Effects of framing

by Sayaka Umei

The information of posters, advertisements, commercials, TVs, election promises, or even newspapers deliver a certain and limited information. These tools highlight what the providers want to say briefly to tell the most important information. However, I would like to ask “Is this just for viewer”? NO. The providers deliver and emphasize the information, thus it causes social movement, which means it makes the problem public. In my opinion, people have to choose and inquire into the information given not to act too emotionally.

“Framing is a thought organizer, highlighting certain events and facts as important ad rendering others invisible” according to Ryan and Gamson. It is “necessary but not sufficient.” It is “valuable for focusing a dialogue with targeted constituencies” because “it involves a strategic dialogue intended to shape a particular group into a coherent movement.” According to Ryan and Gamson as well, the faming has both good points and bad points.

For the strong points, there are 4 points; first the information is explicit for viewers. So they can get the information what the providers want to say. Second, people can have many frames in their heads because there are many kinds of people all over the world, which means there are many kinds of framing as well. Third, people can get the worldview of their adversaries through successful reframing. Forth, all frames implicit or explicit apply to moral principles. I think this forth one easily can cause the social movements.

For the bad points, there are 3 points; first there is too much emphasis on the message. Second, there is too narrow a focus on the message with lack of the framing strategy. Third, political conservatives did not build political power by the broader cultural values but by the infrastructure ad relationship with journalists

Based on these strong and bad points, what we have to do to the framing is that we have to pick up the information which is given to us and not to be flourished by the information. Of course, I do not say the social movement is bad, but I think that is too directly. When people are given the information and they feel something bad for them, they promote the social movement. If the provider expects people doing so like George Bush about al-Qaeda, they are in the intent of the provider.

In conclusion, nowadays there is much information around us and the technology, sociology, or even psychology has been developing. Framing has very good strategy which we cannot notice. We have to pick up the information; especially we have to pay attention to the information which is too emphasized or too effective to people’s minds.

(Re)framing and Problem Solving

by Ryo Tanaka

How can we solve social problems? Various ways are possible. But the most basic one is to share how the problem is understood. In other words, it is necessary to frame or reframe the problem by “highlighting certain events or facts as important and rendering others visible” (Ryan & Gamson, 2006, p. 13). In is then important to note that people often frame an issue not actually seeing the fact in their eyes. For example, the former US president George Bush insisted “a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda when no facts support[ed] it” (Ryan & Gamson, 2006, p. 14). Frames often take implicit forms. Thus, it is risky to rely on only one person’s frame in making a decision or solving a problem.

Different people have different frames in their head. In solving a problem, it is essential to combine or integrate each other’s frame effectively to reflect the process of problem solving. “Successful reframing involves ability to enter worldview of our adversaries” (Ryan & Gamson, 2006, p. 14). Problem solving therefore requires combining or integrating opposing sides.

For example, domestic violence has two opposing ways of framing. One is to understand it as a private problem that results from the inside of the family. This includes the relationship between the husband and wife. The other is to regard it as a public issue. This view suggests that socioeconomic forces push people to commit violence to others including family members. Or at least, some social factors are related to their action of violence. To combine or integrate these two opposing sides, it is necessary to consider the two things: how much those who are abused are responsible for their fate; and how much society is responsible for domestic violence. Typically, those who are abused are not responsible for much of their fate because they cannot control their situation by themselves. This difficulty of the abused sometimes comes from the traditional value system. When the traditional patriarchic idea that the husband has more power than the wife is applied, the husband side can justify violence against the wife. In this sense, domestic violence is the society’s fault. Society has maintained the value system that has justified and concealed domestic violence. Also, extreme stresses can lead people to commit violence against others to release the stresses. People typically stressed out in their workplace. Various environmental factors such as the relationship with colleagues or bosses, the amount of work, and working hours influence their level of stress. People have no choice but to get such physically and mentally demanding jobs simply because most of today’s jobs have a certain degree of such demands. It is almost impossible for them to choose a job that is not stressful.

In conclusion, domestic violence can be seen as a social problem to a large degree. Motivation of violence essentially comes from cultural norms or stresses got outside the family. Still, this does not prove that abused people have no responsibility for their fate. They should at least make an effort not to be abused. It is hard to examine how much abused people are responsible. But discussion above shows that it seems easier to consider how much society is responsible. Thus, before examining responsibility of the abused, social systems should be improved to reduce domestic violence. In doing so, the process by which systems push people to commit violence should be revealed.


Ryan, C. and Gamson, W. A. (2006). the art of reframing political debates. Contexts (5)1, pp. 13-18.

Environmental Issues: Foundation and Framing

by Samuel Slaten

Environmental problems and the solutions to overcome them should be on the minds of everyone rich or poor, it affects everyone  in one aspect or another. However we are seeing more and more the blatant disregard of primary issues such as global warming, toxic waste, and destruction of ecosystems. So what exactly is reason for the lack of interest in such important issues? I believe the problem resides in the way the issues are being portrayed to the public and the how the the problems are being shown relating to everyday life. So how do we address these problems? In two steps, by adding a foundation for people to base their perception of the issues on. It is essential to show people that these issues do affect everyday life and how exactly they can observe it. Then in order to bring the issues to heart it is necessary to frame it so that people can actually understand the causes and science behind the issues. Trying to understand the issues without understanding the actual substance of the issues results in misinformed people who can easily be mislead.

