Framing emerging environmental movement tactics: mobilizing consensus, demobilizing conflict

659

Sociological Forum, Vol. 14, No.4, 1999

Framing Emerging Environmental Movement Tactics: Mobilizing Consensus, Demobilizing Conflict'

David N. Pellow'

This paper is a study of an emerging environmental decision-making model that attempts to move beyond traditionally adoersarial approaches toward "consensus building." Consensus-based decision making ostensibly allows activists equal power with industrialists and state actors in environmental policy-making. This research builds upon the growing literature on frame analysis by demonstrating that there are instances when challengers actually engage in collaborative framing with their adversaries. This does not presume that activists reject oppositional framing altogether. In these cases, environ mentalists actually draw on a mixture of confrontation and negotiation in this innovative form of collective action that positions them in contexts most environmentalists neoer 'experience-a place at the decision-making table with elites. This study reveals that environmentalists are becoming more sophisticated in their' efforts to protect local communities and natural resources.

KEY WORDS: consensus-based decision making; collective action frames; environmental justice; political economy; collaborative frames.

INTRODUCTION

The myriad arms of the environmental movement are undergoing a transformation with respect to strategies and tactics. For example, an

1 An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the annual meetings of the Eastern Sociological Society in Boston, Massachusetts, April 1996. 2Department of Sociology and Ethnic Studies, University of Colorado at Boulder, Campus Box 339, Ketchum 30, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0339; e-mail: [email protected]

OS84·897 I 1991J 200·0659$ 16.00/0 © 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation

660 Pellow

ideological orientation of the modern grassroots environmental movement that has been prevalent since the early 1970s includes the "diagnostic frame" (Benford, 1993a,b) that environmental degradation is the by-product of systems of social inequality. The accompanying "prognostic frame" (Snow and Benford, 1988) argues that environmental restoration and social justice "cannot be achieved without profound changes in that system" (Perrolle, 1993:3). These changes require radical action on the part of citizen-workers. While much of these basic frames remain the same, their accompanying tactical repertoire-direct, disruptive action-is changing dramatically among some social movement organizations (SMOs). One such tactic is a new form of collective action called consensus-based decision making

. rr.BDM). While CBDM is a recent phenomenon, environmentalists' strate- s within this process are informed by a history of corporate and state

domination in an increasingly economically and ecologically fragile society. Environmentalists engage in CBDM as an innovative collective action strat egy that can be thought of as a "tactical frame." More importantly, unlike most movement framing and tactics, CBDM involves a sophisticated bal ance between conflict and collaboration with movement opponents.

CONSENSUS-BASED DECISION MAKING

Randy Stoecker (1995) recently inquired whether SMOs ever engage in framing activities with antagonists. In the case of CBDM, the answer is yes. CBDM is a "participative'.' model of policy-making that is designed to function through non hierarchical, democratic principles. CBDM also is being practiced within some corporations and in many social change organizations (Bluestone and Bluestone, 1992; Park, 1997). In this process,

h actor is theorized to negotiate in ways that lead to win-win situations, wther than viewing power as a zero-sum process, as in traditional, Alinsky style organizing (see Table I). Saul Alinsky was famous for his aggressive "winner takes all" approach to community organizing. This "traditional conflict style" (Consensus Organizing Institute, 1994:1) of organizing is predicated on "gaining 'victories' over people or institutions ... by engi neering concessions." Consensus organizing, on the other hand, views parti cipants as "stakeholders" rather than as opponents, and therefore seeks to have actors work with each other rather than against each other. Actors work within the system rather than outside or against the system. As one advocacy group suggests, "[i]nstead of taking power from those who have it, consensus organizing builds new relationships in which power is shared for mutual benefit" (1). Thus, consensus organizing requires a new type of action that involves "collaborative framing."

