FRAMING, COUNTERFRAMING, AND DISCURSIVE FIELDS IN THE MOBILIZATIONS AGAINST CRIMINAL VIOLENCE IN MEXICO

Abstract

In social movements literature, frame analyses have focused mainly on the strategic discourse of mobilized groups, a smaller proportion has discussed official frames, a minimal share has studied the dynamics of framing and counterframing, and barely a few studies have analyzed the development of discursive fields. This article broadens and deepens our understanding of discursive fields through a longitudinal analysis of four episodes of mobilization against criminal violence in Mexico. My main argument is that the discursive field of these movements has developed and transformed in a relational way from the framing and counterframing disputes between mobilized groups and governments, with observable changes in four dimensions: the central issue of the discussion, its participants, the diagnoses and proposed solutions, and the official responses to the protest. The article contributes to the literature by proposing an operationalization of the transformations in a discursive field that is useful for studying other social problems.

Full text

FRAMING, COUNTERFRAMING, AND DISCURSIVE FIELDS IN THE
MOBILIZATIONS AGAINST CRIMINAL VIOLENCE IN MEXICO
*
Johan Gordillo-García
†
In social movements literature, frame analyses have focused mainly on the strategic discourse
of mobilized groups, a smaller proportion has discussed official frames, a minimal share has
studied the dynamics of framing and counterframing, and barely a few studies have analyzed
the development of discursive fields. This article broadens and deepens our understanding of
discursive fields through a longitudinal analysis of four episodes of mobilization against
criminal violence in Mexico. My main argument is that the discursive field of these movements
has developed and transformed in a relational way from the framing and counterframing
disputes between mobilized groups and governments, with observable changes in four dimen-
sions: the central issue of the discussion, its participants, the diagnoses and proposed solutions,
and the official responses to the protest. The article contributes to the literature by proposing
an operationalization of the transformations in a discursive field that is useful for studying other
social problems.
Part of the “cultural turn” in sociology focused on the social construction of meaning, which in
social movement studies had its central development in the analysis of collective action frames
(Williams 2004; Snow 2008; Johnston 2002). In its early years, the framing perspective focused
almost entirely on social movements as strategic agents of meaning making and the publics to
which they appealed (Williams 2004; Polletta and Ho 2009; Lindekilde 2014; Lichterman and
Dasgupta 2020), leaving aside the study of the cultural context in which social movements
undertake their discursive strategies and their opponents’ responses. As David Snow (2004),
Francesca Polletta and M. Kai Ho (2009) point out, in the 1990s, framing scholars started to
acknowledge that, to better understand the dynamics of social movements, it was necessary to
consider the context of discourse because frame construction does not respond exclusively to
strategic or discretionary criteria but also to historical and cultural limitations (Steinberg 1999b;
Williams 1995; Kubal 1998; Zuo and Benford 1995).
The language used in contentious politics is relational, concrete, and dynamic (Tarrow 2013;
Steinberg 1999b) because it is developed in interactions in specific communities and is open to
change. Thus, the cultural context in which frames develop influences the rhetorical possibilities
of social movements and the responses of their adversaries. One concept that has been used to
capture the cultural context of framing is “discursive field” (Snow, Vliegenthart, and Ketelaars
2019). Governments’ interpretations about an issue or problem are also developed in this cultural
context (Whittier 2002). Along with collective action frames, official frames are a critical element
of a discursive field (Noakes 2000), but scarce attention has been devoted to them in studies on
social movements (Haydu 1999; Messer, Shriver, and Beamon 2018).
It is relevant to ask how a discursive field develops and transforms. The case of the mobili-
zations against crime and violence in Mexico allows an empirical approach to discursive field
analysis because, since 2004, there have been relevant changes in the demands on this issue and
in government responses. My argument is that the discursive field of social movements against
*
This research is a product of the National Autonomous University of Mexico’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program. I thank
Miguel Armando López Leyva, my postdoctoral advisor, and Jorge Cadena-Roa for their comments on the case selection
and the analytical strategy. Likewise, the insightful feedback from the anonymous reviewers was crucial to improve the
quality of the original manuscript. Finally, I thank Paulina Olvera for being my moral support through this project.
†
Johan Gordillo-García is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Institute of Social Research at the National Autonomous
University of Mexico. Contact: johangordillogarcia@gmail.com.
© 2024 Mobilization: An International Quarterly 29(2): 205-228
DOI 10.17813/1086-671X-29-2-205
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/mobilization/article-pdf/29/2/205/3394133/i1938-1514-29-2-205.pdf by National Autonomous University of Mexico user on 07 July 2024