So how can scientists, authors, and news analysts add a foundation for people to base their perception upon? First it is essential to show that even though other issues might not be affecting them other issues are. And that these issues are interconnected to other serious issues affecting different communities.  One of the issues effecting urban populations is air pollution, smog is one of the better examples of this. Smog , I think, is one of those issues that can be used not only to educate and inform the population but also to draw awareness to other environmental issues. Smog is also easy to form a foundation around because it is one of the easier issues to see and relate with. According to one news source smog is so abundant in 10 of the 11 most populated states in America and that in many of their cities the air quality level has reached above the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) level of safe air (Meth). Another example is from Ontario Canada where in the past 10 years there have been over 100 Smog advisories  lasting 275 days in total (“Ontario Ministry of the Environment” ). Thus it can be assumed the issue of smog is one that many ordinary citizens are affected by and can observe directly. Thus, by using an issue like the one of smog environmentalists, sociologists, and scientists alike can raise the awareness levels and then direct them into other issues that are linked to smog, Such as rising air temperature (global warming), emission standards ( the impact of industry), and waste dumps(toxic and normal). Thus by adding a foundation that is easy for people to observe and understand we can raise the interest and awareness levels of other issues. Here I used smog as an example but in truth any issue can be used as long as it meets various criteria, the different columns of the foundation: 1. It relates to vast amounts of people everyday. 2. It is easily observed. 3.It has connections with other issues around the world.

So now that the idea of a foundation has been established the question is how can we frame the issues in question so that everyone doesn’t need a science book near by in order to understand the issues? If people do not understand the reason for why the problems are arising then how can they be expected to advocate for their change. First, public figures need to be able to explain these issues themselves. People need to be able to rely on their elected officials when problems affecting their communities arise. Secondly the facts and data surrounding the issues needs to be simplified to terms and reasoning  that everyone can accurately perceive. People will not have an interest in something they do not understand.  This also coincides with how people of influence portray the importance of these issues and the people they affect. According to Mr. Gibbons from the University of Georgia whom did a survey of ecology graduate students. The number one problem facing the environment today is apathy (Gibbons). How can normal citizens be expected to show concern when the people representing them show no concern for the issues. How can people be expected to understand the issues when their leaders and idols themselves do not understand the issues, or at least not well enough to explain them. How can an English, American, or French citizen be expected to relate to a scientist in India or Japan or vice versa? They also must be able to see that these issues affect everyone and one cannot simply remove themselves from the problem. This inverted quarantine effect  (the idea that one can just remove themselves from a problem that affects everyone) is not a long term solution but a quick fix that will end with the same result. Each communities’ leaders and icons should show concern and advocate that we have to come together for a solution, not expect change to just occur. As they say, home is where the heart is. So show people things that adversely affect their home and loved ones and then they will demand for change.


Gibbons, Whit . “WHAT ARE OUR TOP 10 ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS?.” uga.edu. UGA, 06 206. Web. 2 Dec 2012. <http://srel.uga.edu/ecoviews/ecoview060326.htm&gt;.

Meth, Madeline . “Center for American Progress .” Center for American Progress . (2006): n. page. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. <http://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2006/11/30/15683/new- report-u-s-breathes-dangerous-levels-of-smog/>.

“Ontario Ministry of the Enviroment.” Ontario Ministry of the Enviroment. (2012): n. page. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. <http://www.airqualityontario.com/press/smog_advisories.php&gt;.

Frame on the Social Movements

by Hiroki Matsukura

Through learning the concept of “frame” on our society in class, I found it being the conception of exclusion from “society”. It finally decides outsiders or insiders about one issue. In this system, they, insiders, seem to ignore outsiders saying. What, in addition, we must not forget is there is not only the exclusion from the insiders when it comes to seeing from the outsiders view to protest the situation. The outsiders also create their own frame against the frame that excludes them. Thus, at last, they lead to exclude each other. We might see the social movements as one of the figures of exclusion between both sides.

Thinking of this exclusive system, we may conclude that the situation cannot be solved from this approach that people just insist toward each other what they want to do or to be. We need to establish the “framework” to include each other well. To reach such framework, we should know well about the structure of our society. In this blog post, I would like to use the Japanese structure as the example. As we can know from a lot of the Japanese contemporary novels and movies, in the old days, around 1960s, the social movements were led by especially young university students, and it was seen as a sort of extreme or crazy movements. On the other hand, the present movements are seen relatively as being milder and behaving itself. However, this does not mean their movements are thought as agreeable.

The social movements are seen as something strange as long as they are labelled with the name of “social movement” in Japan. It means that social movements in Japan are regarded as heterogeneity for the frame of homogeneity, “being usual.” Notably, the Japanese government is an important symbol seemed to be established over the frame of the Japanese usualness. Nevertheless, those who join the social movements expect the government to change its policy along with them. Additionally, as mentioned above, even in Japan we have to think about the both-side-exclusion between a frame and a frame of anti-frame existing. From this, we can point out that this situation seems contradictory. As this explanation, we can state our Japanese society is under a top-down structure. In short with a simple expression, it means when the government says something is its justice, the thing becomes everyone’s justice in Japanese society.

This is being a Japanese common sense under conscience about social activities. In any frame, the Japanese society always is cuffed with the thought. Thus, the social movements firstly try to make the government accept their ideas for Japanese politics. From the point of my view, I point out that they lose the recognition that the people themselves are the politics itself, not the government. To establish the framework to understand and include various standing points in Japan, we firstly need to throw away the top-down structure from Japan and to create a people-centred society in a new sense. Abandoning the symbol of “being usual,” we find us standing on even ground.