Klimov, Blagoy (2003): From ‘Sustainability’ Frame To ‘Nationalist’ Master Frame: The Case with the Bulgarian Anti and Pro Nuclear Social Movements-Economic and Political Implications.
Download (128kB) | Preview
Translation is power. As agents of power experienced translators can create powerful action frames that challenge the established routines. Iindividual beliefs that are sanctioned through ‘mutual awareness’ evolve into ‘collective beliefs’. The latter then are further shaped by properly translated frames to emerge as a social force. In this research paper, I explore how the collective action frames are restructured, specifically the role of the printed and electronic media in shaping the public discourse. The research is supported by the Bulgarian nuclear case, where an antinuclear collective action frame for less than ten years, was restructured into ‘national pride’ pro-nuclear frame through the translation of the media and what were the economic and political implications of such development.
Structure of the Paper:
In the first section of the paper, I explore in detail how global collective action frames develop and the three aspects involved in this processs-illegitimate inequality, identity and agency. Then I am interested what are the common beliefs that shape the collective identity of antinuclear movements and what is their collective action frame. Then briefly the Bulgarian case is introduced, wher by late 1980’s the frame over nuclear issues was overlapping with the global ‘sustainable frame’ that prevailed in most Western societies by that time.
In the second section I explore what is what is the collective frame over the nuclear issues in the late 90’s and how the newly-emerged ‘national pride’ frame is a classical example for restructuring of a collective action frame.
In the third section I explore the agents of the reframing process and more closely the role of the media in shaping the collective beliefs. In the final part I elaborate on the question how the process of mass media’s translation in the Bulgarian case was crucial for the complete shift of the frame from ‘sustainability’ to ‘national pride’. I conclude with the question of authorities, losing their legitimacy, because of their lack of creating counterframes.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Institution:||Central European University-Budapest|
|Original Title:||From ‘Sustainability’ Frame To ‘Nationalist’ Master Frame: The Case with the Bulgarian Anti and Pro Nuclear Social Movements-Economic and Political Implications|
|Keywords:||sustainable development; suatainability; nuclear energy; master frame; media; counterframes; mutual awareness; collective beliefs; Bulgaria; Kozlodui Nuclear Plant; Kozloduy Nuclear Plant|
|Subjects:||R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R5 - Regional Government Analysis > R50 - General
Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q4 - Energy > Q40 - General
F - International Economics > F5 - International Relations and International Political Economy > F50 - General
|Depositing User:||Blagoy Klimov|
|Date Deposited:||27. Jul 2007|
|Last Modified:||17. Feb 2013 18:55|
Altschull, Herbert J.1995.’Agents of Power :The Media and Public Policy’. New York: Longman American University-Washington.’TED Case Studies-Bulgarian Nuclear Power Plant Kozloduy’ http://www.american.edu/TED/BULGARNK.HTM, last updated 2001-10-31, last accessed 2002-12-16 Callon, Michel , Bruno Latour. 1992 ‘Don’t Throw the Baby Out with the Bath School! A Reply to Collins and Yearley. In Pickering, A. ed.: Science as Practice and Culture, pp. 343-367. Chicago: Chicago University Press, Chiriac, Marian . 1999. 'Power Wars' Between Romania And Bulgaria’ . http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/emu/Chiriac1199.html Crespi, Irving . 1997. ‘The Public Opinion Process’. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Friends of Earth Position Paper on Nuclear Power Plants and Enlargement. 2001. http://www.foeeurope.org/activities/nuclear/enlargement.htm, last updated 2001-10-31, last accessed 2002-12-15 Hanson, Jarice , Alison Alexander. 1991. ‘Talking Sides-Clashing Views on Contraversial Issues in Mass Media and Society’.Guilford:Dushkin Publishing Hewstone, Miles, Wolfgang Stroebe and Geoffrey Stevenson. 1996. ‘Introduction to Social Psychology, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Klandermans, Bert. 1997. ‘The Social Psychology of Protest’. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Kriesi, Hanspeter. 1993. ‘Political Mobilization and Social Change. The Dutch Case in Comparative Perspective. Aldershot: Avebury Latour, Bruno. 1991: Technology Is Society Made Durable. In Law, John ed.: A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, pp. 103-131. Routledge, London. Latour, Bruno 1992. One More Turn After the Social Turn…. In McMullin, Ernan ed.: The Social Dimensions of Science, pp. 272-394. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Major, Brenda. 1994. ‘From Social Inequality to Personal Entitlement: The Role of Social Comparisons, Legitimacy Appraisals, and Group Membership’. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Mazur, Allan. 1988.’Mass Media Effects on Public Opinion about Nuclear Power Plants’ . Unpubl. Syracuse University Neuman , Michael Civil Rights/Environmental Movements, and the Sustainability Movement . http://www.newdream.org/conversation-arc/msg01670.html, last ac. 2002-12-14 Schwartz, Michael and Shuva Paul. 1992. ‘Resource Mobilization versus the Mobilization of People:Why Consensus Movements Cannot Be Instruments Of Social Change. New Haven: Yale University Press Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford. 1992. ‘Master frames and cycles of protest’. Edited by Aldon Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller. New Heaven:Yale University Press Tarrow, Sydney.1994.’Power in Movement-Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press