Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2015 Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? : Frames, Identities, and Privilege in the U.S. Vegetarian and Vegan Movement Sarrah G. (Sarrah Geo) Conn Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND PUBLIC POLICY GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER? FRAMES, IDENTITIES, AND PRIVILEGE IN THE U.S. VEGETARIAN AND VEGAN MOVEMENT By SARRAH G. CONN A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Sociology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2015 Sarrah G. Conn defended this dissertation on March 30, 2015. The members of the supervisory committee were: Deana Rohlinger Professor Directing Dissertation Andy Opel University Representative Douglas Schrock Committee Member Koji Ueno Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii This is dedicated to all my supportive friends, family, and colleagues who helped me through thick and thin and continued to believe in my abilities. I especially dedicate this to my mom, my dad, and to Dan. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................v List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... vii 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 2. FRAMES, IDENTITIES, AND ALIGNMENT ..................................................................9 3. CULTURAL CONFLUENCES SHAPING THE U.S. VEGETARIAN / VEGAN MOVEMENT ....................................................................................................................28 4. DATA, METHODS, AND ANALYTIC STRATEGY .....................................................44 5. IDENTITY CUES IN VEGETARIAN / VEGAN FRAMES............................................64 6. SOCIAL IDENTITIES, FRAMING, AND ALIGNMENT ..............................................88 7. “THAT’S WHAT WHITE PEOPLE DO:” NEGOTIATING MOVEMENT IDENTITY AND CULTURAL AUTHENTICITY ............................................................................106 8. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................124 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................134 A. PRO VEGETARIAN / VEGAN BOOKS USED IN CONTENT ANALYSIS ........134 B. PRO VEGETARIAN / VEGAN PAMPHLETS USED IN CONTENT ANALYSIS 137 C. PRO VEGETARIAN / VEGAN SONGS USED IN CONTENT ANALYSIS ..........138 D. PRO VEGETARIAN / VEGAN WEBSITES USED IN CONTENT ANALYSIS ...139 E. PRO VEGETARIAN / VEGAN FILMS OR SHOWS USED IN CONTENT ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................140 F. RESPONDENT LIST WITH DEMOGRAPHICS AND FRAMES ...........................141 G. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE.........................................................................................143 H INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD STUDY APPROVAL ...................................146 I. INFORMED CONSENT FORMS PER INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD .......153 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................155 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...........................................................................................171 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Collective Action Frame Typologies Identified in Media Content Analysis Data ..........51 Table 2. Interviewed Activists’ Racial or Ethnic Category. ..........................................................57 Table 3. Frames Presented by Racial / Ethnic Cues, by Percentage ..............................................66 Table 4. Frames Used in Racial / Ethnic Neutral Media, by Percentage .......................................68 Table 5. Frames Used in Racial / Ethnic Explicit Media, by Percentage ......................................68 Table 6. Frames Presented by Gender Cues, by Percentage ..........................................................70 Table 7. Frames Presented by Class Cues, by Percentage .............................................................71 Table 8. Frames Offered by Activists by Ethnic / Racial Social Identity Category ....................102 Table 9. Frames Offered by Activists by Gender Identity Category ...........................................102 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Personal or Social Identity Mediated Model of Frame Alignment ................................11 Figure 2. Identity Mediated Frame Alignment Identity Talk Model ...........................................125 vi ABSTRACT Within movement scholarship, there is insufficient research that examines how social identities influence frame resonance and alignment. How macro frames are used by activists to narratively construct their micro mobilization narratives, especially as this process varies by social identities, remains addressed. Further, the ways that frames cue the categorical social identities of their intended audiences, or diagnostically create boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’ that must be negotiated by mobilized activists using identity talk remain obscure. This dissertation contributes to both scholarship arenas. Conceptually, this research adds to the sociological understanding of the relationship between framing and identities and extends the framing perspective by examining the influence of ethno-racial, gender, and class based social identities as they relate to frame resonance and alignment using the vegetarian / vegan movement as a case study. Differences identified in frame alignment along ethno-racial lines are then discussed, where I theorize that individuals with socially privileged ethno-racial identities traverse the moral boundaries employed by some diagnostic frames more easily than individuals occupying marginalized social locations as evidenced by differential identity talk processes. I conclude by discussing the ways in which power and social identities influence frame alignment and noting where applications beyond social movement scholarship exist for such analyses. vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Collective action frames (Goffman 1974; Snow et al 1986; Snow and Benford 1988) are specific types of messages designed to convey crafted interpretations of the social landscape to a targeted audiences. As social constructionist scholarship highlights, frames represent ways of understanding the world that are actively assembled by claims makers to influence audience perceptions rather than automatic appraisals of some objective social reality that is equally discernable to all (Berger and Luckmann 1966; Gamson 1992; West and Zimmerman 1987; West and Fenstermaker 1995). People interpret how the world operates from their various standpoints (Hill-Collins 1990; hooks 1984; Smith 1990), creating different ‘points of view;’ there is no singular view of reality that is correct or incorrect, only those which are more or less popular. Thus, frames can be understood as messages that are constructed to promote one point of view versus others. As frames typically serve to problematize a social relationship or phenomena within a larger context (De Weerd and Klandermans 1999), they not only convey intended information about why movement participation matters, they also latently convey information about the viewpoints and identities of current participants (Einwohner 2002; Hart and Nisbet 2012). The cultural touchstones and references that frames draw upon to support their arguments are those that matter to claims makers who are already engaged, and hopefully for them, to the potential audience whose mobilization and engagement is sought. At the same time, frames and the claims makers that proffer them also construct ideas about who they believe their target audiences are (Blee 2012; Hunt, Benford, and Snow 1994) and what messages they believe will be most effective in drumming up support. That is, frames rhetorically construct problems, solutions, and 1 mobilization rationales for audiences who occupy a variety of social locations. Claims makers may conceive of targeted audiences as generic or neutral by ignoring some or all potential recruit’s individual or social identities, or may construct specific, contextual identities that they believe will prove salient and facilitate frame alignment (Evans 1997). Audience’s social identities may be either explicitly referenced and understood as important by claims makers, or implicitly assumed, neglected, or believed to be irrelevant. These identity references or “cues” (Hart and Nisbet 2012) are hints or clues embedded in frames that reference identity in some way, whether personal, social, or collective. Because interpretation and evaluation of frames is then necessarily filtered through people’s multifaceted identities, frame evaluation taps into the epistemologically-bound identities and experiences of