Environmental Movement Tactics 661

Table I. Contlict vs. Consensus: Two Models of Decision Making

Contlict Consensus

No. of parties Usually two, sometimes more

Opponents One winner Zero sum Adversarial Fundamentally tlawed, citizens must go out side the system to achieve gains

Always multiple

Identity Goals Vision of power Method View of the politi cal economy

Stakeholders/ collaborators Win-win Cumulative/shared Consensual/collaborative Flexible, solutions can be

reached by working within the system

COLLECTIVE ACTION FRAMES

Since the mid-1970s, the resource mobilization (RM) paradigm has dominated social movement theory. However, research over the past de cade has challenged RM's emphasis on material resources to the neglect of other elements of social protest. Several scholars have begun to reinte grate the symbolic, ideational, and social psychological dimensions of collec tive action into the study of social movements (Benford, 1993ab; Snow et al., 1986; Stoecker, 1995). While political opportunities and mobilizing structures remain vital to movement emergence and success, to fully under stand collective action, we need explanations of how activists articulate meaning, values, and ideology. One of the principal tools used in this effort has been the collective action frame. Framing processes emerged from Goffman's (1974) work and have been since modified by David Snow and his collaborators. Snow and Benford (1992:137) define a frame as

an interpretive schemata that simplifies and condenses the "world out there" by selectively punctuating and encoding objects, situations, events, experiences, arid sequences of actions within one's present or past environment .... [Tjhey also function simultaneously as modes of attribution and articulation.

There are three core framing tasks movements must undertake. The first is diagnostic framing (Snow and Benford, 1988), the task of locating the origin of the problem and attributing blame to some source. Gamson (1992) labels this the "injustice" component of framing. The second task is prognostic framing (Snow and Benford, 1988), whereby activists specify how the problem Is should be addressed, including discussing specific strate gies, tactics, and targets. This is what Klandermans (1984) referred to as "consensus mobilization" and what Gamson (1992) terms the "agency component" of framing. The third task is to articulate an "identity compo-

662 Pellow

nent" (Gamson, 1992:7), whereby activists define who they are, usually as '''we,' typically in opposition to some 'they' who have different interests and values." Diagnostic, prognostic, and identity framing must occur within movements in order to mobilize resources against one or more targets.

There is one major bias in the literature on framing that I address in this paper. This is the general assumption that SMOs and activists only engage in framing against antagonists. As stated above, one of the core tasks in framing processes is the adoption of an "injustice frame" (Gamson et al., 1982), whereby activists come to view a situation previously consid ered just and stable as unjust and mutable. Activists usually are presented . framing their interests, values, and goals in contradistinction to elites

other opponents. In addition to their use in mobilizing adherents, framing activities also are intended to "demobilize antagonists" (Snow and Benford, 1988:198). This focus on "oppositional consciousness" (Morris, 1992), for example, is present in accounts of activists in the movement for peace (Benford, 1993), environmental justice (Capek, 1993), civil rights (McAdam, 1996), and the abolition of slavery during the last century (El lingson, 1996).

Thus there is little consideration of social movements employing non oppositional frames to achieve goals. As Noonan (1996:265) reminds us, "[we] should not assume oppositional movements are using an oppositional frame." Furthermore, to my knowledge, there are no studies that consider the possibility that movements would engage in framing with-rather than against-opponents. This focus on the oppositional nature of tactics limits our ability to theorize about the dynamic nature of protest and framing processes employed both by SMOs and those from whom they would exact concessions. So that while SMOs and their opponents are bound to disagree . clash over significant issues, it often is the case that at least some common ground exists between the parties. More and more SMOs and their opponents are exploring ways to discover and build upon this common ground. For example, although many environmentalists and auto industry officials strongly disagree over the degree to which pollution should be regulated, both parties generally agree that zero emission industries are unfeasible in the short run and that steel production-when done responsi bly-is both necessary and beneficial to society. These points of agreement generally are unacknowledged because in many environmental conflicts neither side gets the chance negotiate face-to-face and discover common ground.

Although social movement research demonstrates that framing pro cesses do not occur in a sociopolitical vacuum, frames also are generally assumed to be produced "in-house," by SMOs and activists. That is, while SMOs' framing activities are influenced by myriad social forces-including


the media, potential adherents, and opponents-these other actors' and institutions' impacts on SMO frames usually are incide: tal and not by design. For example, recent research by social movement scholars provides insight into ways in which movements and opponents struggle over the framing of sociopolitical issues (Adair, 1996; Ellingson, 1996; Noonan, 1996; Snow and Benford, 1988). In these cases, there occurs initial framing, reframing, and counterframing on both sides of a struggle, in response to an opponent's frames. These frame disputes often parallel and interact with the contentious collective action and repression that occurs between activists and antagonists (see Ellingson, 1996). So while these framing activities are presented as rela tional and interactive, they never waver from their oppositional nature. Thus the question Stoecker (1995) has posed remains unanswered. That is, no stu dent of social movements has investigated the possibility that framing be tween activists and antagonists can be collaborative.

