012; Mendes, 2011a, 2012) and that there is evidence of some support for feminism in UK national newspapers in the 2000s.
The five frames listed in section 2.3 reflect the findings of previous studies, and provide a benchmark for the findings of the present study. Looking at, for example, the way the meanings of „feminist/s/ism‟ are constructed through the textual-conceptual function of contrasting allows me to explore in greater depth the argument that newspapers tend to portray feminists in opposition to other women (Lind & Salo, 2002; Rhode, 1995; Taylor, 2002). In chapter 3, I provide a full account of the textual-conceptual functions used in the present study and a sample analysis, which demonstrates how the functions interact to construct textual meanings of „feminist/s/ism‟ and how the meanings of „feminist/s/ism‟ in a specific newspaper article relate to the frames outlined in section 2.3.