Reframing Terrorism

In the wake of 9/11, ultraconservatives have used the concept of a War on Terrorism (WOT) – a “war” with no foreseeable end and hidden enemies lurking everywhere – to tighten control over the American public, undermine civil liberties, advance their own foreign policy agenda, distract attention from their own controversial domestic agenda, and intimidate the opposition.

We can expect terrorism to remain a dominant media story throughout 2004, and terrorism-related media-worthy events to be used in service of the political goals of the far right.

In the face of the media-dramatized WOT, it has been hard for dissenting voices to be heard. Opposition to conservative policies and actions, and to Republican candidates, is met by accusations that the opponents are unpatriotic or seek to put Americans at risk.

Unless moderates and progressives find ways of dealing effectively with the terrorism issue, they will continue to be disadvantaged in the political arena. Unfortunately, their efforts to deal with the topic in the media often inadvertently end up reinforcing the importance of the issue and the conservatives’ ways of talking and thinking about it. A key concept here is that of framing.

What is framing? The following explanation is excerpted from the website of the FrameWorks Institute in Washington, DC (www.frameworks.org). “Framing refers to the construct of a communication – its language, visuals and messengers – and the way it signals to the listener or observer how to interpret and classify new information.”  Framing analysis deals with “how messages are encoded with meaning so that they can be efficiently interpreted in relation to existing beliefs or ideas.”  More simply, people have mental images in their minds that help them interpret what is going on around them. Our automatic impulse is to attempt to relate new information to the concepts we already have. The way an issue is framed triggers shared and durable cultural models that help us make sense of our world.

With regard to terrorism, a frame that portrays the efforts against terrorism as a war, with terrorists as individual enemies and tightly-knit groups of plotters, evokes images of heroic action figures who single-handedly take on and vanquish the menacing foe. This leads naturally to images of war, heroic soldiers, America alone against the menace of terrorism, and the President as action hero.

Repetition of a frame reinforces it. Every mention of terrorism that uses language or images that reinforce the WOT frame strengthens the political position of the Bush administration. Each reference to the “war on terror” evokes a response that is favorable to leaders and an administration that are seen as decisive and action-oriented. This is true whether the speaker who says the word “war” is a conservative or a progressive.  It is true even when one refers to a “war of ideas” or a “war of values.”

Terrorism and national security are issues that need reframing from a perspective that will benefit moderates and progressives, and weaken the potency of terrorism for those who are using it as a political tool.  There is an urgent need, therefore, for moderates and progressives to pay attention to the framing of terrorism and the role of language and metaphor in supporting the present frame, which works to their disadvantage.

The new frame may address the nature of terrorism – what it is like – as well as its origins.  It should encompass the role of government and leaders both in protecting the country from possible consequences of terrorist impulses (domestic and foreign), and in decreasing the probability of terrorist attacks in the future.  Reframing could also help decrease the general level of anxiety about terrorism. Further, for those who do not want to see our country locked into the perpetual “war” posited by those now in power, reframing will be needed to support a different image of leadership – a leader or leaders who are appropriate for carrying out a protective, nonmilitary campaign.

Unfortunately, at this point almost all of us have incorporated quite a bit of the conservative frame into our mental constructs—our ways of thinking about terrorism—so changing the frame will be a challenge.

Developing alternative framing is the first step, a step that requires understanding and thought. Research is crucial – research into how the issue is being framed now, how the public thinks about the general subject, and testing of possible alternative frames and wording to make sure they evoke the desired response. The right wing does this all the time. Moderates and progressives could, too, if they recognized the importance of framing and language, and put the appropriate resources into mastering these communication tools.  The development of new framing has to start now, not in some indefinite future, and it will not happen unless resources are committed to making it happen.

Finally, it will not be enough simply to have a new frame “on the books.” If the new frame is to be truly effective, it will have to be used consistently and by many separate voices, with the appropriate language and images, until public attitudes fundamentally change.  Moderate and progressive leaders, spokespersons, candidates, writers—and many members of the public—will need to adopt and consistently use the new framing in talking about terrorism, framing that will NOT evoke the conservative model.  They will need to use the words and metaphors that will work to their advantage, rather than those that reinforce the conservative position.  They will need to use the words and metaphors for which a measured, cooperative, and statesmanlike leadership style will seem necessary and appropriate, rather than inadequate and ineffective.

The task of reframing terrorism thus belongs to the whole moderate-progressive community, not just to individual candidates, the Democratic party, or Moveon.org.  We must work together if we are going to regain our ability to define the world and the terms on which America engages it.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,