In this paper I present evidence that "collaborative framing" does occur between "challengers" and "antagonists" in environmental decision making. I begin by defining frames in three ways. First, drawing on diagnos tic and prognostic dimensions, I view frames as media through which SMOs and activists may "identify sources of their problems and devise methods for addressing their grievances" (Noonan, 1996:254). For example, leaders of the civil rights movement framed their goals in terms of "inalienable rights" and "justice for all "-frames that resonate to the core of American constitutional values. Civil rights leaders also located the source of their grievances in the long history of racial injustice that denied African Ameri cans social, political, and economic parity with white Americans. Likewise, today environmental movement activists and their organizations invoke the "justice for all" and "rights" "master frames" (Snow and Benford, 1992) that we observe in several other social movements.

Second, following a recent essay by McAdam (1996), I argue that frames consist not just of words and pronouncements, but also can include collective action events and the implementation of strategies and tactics. As the old adage goes "actions speak louder than words," and social move ments often use forms of collective action as "signifying agents" (Snow and Benford, 1988:190). Civil rights activists in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference used nonviolent tactics successfully to spark violent responses from the Southern white power structure in many cities, thus framing their struggle as one of "good against evil." Environmentalists sometimes provoke aggressive responses as well. However, activists often pay a high price for sparking violent reactions from authorities. For exam ple, environmentalists engaged in recent antilogging actions in the Pacific Northwest incurred the wrath of law enforcement authorities who attacked protesters with pepper spray, thereby inflicting agonizing pain. As a more

664 Pellow

productive alternative, many environmentalists have sought to make "state ments" by participating in new forms of struggle and mobilization such as consensus-based decision making. CBDM signifies potent symbols such as participatory democracy, sustaiaability, cooperation, and accountability.

Finally, I present frames as tools that redefine the relationship between SMOs and opponents. In CBDM, frames often are produced both by SMOs and their opponents through collaboration and dose interaction. This type of framing differs markedly from the framing presented in most social movement research, which generally assumes that activists and opponents are engaged in conflict-oriented, zero-sum struggles. In CBDM, the object is to acknowledge conflict and then work through the differences that normally produce these rifts. Activists work collaboratively with opponents to achieve environmental protection. CBDM constitutes a new form of framing, using both conflictual (traditional) and collaborative (cutting edge) approaches. Thus participants in CBDM projects are engaging in "identity framing" by making statements about who they are.

In the remaining pages, I present data from interviews with environ mental activists engaged in CBDM as an alternative to traditionally disrup tive and conflict-oriented movement tactics. From these data I derive four frames: (1) what I term the "political economic" frame, which environmen tal activists draw on to identify the sources of their problems (a diagnostic frame); (2) what Capek (1993) calls the "environmental justice frame," with which activists articulate their demands (a prognostic frame); (3) the "collaborative frame," a frame produced jointly by activists who collaborate and struggle with their opponents (an identity frame). This frame represents a shift in strategies and tactics on the part of environmentalists who draw upon both the political economic and environmental justice frames to pro duce this new model of struggle; and (4) I use the concept of "tactical frame" to describe the use of collective action-in this case CBDM-as a signifier. Finally, I conclude with implications this research has for social movement theory.

Methods

I conducted 30 open-ended interviews with environmental activists who have had experience in one or more consensus-based environmental policy projects. Between the spring of 1994 and fall of 1997, I also analyzed numerous documents and memos from several formal and informal CBDM meetings and fora. Questions I posed to interviewees included the following: "What are the pros and cons of CBDM versus other methods of conflict resolution?" "Why are you participating in this type of process?" "What


was the nature of your participation in a consensus process?" There is no attempt to prove statistically the "generality" of respondents' claims, though the logic of purposive sampling suggests that the themes are com mon. Additionally, my focus is on environmentalists (rather than industry and state actors) because I am interested in why and how social movement actors participate in innovative decision-making forms. This paper is not concerned with outcomes of consensus processes but rather with the frames environmentalists articulate regarding their experience with CBDM, how they participated, and why. Given that many of these processes still 8r; ongoing and that the form is fairly new in practice, I am foregoing any attempt at generalizing about consensus outcomes.

