CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Since the 1990’s there has been a resurgence of interest in the social psychological aspects of social movements. From participants’ self-concepts, to the role of identity in the success and endurance of a movement, to the influence of participants’ emotions, theorists have recently begun to address influential factors (see, for example Benford & Snow 2000; Polletta & Jasper 2001; Schrock, Holden & Reid 2004; Stryker, Owens, & White 2000) often ignored or downplayed in research on social movements that focuses heavily on structural dynamics. There is great potential in social movement research to develop social psychological theories of self and identity while building on classic social movement processes such as framing, recruitment and mobilization. Bringing identity back into the fold is a crucial step in developing more comprehensive theories of social movement participation and strategy. To date, however, researchers have not closely examined the role of individual and organizational responses to conflicts between personal and collective identities among movement participants and the capacity of these responses to sustain movement participation. In general, social movement scholars have yet to incorporate the relationship between personal and collective identities in any significant way into existing scholarship (Polletta & Jasper 2001; Snow & McAdam 2000). This dissertation attempts to address these lacunae by bridging the discussions of social movement organizational framing and identity. Specifically, this research is 1 concerned with the framing efforts of social movement organizations and how the resultant frames are utilized by movement participants in order to ameliorate identity conflict and thus sustain movement participation. There is broad support for the premise of this study in the available literature. Hunt, Benford & Snow (1994) state that “not only do framing processes link individuals and groups ideologically, but they proffer, buttress, and embellish identities that range from collaborative to conflictual” (p.185). Similarly, Snow & McAdam (2000) emphasize that “framing processes that occur within the context of social movements constitute perhaps the most important mechanism facilitating identity construction processes, largely because identity constructions are an inherent feature of framing activities” (p.53). The proposed research will specifically address the impact of organizational framing efforts on identity conflict among social movement participants. To do this, I examine the Log Cabin Republicans (LCR), an organization primarily comprised of gay conservatives. The LCR is a group of conservative gays and lesbians working within the Republican Party for gay rights. I chose this group due to the seemingly contradictory nature of its social and political affiliations. Over the last 10 years, the LCR has grown exponentially as more and more conservative gay Americans have made their political preferences known. Due to the traditionally socially conservative platform of the Republican Party, gays have typically aligned themselves with the Democratic Party. The LCR, not surprisingly, has been criticized by many homosexuals for its unusual alliance with the Republicans. Further, the Republican Party has not fully accepted this organization either, largely due to the Party’s historical position on the meaning of “family” and the parameters of what constitutes marriage. As 2 part of the Republican platform, “family” is defined in traditional terms – parents and children with strong spiritual foundations committed to preserving the Republican ideals of hard work, honesty and personal responsibility.1 While this conceptualization does not necessarily contradict with a gay lifestyle, the Party’s definition of marriage clearly identifies the boundaries of what it considers legitimate families. The Republican Party has consistently defined marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. Further, the attention given to upholding this definition of marriage and family has increased consistently within the Republican Party over the past 15 years.2 Log Cabin Republicans The LCR can be viewed as a social movement organization. This group should not be viewed as a special interest group. Interest groups are self-interested organizations established to pursue more narrow policy changes. Social movements, on the other hand, speak to a wider audience on a multitude of issues. While a social movement may be interested in policy change, it typically seeks reforms in numerous areas of concern, including changes to cultural understandings of the social movement actors and legal reforms (Candler 1999). The LCR is thus best understood as a social movement organization. According to Tarrow (1994), a social movement involves “collective challenges…by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents, and authorities.” Whittier (1997) conceptualizes social movements as “clusters of organizations, overlapping networks, and individuals that share goals and are bound together by a collective identity and cultural events.” The 1 See Republican Party Platform of 1992 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php) 2 See Republican Party Platforms of 1992, 2000, 2004 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php) 3 LCR is one of many social movement organizations campaigning for equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans as part of the larger gay rights movement. LCR membership is largely comprised of educated, middle to upper-middle class, urban, white males in their 30’s and 40’s (Rogers and Lott 1997; Kahn from publiceye.org). The LCR embraces Republican ideals of low taxes, limited government, strong defense, free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty. Log Cabin members see themselves as representative of typical American citizens - taxpaying, hard working people who proudly believe in this nation's greatness. They believe all Americans have the right to liberty, freedom, and equality. The general stance of the LCR is to fight against those who preach hatred and intolerance against gays and lesbians (taken from the LCR website http://online.logcabin.org/about/). While first seen as a fringe movement by the larger gay community, the LCR has been gaining membership, especially in the last few years. Christopher Barron, Political Director of the LCR, reports that the organization doubled in size to 12,000 members between February 2004 and September 2004, ever since President Bush embraced the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (New York Times: September 8, 2004). The LCR has not only seen a dramatic increase in membership recently, but it has also witnessed an increase in organizing, evident in the growth of local chapters all across the nation. In addition to their national office, the Log Cabin Republicans have chapters and/or organizing teams in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. In total, the LCR is comprised 4 of the National Chapter in Washington, D.C., 53 state and local chapters3, and 38 organizing teams4, the last of which works throughout the nation to create new LCR local chapters. These teams are designed to recruit members for new local chapters. The Log Cabin Republicans offers a rich environment for studying the processes involved in resolving conflicts between personal and collective identities. Examination of this movement group allowed me to better understand the relationships between organizational framing, individual-level identity management processes and movement participation. In the following chapters I show that LCR framing plays a critical role in managing its constituents’ identity conflicts. In the end, I argue that successful identity framing allows the LCR to maintain its constituency. Below I briefly describe how the chapters in this dissertation are organized. Organization of Dissertation Chapters Chapter 2 provides a discussion of the theoretical perspectives utilized in this dissertation, including identity theory, frame theory, the intersectionality perspective and identity control theory. I argue that organizational framing efforts undertaken by the LCR are designed to reduce members’ identity conflicts and thus sustain member participation. More specifically, organizational frames, via identity modification processes that change the meanings associated with identities, produce individual-level identity effects (i.e., identity amplification, consolidation, and extension) that ultimately reduce identity conflict for LCR members. I also specify these processes, suggesting that 3 States without established LCR state or local chapters include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 4 All states and Puerto Rico have at least one LCR organizing team. 5 organizational frames operate differently for men compared with women and for LCR members with more salient Republican identities compared with LCR members with more salient gay identities to reduce identity conflicts. In Chapter 3 I discuss my data sources, study design, data collection methods, operationalizations, and methods of data analysis. In the first section I discuss the two sources from which my data come: (1) organizational texts and (2) in-depth interviews with LCR leaders and regular members. This is followed by a detailed discussion of each type of data.