Who's to Blame?

Research on social movement frames has been cumulative. Recently, scholars started studying the structural incentives and constraints for claim-makers by relying on the concept of discursive opportunity structure (DOS) while bringing the public sphere and the media to the centre of analysis of political contention. This article draws on these literatures to investigate social movement campaigns against genetically modified (GM) crops and pesticides in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. First, it argues that there is a transnational DOS that provides structural incentives and constraints to frame risks in symbolic struggles to define GM crops. Next, based on a content analysis of national newspapers, it describes the use of risk frames in national public discourses. Finally, it addresses the question of how this transnationalized DOS is framed by the media by looking at the discursive opportunities for social movements as well as other collective actors in their framing disputes. The study provides evidence of a transnationalization of public debates and offers explanations for national variations by resorting to other components of the DOS such as national policy discourse, timing of political agendas, media structure and culture. It concludes by recognizing the need to consider the various dimensions of opportunity structures for movement action, i.e. political, discursive, and economic, and their relative degree of transnationalization or autonomy over global forces.

Collective actors typically attempt to bring about a change in law or policy by employing discursive tactics designed to convince key political decision-makers to alter policy, yet few systematic studies of the effects of social movement framing on political outcomes exist. We theorize that the cultural context in which framing takes place moderates the success of movement framing in winning changes in policy. We examine the efforts of organized women, during roughly the first half of the twentieth century, to convince lawmakers to broaden jury laws to give women the opportunity to sit on juries. To examine the combined effect of framing and the discursive opportunities provided by hegemonic legal principles, traditional gender beliefs, gendered political opportunities, opposition framing, and wartime, we use logistic regression. The findings provide substantial evidence that framing's influence is moderated by discursive elements in the broader context. Our results suggest that investigations of how citizen groups influence law and policy must take into account framing's important role and the ways in which the cultural context conditions framing's influence.

In the previous three chapters we looked at various outcomes in media discourse and addressed which actors were competing and with what success in shaping these outcomes. We showed how their discursive strategies were themselves influenced by the contours of the complicated playing field on which they competed – the discursive opportunity structure – as well as by strategic choices that they made to position themselves in this field. Part of the problem faced by all of these actors was discursively to construct a constituency for themselves – women, the religious, the left – as well as to address this constructed public in ways that would advance the policy positions that they favored. In both Germany and the United States, the abortion debate has changed in character over time as different groups have achieved more standing and certain ideas have come to be more or less favored than others.

Feminist social movements and policy change: Devolution, childcare and domestic violence policies in Wales

Legal mobilization in the courts and in political discourse has emerged as an increasingly important strategy of social movements that complements other political approaches. While strategic litigation is quite popular in some countries, movement actors in others have remained sceptical about the transformative potential of jurisdiction for structural problems. Which structural-institutional and socio-political factors can account for the different level of legal mobilization by social movements? Can legal mobilization contribute to social change? The paper looks into these questions by examining the extent and nature of strategic litigation for pay equity in four European civil law countries (Switzerland, Germany, France, and Poland). The central hypothesis is that different legal opportunity structures (material and procedural law, case law) and different discursive opportunity structures (values, norms and institutions that organize the discourse) affect different patterns of legal mobilization. Conducive legal opportunity structures (LOS) are a crucial precondition for mobilization and they are the result of past political conflict and historical developments. Where legal opportunity structures are inhibiting or negative, legal mobilization may nevertheless happen, if discursive and political opportunity structures are favourable and if scandalous cases are available. Discursive opportunity structures (DOS) are more diverse and multilayered. The paper looks into two aspects of DOS: mass media coverage and organizational features of DOS. Mass media coverage varies strongly between the countries and movement actors do not have much voice in it. Perceptions and experiences in organizations on gender equality are even more diverse, and strongly influence whether legal mobilization is seen as valuable strategy. Data comes from a research project, including court decisions, media discourse analysis and 60 interviews with activists and lawyers.

Current calls for deep societal transformation stress the need to go beyond green consumption and aim for the reduction of material consumption. Such a shift is enacted by grassroots initiatives around reuse, repair and sharing. However, the possibility of postconsumerist perspectives and practices to reach a broader audience is affected by discursive opportunity structures (DOS) formed in public debate. To understand the DOS it is relevant to pay attention both to the continuous normalisation of consumption and to the ways in which alternatives are represented. To develop new analytical tools for examining what postconsumerist initiatives are up against, we introduce the concept of banal consumerism: mundane, habitual expressions that reproduce consumer culture. Through an empirical study of Swedish daily newspapers, we construct the basis for a typology of different expressions of banal consumerism. We find several expressions, of which the massive advertising of consumer goods is the most common but editorial material also plays an important role. This largely disabling DOS is then put in relation to the potentially enabling opportunities entailed in the existing media coverage of postconsumerist initiatives, practices and perspectives. The results show that postconsumerist initiatives and practices are newsworthy and presented as commendable. The fact that high levels of material consumption negatively impact the environment and life on the planet is widely accepted. To argue for degrowth or criticise consumerism is, however, controversial. Thus, support for postconsumerist practices coexist with massive expressions of banal consumerism, creating a complex set of DOS for the postconsumerist initiatives to navigate.

We interpret three strands of social movement theory (social threat, opportunity structure, and resource mobilization) to understand religious congregations' political activity related to same-sex marriage. Using a unique, national data set from the 2008 presidential election, we show the importance of the anti-same-sex marriage discursive opportunity structure (DOS) for facilitating, and occasionally constraining, congregational political activity. Other theoretical factors influence congregations under limited, although important, conditions. Our research develops a nuanced understanding of congregations' roles in social movements that prioritize institutionalized political activity and expands DOS theory in relation to local religious organizations.

Drawing from the protest paradigm and the mediation opportunity structure, this study textually analyzes mainstream and alternative media coverage of the 2019 inequality protests in Chile and the 2020 racial justice protests in the United States. In both cases, violence and forceful policing were linked to the protests, allowing this study to explore mediated violence and compare the discursive construction of the demonstrations, protesters, and police as articulated through 1) violence/damage, 2) repression, 3) oppression, and 4) blame. Findings revealed Chilean and U.S. mainstream media emphasized protester violence in juxtaposition with police trying to maintain order, peacefulness was portrayed as a novelty, and violence was disengaged from historical context. In contrast, alternative media treated protester violence as a response to structural violence, and police repression of protesters was criticized. This study shows the continued pervasiveness of the protest paradigm in mainstream news, and the way alternative media can offer discursive opportunities to counterframe police and protester violence and challenge mainstream media’s hostile portrayals of protesters’ use of the logic of damage. Ultimately, we suggest media and discursive opportunity structures are key to understanding mainstream and alternative media portrayals of protests.

The primary objective of this article is to investigate the contribution of social media to the success of two significant social movements in Indonesia, i.e. ‘Coins for Prita’ and ‘Support Bibit-Chandra’. To this end, discursive opportunity structure was adopted as the main theoretical framework. In addition, in-depth interviews with key Indonesian journalists, social media activists and media scholars were conducted to examine the issue. The results of this study suggest that diffusion of the movements' messages into the public sphere, along with the politicians' supportive resonance towards the cases, were the main factors influencing the success of these two movements. Importantly, this article argues that while the most important role in this process was played by the vast and positive mainstream media coverage of the cases, social media also played a key role given they initiated the movement discourse and directed it towards mainstream media.

In every country, there is some form of public communication about topics and actors related either to some particular policy domain or to the broader interest and values that are engaged. This communication is carried out in various forums. For various reasons, general audience mass media provide a master forum. The mass media forum differs greatly from country to country. The discursive opportunity structure is a sub-part of the broader political opportunity system which includes all of the institutional and cultural access points that actors can seize upon in pursuit of their attempts to influence public policy. The nature of the judicial system is an important part of the discursive opportunity structure. The mass media system in a country is itself a critical part of the discursive opportunity structure. Keywords: cultural heritage; discursive opportunity structure; institutional barriers; mass media; public discourse

Culture war dynamics have generated political and social polarization in a range of countries. We identify two key factors—social proximity and discursive opportunity structures—that influence the timing of the arrival and the meaning of the term “woke” in France, comparing its usage to that in Britain and Spain. We track “woke” and similar phrases by examining their frequency as well as their contextual meaning, drawing on extensive data from mainstream media outlets that reflect public discourse. Using an abductive approach that matches theoretical insights to empirical observations, we develop a framework that can be applied to understand the spread of culture war terms across liberal democracies.

ABSTRACTIn this article, I explore how the discursive context shapes the outcome of protest actors’ framing strategies in conflicts over large-scale land transformations. I use the discursive opportunity structures (DOS) concept to show that the outcome of framing strategies is influenced by national and transnational discursive structures. These differ depending on the specific purpose of land valorisation. Further factors influencing the outcomes are counter frames of the opponents, quality of framing strategies and frictions within movements. Empirically, I compare framing strategies used by protest actors in conflicts around a gold mine and an agro-industrial project in Senegal.

Teaching and Learning Guide for: Political Elites and the Culture of Social Movements

In 1999, Koopmans and Statham introduced the term “discursive opportunity structure” (DOS) to identify ideas in the broader political culture believed to be “sensible,” “realistic,” and “legitimate” and whose presence would thus facilitate reception of specific forms of collective action framing – forms, that is, that would align well with these preexisting ideational elements. The notion of DOS, therefore, provides social movement scholars with a conceptual tool to understand which social movement frames are likely to have the greatest capacity to mobilize existing and new recruits, to convince the public of a movement's demands, and to persuade authorities to alter policy and practices in line with the movement's agenda. The conceptualization of discursive opportunities synthesizes theories of social movement framing and political opportunity structure. Framing theory by itself is limited in its ability to explain why some collective action frames are more successful than others. Political opportunity theory, while drawing our attention to political‐institutional opportunities for successful movement mobilization, tends to neglect cultural dynamics that also play a pivotal role in movement outcomes. Discursive opportunity structures reveal that cultural elements in the broader environment facilitate and constrain successful social movement framing.

In 1999, Koopmans and Statham introduced the term “discursive opportunity structure” (DOS) to identify ideas in the broader political culture believed to be “sensible,” “realistic,” and “legitimate” and whose presence would thus facilitate reception of specific forms of collective action framing—forms, that is, that would align well with these pre‐existing ideational elements (1999: 228). The notion of DOS, therefore, provides social movement scholars with a conceptual tool to understand which social movement frames are likely to have the greatest capacity to mobilize existing and new recruits, to convince the public of a movement's demands, and to persuade authorities to alter policy and practices in line with the movement's agenda. The conceptualization of discursive opportunities synthesizes theories of social movement framing and political opportunity structure. Framing theory by itself is limited in its ability to explain why some collective action frames are more successful than others. Political opportunity theory, while drawing our attention to political‐institutional opportunities for successful movement mobilization, tends to neglect cultural dynamics that also play a pivotal role in movement outcomes. Discursive opportunity structures reveal that cultural elements in the broader environment facilitate and constrain successful social movement framing.