In the remaining sections, I present data from interviews with environ mental activists who have worked on CBDM projects. Interviewees are members of nonprofit organizations ranging from store front groups in poor and minority communities to established organizations with multimil lion dollar budgets and national membership rolls. These projects often are sponsored by the U.S. or state Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA)-where industrialists, government representatives, and environ mental activists work toward consensus on a variety of environmental poli cies. CBDM projects range from an effort to control the flow of profits from a recycling program within a state's borders to streamlining regulations allowing for the risk-free redevelopment of contaminated land in urban areas.

NEW MOVEMENT FRAMES: THE POLITICAL ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FRAMES

Activists interviewed for this study use the political economic frame to assign blame for their problems. The political economic frame consists of the following claims: (1) that the state and industry have colluded to produce the increasing environmental and economic injustices against the poor, the working class, and people of color; (2) these same citizen-workers were allowed little or no participation in the decision-making process that produced this ecological and economic degradation; and (3) there can be no separation between the health of the economy and the stability of the environment. The political economic frame is complemented by another, related frame, the environmental justice frame.

In a study of a contaminated community's response to toxic waste dumping, Capek (1993:8) introduces what she terms the "environmental justice" frame, which environmental activists draw on when organizing for change. The environmental justice frame includes "claims-making"

666 Pellow

(Best, 1987) to several rights, including (1) "accurate information about the situation" (Capek, 1993:8); (2) "democratic participation in deciding the future of the contaminated community," and (3) "commitment to solidarity with victims of toxic contamination in other communities" (Capek, 1993:3). I would add to this list the demand that (4) environmental protection be integrated with public health protection. Many activists interviewed for this study articulated this frame to explain their demands and goals.

Thus these two frames overlap and extend each other's focus in several ways. Activists interviewed for this study draw on both frames to attach ;Y aning to their plight and to demand redress. The political economic

ne provides activists with a mechanism whereby they can locate blame, and the environmental justice frame suggests lines of action.

The Political Economic Frame in Environmentalist Discourse

Capek (1993) argues that "[Ijnfluence exercised by private industry on public agencies is well documented. . . and occurs both directly through political appointments and indirectly through the economic, bureaucratic, and legal resources accumulated by 'repeat players' in the public policy arena .... " I would go further than Capek and argue that the private sector's "influence" on public agencies always has been a normal, every day presence embedded throughout the entire U.S. political system. More recently, many scholars of political economy have argued persuasively that it is often the case that the private sector-specifically transnational corpo rr+;ons-supersedes the power of all nation-states (Gould et al., 1996). This

.ue not only nationally or transnationally, but also at the local level. "Local business people are the major participants in urban politics" (Logan and Molotch, 1987:62; emphasis added). Business interests' involvement in politics affords them systemic power, whereas social movements can only hope for periodic access to policymakers. Activists interviewed for this study grappled with this structural disadvantage in their statements and writings to each other and the author.

Sanford Lewis is the lead attorney for the Good Neighbor Project for Sustainable Industries, an environmental organization that works to make industry safer for labor, nearby residents, and the ecosystem. He invokes the political economic frame, which recognizes the collusion of industry and governmental bureaucracy:

As it has become painstakingly clear that most federal and state officials are unable, on their own, to "mind the shop" for sustainable industrial development, local citizens' efforts to playa stronger role continue to multiply.


Jerry, the director of a national network organized to make oil refiner ies safer and cleaner, is active on a number of CBDM projects. He extends Lewis' critique of government and industry to include his concern about the impact of industrial development on the health of workers and communities:

.The public must be reminded that it is possible [for industry] to have all their paperwork in compliance but still pose a significant threat to the health and safety of the community and workers because of the large gaps in regulatory programs.

Environmentalists involved in consensus-building fora frequently em- phasized the connections between a healthy economy and environmental protection:

[pollution] reduction will also make industry more efficient, thereby improving the region's economy and jobs potentiaL Successful pollution prevention efforts In this industry can also be expected to have important spillover effects to other manufacturing sectors.

