‘I Hate It, But It Still Sounds Good’: Collective Identity and the Evaluation of Oppositional Frame Resonance

Abstract

While activists often respond to claims advanced by their opposition, little is known about how oppositional rhetoric is evaluated. This study focuses on the evaluation process, examining how movement actors assess the resonant appeal of oppositional frames. I analyze how activists in the American pro-choice movement respond to a faction of the pro-life movement that primarily frames abortion as harmful to women. Drawing on focus group conversations with pro-choice activists, I find feminist collective identity and their own experience advancing gendered frames influence which oppositional frames pro-choice actors consider most likely to resonate with a non-activist audience. These judgments subsequently guide decisions about how to respond to oppositional frames and construct of counterframes. I find activists to use collective identity to rule out potential strategies and tactics they feel are in conflict with what the group represents. I argue that in cases where similarities exist between frames and counterframes, experience advancing rhetoric superficially similar to that of the opposing movement provides strategic insight. Movement actors draw on lessons learned from their own collective framing experiences to evaluate how audiences will respond to oppositional frames with comparable cultural themes. These experiences serve as a guide, informing activists' perceptions of the frames a non-activist audience will be most likely to embrace, which frames must be addressed, and which can be safely ignored. This study emphasizes movement actors' agency and strategic decision-making processes, demonstrates how collective identity influences the framing process, and contributes to knowledge of how group experiences and identity affect perception and strategy.