{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02389705882352941, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01608455882352941, 'mean_word_length': 5.202279202279202, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 1, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
MOBILIZATION FORUM: Comment on Oliver and Johnston Clarifying the Relationship between Framing and Ideology David A. Snow and Robert D. Benford During the decade of the 1990s the evolving framing perspective on social movements

During the decade of the 1990s the evolving framing perspective on social movements has found its way into an increasing amount of conceptual and empirical scholarship. There has been an almost meteoric acceleration in the number of articles, chapters, and papers invoking the frame concept or referring to framing processes in some fashion or another (Benford and Snow 2000). Presumably one reason for this escalating use of the framing perspective is that it helps fill a conceptual void and provides analytic purchase on understanding the interpretive work engaged in by movement actors and others within the movement field of action. Yet, as with any perspective, and particularly evolving ones, there are various glosses, untidy linkages, and misunderstandings that reveal themselves in both the application of the perspective and in its critical assessment. So it is not surprising that various issues with and questions about the movement framing perspective have been raised (e.g., Benford 1997; Fisher 1997; Hart 1996; Jasper 1997), issues and questions that one critic cleverly suggested constitute "cracks in the frame" (Steinberg 1998: 847). Oliver and Johnston's essay contributes to this line of critique by zeroing in one of the "cracks": the glossing of ideology and its relationship to frames. Their basic concern, as they state in no uncertain terms, is the "failure" of frame theory "to address the relation between frames and the much older, more political concept of ideology, and the concomitant tendency of many researchers to use `frame' uncritically as a synonym for ideology. " We agree with the core contention that the relationship between frames and ideology has been glossed over, and so we would like to take this opportunity to sketch our understanding of that relationship. Before doing so, we want to clarify a number of misunderstandings and misrepresentations that appear throughout Oliver and Johnston's essay.