Voicing similar goals, the Good Neighbor Project's (GNP) stated mis sion is as follows:

The GNP is helping to shape new strategies to create and preserve clean, quality jobs in a world of corporate downsizing and globalization.

Similarly, Citizens for a Better Environment, a regional environmental organization in the Midwest, has committed itself to

[w)ork with communities which want to keep plants economically competitive and environmentally sound.

The above activists draw on a political economic analysis to assign blame for environmental degradation through the use of a "diagnostic frame." The diagnosis of the problem lays blame at the feet of elites in government and industry who not only create environmental problems but also tend to resist public participation in the resolution of these ills.

Meaningful public participation and oversight is one of the primary goals many activists discussed. SMOs continue to push for direct involve ment and authority within environmental policy-making circles. The strug gle over public participation has intensified during the past several years with the emergence of a more conservative political climate in the U.S. Dion, an environmental justice activist, explains this process:

Currently, a volatile shift in the national political climate has occurred which is likely to signal retreats in the civil rights, social justice, and environmental arenas .... These ominous developments threaten to paralyze progressive social, economic, and environmental public policy. Furthermore, as a result of these devel opments, the need for inclusion of communities of color and low income communi ties in the mainstream of federal, state, and local governmental decision-making is magnified.

Poor and low-income neighborhoods continue to bear a dispropor-

668 Pellow

tionate burden of pollution and negative corporate externalities in recre ational, working, and living spaces (Lee, 1987; Albrecht, 1995). These socioenvironmental inequalities-also known as environmental racism/ injustice-impact the public health and quality of life in less affluent communities. .

The Environmental Justice Frame

The Environmental Justice (EJ) movement has become a significant force in environmental policy-making during the past decade. Activists ~nd SMOs have successfully pushed for reform in legislation and policy .mceming the production and disposal of solid and hazardous waste, the

availability of affordable and safe housing, the nature of occupational health and safety; and social inequalities caused by urban transportation systems (B.ullard, 1990, 1993; Bullard and Johnson, 1997; Hofrichter, 1993). The pnmary concern of most EJ activists is the protection of low-income and people of color communities against environmental injustices. Many activ ists belonging to grassroots and larger environmental organizations articu lated the EJ frame in their conversations with me and in CBDM fora. One such activist reminded a government administrator about the Executive Order on Environmental Justice that President Clinton signed in 1994 as she invoked a classic "rights" frame:

Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, the equal protection mandate of the United States Constitution and existing statutory obligations, the U.S. Environmental Pro ~ection Agency (EPA), and otherfederal agencies are obligated to eliminate discrim I?at~ry pr~grams, policies, and activities, and ensure .that no segment of the popula tion IS denied the benefits of environmental protection. Even in this era, there can be no retreat from the objective of achieving environmental justice.

Included in the above quotation is evidence of the strong commitment many EJ activists make to work in solidarity with residents living in all communities. Another activist wrote to the members of one CBDM fo rum-including environmentalists, labor, government, and industry repre sentatives-to clarify the position of the EJ caucus.

Wh~t is ultimatel~ at stake. in ~he environmental justice debate is everyone's quality of l~fe. The goal I: equal justice and equal protection from pollution. To combat environmental rac~sm, the new Administration and EPA should immediately adopt our recommendations,

This clarification is often needed as EJ activists are sometimes criticized for wanting "special interest" status in their concern for people of color and poor residents and workers.

Activists participating in one consensus effort designed to revitalize


contaminated land plots in urban areas saw their project as an opportunity for reducing the toxic burden in poor communities. Having already suffered from pollution, capital flight, and unemployment at the hands of corpora tions, many activists expressed a desire to see some socially and environ mentally responsible businesses locate in these communities. One environ mentalist participating on this project wrote the following in a letter to the facilitating institution, the Environmental Protection Agency:

Improving human health for workers and communities should be among the primary performance objectives of this forum.

Also working on this project was Pat Jackson, an environmental justice activist from Chicago's South Side. In an interview, Pat presented what she called her "bottom line" concern to me:

I live in a highly polluted community, and I and everyone I know has asthma or some type of respiratory disorder. ... I am sick and tired of being sick and tired, so how will we ensure that polluting companies won't come in?

