In his essay introducing Part III, Mayer Zald seeks to refine our understanding of the concept of“framing processes” by identifying five topics that have often been confounded or otherwise blurred in previous discussions of the concept. These five topics are (1) the cultural tool kits available to activists for framing purposes, (2) the strategic framing efforts of movement groups, (3) the frame contests that arise between the movement and other collective actors, (4) the role of the media in shaping these frame contests, and (5) the cultural impact of the movement in modifying the available“tool kit.”

In this chapter I hope to advance our understanding of topics 2–4 in this list. Specifically, I aim to do four things: (1) review the existing work on“strategic framing efforts,” (2) critique what I see as the“ideational bias” in our understanding of framing processes, (3) discuss the framing function of movement tactics, and (4) conclude by using the concrete case of the American civil rights movement to illustrate the way in which tactics were consciously used to“frame” action and thereby attract media attention and shape public opinion in ways that led to a decisive victory in the movement's“frame contest” with federal officials and Southern segregationists.

FRAMING AND FRAME ALIGNMENT PROCESSES

Among the most provocative and potentially useful of the works on the cultural dimensions of social movements have been the writings of David Snow and various of his colleagues (Snow et al., 1986; Snow and Benford, 1988, 1992) on the role of“framing” or“frame alignment processes” in the emergence and development of collective action.