A recent study challenges long-held beliefs about the effectiveness of civil rights language in gaining public support for social causes, suggesting alternative frames could be more effective in driving social change.
A new study has uncovered a paradox in the fight for social justice: framing contemporary issues such as workplace discrimination, food insecurity and lack of health care as civil rights problems can actually decrease public support for government action to address these issues.
Published in the American Sociological Review, the study challenges long-standing assumptions about the best way to garner public backing for social change.
The researchers discovered that while Americans broadly support civil rights in theory, invoking the term in the context of present-day issues often leads to less support for remedial action.
Co-author Irene Bloemraad, a professor and a co-director of the Centre for Migration Studies at the University of British Columbia, voiced the team’s primary concern.
“We are interested in how to improve the life chances of vulnerable groups, like racial minorities, immigrants and low-wage workers,” she said in a news release. “We wanted to test what kinds of claims resonate with ordinary Americans.”
The research, which surveyed more than 7,500 California voters in 2016 and 2019, revealed that respondents generally held positive views about civil rights as an abstract concept. However, their support waned when current hardships were framed as civil rights issues.
“We found that respondents did indeed feel very positively about civil rights in the abstract and largely agreed about their meaning,” added lead author Fabiana Silva, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy. “But when hardships were framed as civil rights issues, it actually decreased public support for government action. Most surprising to us was how widespread this negative effect was.”
Interestingly, the negative impact of civil rights framing was not confined to any specific group. It was equally ineffective for African Americans, Mexican Americans, White Americans and undocumented Mexican immigrants.
Even more tellingly, the framing reduced support for government action among Black respondents to address hardships faced by Black people.
“In fact, we found that civil rights framing even reduced Black respondents’ support for government action to address hardships faced by Black people. At the same time, this is not what we would have expected from a racialized backlash account,” Silva added.
The study also highlighted a narrow public conception of civil rights, typically focused on equality regardless of race, gender or religion.
Few respondents connected civil rights to economic struggles such as food insecurity or lack of health care. This disconnect diminishes the perceived urgency and relevance of contemporary issues framed as civil rights concerns.
The researchers posit that this reaction may stem from the glorified memory of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.
“When contemporary activists make civil rights claims, they unwittingly evoke an implicit comparison to the historic Civil Rights Movement,” added co-author Kim Voss, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. “We think that this might undermine the power of a civil rights claim, because contemporary hardships seem less significant and contemporary claims-making seems less heroic than that idealized collective memory.”
This revelation carries significant implications for movements across the political spectrum. Whether advocating for racial justice, immigrant rights, gun rights or anti-abortion stances, many causes traditionally rely on civil rights language to mobilize support.
“This might be disheartening to activists,” Voss added. “But a better takeaway is that frames other than civil rights are likely to be more effective for building public support.”
Instead, the research suggests that an “American values” frame, emphasizing fairness, equal opportunity and individual dignity, could more effectively foster public unity and support for social change without triggering unhelpful historical comparisons.
The study, titled “Frame Backfire: The Trouble with Civil Rights Appeals in the Contemporary United States,” encourages advocates for social change to reconsider their framing strategies to better align with the public’s current perspectives and values.
Source: University of British Columbia