Qualitative Sociology

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 485–505 | Cite as

The Place of Framing: Multiple Audiences and Antiwar Protests near Fort Bragg

  • Michael T. HeaneyEmail author
  • Fabio Rojas
Special Issue: Political Ethnography II


Social movement leaders regularly invoke geographic places—such as cities, parks, and monuments—as symbols in strategic efforts to frame social movement activity. This article examines how place affects framing processes inside a movement and counterprotester responses with an ethnography of anti-Iraq War protests in Fayetteville, North Carolina. We show how place attracts the attention of movement leaders, creates opportunities for local community members to assert their interests, suppresses some frames within the movement, and encourages opponents to co-opt the meaning of place for their own ends. The multiple meanings of place can broaden the scope of conflict and reduce a movement leader’s ability unilaterally to define a movement’s agenda and public image.


Place Framing Protest Coalitions Countermovements Iraq War 



Fayetteville Peace with Justice


International Socialist Organization


Iraq Veterans Against the War


Military Families Speak Out


North Carolina Peace and Justice Coalition


organizations of veterans and military families


People of Faith Against the Death Penalty


United for Peace and Justice


Veterans for Peace



This research received generous support from the Center for the Study of American Politics at Yale University, the Department of Political Science at the University of Florida, and the Department of Sociology at Indiana University. We offer thanks for especially helpful comments and assistance from Bridgette Burge, L. Russell Herman, Jr., Andrew Pearson, Lou Plummer, Amber Wooddy, Jonathan Ellzey, Rob Robinson, Patricia Woods, Leora Vegosen, the editor, and three anonymous reviewers. We dedicate this article to the uncounted tens of thousands of beautiful human beings who died senselessly in the U.S.-Iraq War.


  1. Auyero, J. (2004). When everyday life, routine politics, and protest meet. Theory and Society, 33, 417–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babb, S. (1996). “A true American system of finance”: Frame resonance in the U. S. labor movement, 1866 to 1886. American Sociological Review, 61, 1033–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu, M. (2005). Military wife becomes war protester. Atlanta Journal-Constitution March 19.Google Scholar
  4. Benford, R. D. (1993). Frame disputes within the nuclear disarmament movement. Social Forces, 71, 677–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brenner, N. (2004). New state spaces. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cortright, D. (2004). A peaceful superpower. Goshen, Indiana: Fourth Freedom Forum.Google Scholar
  7. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects. Journal of Politics, 63, 1041–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellingson, S. (1995). Understanding the dialectic of discourse and collective action. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 100–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans, J. H. (1997). Multi-organizational fields and social movement organization frame content. Sociological Inquiry, 67, 451–469.Google Scholar
  10. Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. W., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fine, G. A. (1995). Public narration and group culture. In H. Johnston and B. Klandermans (Eds.), Social movements and culture (pp. 127–143). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  12. Finer, J. (2005). Iraq War opponents stage protest near Fort Bragg. Washington Post. March 20.Google Scholar
  13. Gamson, W. A. (1988). Political discourse and collective action. International Social Movement Research, 1, 219–244.Google Scholar
  14. Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Garrow, D. J. (1978). Protest at Selma. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  18. Gould, R. V. (1995). Insurgent identities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gramsci, A. (1992). Prison notebooks. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jacobson, D. (2002). Place and belonging in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Klatch, R. E. (1988). Of meanings and masters. Polity, 21, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kollman, K. (1998). Outside lobbying. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Koopmans, R. (2004). Movements and media. Theory and Society, 33, 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koopmans, R., & Olzak, S. (2004). Discursive opportunities and the evolution of right-wing violence in Germany. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 198–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lutz, C. (2001). Homefront. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  26. McAdam, D. (1996). The framing function of movement tactics. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements (pp. 338–356). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. McCarthy, J. D., & McPhail, C. (2006). Places of protest. Mobilization, 11, 229–247.Google Scholar
  28. McVeigh, R., Myers, D. J., & Sikkink, D. (2004). Corn, Klansmen, and Coolidge. Social Forces, 83, 653–690.Google Scholar
  29. Maney, G. M., Woehrle, L. M., & Coy, P. G. (2005). Harnessing and challenging hegemony. Sociological Perspectives, 38, 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mansbridge, J. J. (1986). Why we lost the ERA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Marshall-Genzer, N. (2005). Army base is site of protests marking war anniversary. Weekend Edition, March 20, 2005. Washington, DC: National Public Radio.Google Scholar
  32. Martin, D. G., & Miller, B. A. (2003). Space and contentious politics. Mobilization, 8, 143–156.Google Scholar
  33. Meyer, D. S., & Staggenborg, S. (1996). Movements, countermovements, and the structure of political opportunity. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1628–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller, B. A. (2000). Geography and social movements. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, B. A., & Martin, D. G. (Eds.) (2003). Special issue: Space, place, and contentious politics. Mobilization, 8, 143–232.Google Scholar
  36. Naples, N. (2002). From “beloved community” to family values. In D. Meyer, N. Whittier, & B. Robnett (Eds.), Social movements: Identity, culture, and the state (pp. 226–246). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. NCPJC. (2006). April 2006 statewide convention. Scholar
  38. Nepstad, S. E. (2004). Persistent resistance. Social Problems, 51, 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Office of the Command Historian. (2005). Fort Bragg history. Scholar
  40. Oliver, P. E., & Johnston, H. (2000). What a good idea! Mobilization, 4, 37–54.Google Scholar
  41. Proffitt, B. (2004). Fayetteville proposal to UFPJ. Raleigh: NCPJC.Google Scholar
  42. Riker, W. H. (1986). The art of political manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people. Orlando: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  44. Sewell Jr., W. H. (2001). Space in contentious politics. In R. R. Aminzade, J. A. Goldstone, D. McAdam, E. J. Perry, W. H. Sewell Jr., S. Tarrow, & C. Tilly (Eds.), Silence and voice in the study of contentious politics (pp. 51–88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Snow, D. A. (2004). Framing processes, ideology, and discursive fields. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 380–412). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–217.Google Scholar
  47. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In A. D. Morris & C. M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 133–155). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Steinberg, M. W. (1998). Tilting the frame. Theory and Society, 27, 845–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Steinberg, M. W. (1999). The talk and back talk of collective action. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 736–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stevenson, R. (2005). Bush to tell why he sees a “clear path to victory.” New York Times. June 28.Google Scholar
  52. Stock, S. (2006). After 3 years, peace march is about ending war—now. Raleigh News and Observer. March 20.Google Scholar
  53. Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  54. Tilly, C. (2003). Contention over space and place. Mobilization, 8, 221–226.Google Scholar
  55. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). United States Census 2000. Scholar
  57. Veterans Gulf March. (2006). Veterans march to New Orleans. Scholar
  58. Walgrave, S., & Verhulst, J. (2004). Who takes to which streets? Paper presented at the conference of the European Consortium for Political Research, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
  59. Westby, D. L. (2002). Strategic imperative, ideology, and frame. Mobilization, 7, 287–304.Google Scholar
  60. Williams, A. (2005). Thousands protest war. Fayetteville Observer. March 20.Google Scholar
  61. Zald, M. N., & Useem, B. (1987). Movement and countermovement interaction. In M. N. Zald & J. D. McCarthy (Eds.), Social movements in organizational society (pp. 247–271). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  62. Zhao, D. (2001). The power of Tiananmen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations