社会杂志 ›› 2014, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (1): 52-74.

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

从边缘到主流:集体行动框架与文化情境

  

  1. 夏瑛,中山大学中国公共管理研究中心,中山大学政治与公共事务管理学院
  • 出版日期:2014-01-20 发布日期:2014-01-20
  • 通讯作者: 夏瑛,中山大学中国公共管理研究中心,中山大学政治与公共事务管理学院 E-mail:xiay3@sysu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:

    本文受国家社科基金重大项目“扩大公民有序政治参与:战略、路径与对策研究”(12&ZD040)、中山大学985工程三期建设项目、中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金,以及中国博士后科学基金第52批面上资助的资助。

From the Marginal to the Mainstream: Collective Action Frames and Cultural Context

  1. XIA Ying,Center for Chinese Public Administration Research,Sun YatSen University;The School of Government,Sun YatSen University
  • Online:2014-01-20 Published:2014-01-20
  • Contact: XIA Ying,Center for Chinese Public Administration Research,Sun YatSen University;The School of Government,Sun YatSen University E-mail:xiay3@sysu.edu.cn
  • Supported by:

    This study is sponsored by the National Social Science Fund for Major Project “Enhancing Institutional Political in China: Strategies, Paths, and Policy Implications” (12&ZD040), Sun YatSen University “985 ProjectIII”,  the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, and the 52nd General Program of China Postdoctoral Science Fund.

摘要: 基于一个动员框架发生显著变化的社会运动案例,本文分析了主导运动前后两个阶段的动员框架及其转变机制。研究发现,框架转变源于社会运动领袖的策略性选择,转变背后体现的是动员框架与运动所处的宏观文化情境之间的微妙联系。具体而言,第一阶段的动员框架使用了文化情境中的边缘价值,动员效果并不理想;第二阶段,社会运动领袖对动员框架进行策略性的调整,将其与文化情境中的主流价值靠拢,在动员取得突破之后,又将边缘价值带回动员框架。随着运动的扩大,这些边缘价值被广泛传播与推广,并在运动之后延续下来,重塑了文化情境。

关键词: 社会运动 , 集体行动框架 , 框架化 , 框架转换 , 文化情境 , 话语

Abstract: How do cultural contexts affect the formation and development of mobilizing frames in collective actions? Will a successful mobilizing frame have an impact on the cultural contexts? This paper tries to answer these questions. To understand the specific mechanisms of cultural contextual influences on the designation and adjustment of mobilizing frames, the “AntiXRL” movement in Hong Kong was selected in the paper as it had gone through significant frame changes. In the two stages of the movement, two mobilizing frames were used, each with different “resource” elements from its respective cultural contexts, which led to different mobilizing outcomes. The findings indicated that the frame changes originated from the social movement leaders’ strategic selection, reflecting the subtle relationships between the mobilizing frames and the macrocultural contexts in which the movement was embedded. More specifically, the mobilizing frame during the first stage utilized the marginal values of the cultural context but the outcome was not good. During the second stage, the leaders made strategic adjustments of the mobilizing frame, moving it closer to the mainstream values in the cultural context, which led to a breakthrough. When the mobilization became successful, the social movement leaders brought the marginal values back into the mobilizing frame. With the movement expanding, so did the marginal values and they even remained influential after the movement was over and restored the original cultural context. In addition, the competition between the mobilizing frame and other “countermovement” frames manifested the cultural contextual impact on the framing of the social movement.

Key words: social movements ,  collective action frame , framing , frame changes , cultural context , discourse