Pat and others like her reside in communities where citizen-workers are forced often to choose between economic and environmental protection (Bullard, 1990). Some sociologists maintain that the tension between these two goals is socially constructed and generally serves elite interests (Bryant, 1995). New forms of participation might allow alternative perspectives to shape the future debate on the economics of environmental protection.

In a sense, CBDM is the latest manifestation of the raging struggle between social movements and the state over public participation in a variety of planning processes. For years there have been community rela tions requirements for numerous environmental laws (e.g., CERCLA and RCRA), but these usually amount to bland public hearings and comment periods that are routinized forms of channeling protest. Below are the words of two environmentalists who articulated their demands regarding public participation:

If there is any hope of revitalizing our urban communities, we have to begin with revitalizing the participation of the citizenry. We know that apathy is rampant, especially in economically disadvantaged communities. But for us to build sustain able communities, we must take the time to cut through the apathy. It will take time because people of color and low income communities are not just disenfranchised economically; we are disenfranchised psychologically because we have witnessed a history of being locked oU,t of the decision-making process.

Public participation is meaningless if it is not informed and empowered by community involvement. ... One key element of ensuring informed and empow ered community involvement is that this participation must be early and meaning ful-e-taking place "up front"-not an after-thought .... [We must] stress a new power relationship within which communities are an integral part of the decision making process "from beginning to end." Unfortunately, too often communities are consulted only after a decision has been made. Too often, government response to community questions results in their operating in a "decide, adapt,

670 Pellow

and defend" mode. The community is inherently qualified to be "at the table" during discussions about matters that affect them. Moreover, ... just because a person was at the table does not necessarily mean they are part of the decision making process.

If participation is important to activists, informed participation is even more crucial. Informed participation requires significant access to technical assistance. Technical assistance is one of the most fundamental resources any social movement organization can draw upon (Freudenberg, 1984). Environmental movement organizations often require assistance in inter preting scientific studies and regulations, among other things. Those actors with the capacity to produce and manipulate this information generally wield significant power (Lukes, 1974). CBDM in environmental policy hinges strongly upon the availability of technical assistance for grassroots organizations. In a memo circulated among environmental organizations involved in a CBDM forum, one activist made the following demands of the U.S. EPA:

Develop improved access to information for workers and the community. This means that toxic release and use data, monitoring data (environmental and occupational), environmental audit, and safety audits, accident prevention plans-including emer gency planning and worst case scenario, and full disclosure of resource use and conservation, including water and energy all must be comprehensive, easily avail able, and affordable.

Because much of this information is highly technical and usually diffi cult to obtain, environmentalists must continuously demand their rights to access. One organization's newsletter article argues that citizens and work ers have "rights and resources for participation." They claim that one of these rights is the "right to understand," which moves beyond the existing "right to know" laws. The author of this article maintains that "the commu-

. nity needs trusted technical advisors; independent of company and govern ment experts." A member of another CBDM project made the following statement with regards to environmentalists' right to know: "We expect some information needs to exceed what industry is legally required to provide."

Thus, activists employ the Environmental Justice frame to make a "prognosis" for the problems they face in contaminated communities and workplaces. This "prognostic frame" (Benford, 1993b) argues that demo cratic participation and accurate information are needed in order to protect human health and the environment in all communities, whether polluted or not. Both the political economic and environmental justice frames are indeed "oppositional" (Noonan, 1996) in most respects. However, what is fascinating from an empirical and theoretical perspective is how activists use these oppositional frames to create a new, "collaborative frame." This is the subject of the next section.


SHIFTING STRATEGIES AND TACTICS AS NEW COLLECTIVE ACTION FRAMES

Why Consensus Building?

Participating in consensus-based decision making represents a signifi cant shift in tactics and strategies for many environmental organizations. The Consensus Organizing Institute (1994:4), a nonprofit community advo cacy group in Boston, draws on the political economic frame to explain why "traditional adversarial" protest tactics are inadequate for many com munities:

What worked in the 1960s holds much less promise today. In most of today's metropolitan areas, it would be difficult to identify one or even a few adversaries the powerful targets that a pressure campaign relies on to deliver visible results in a poor neighborhood. Many mayors today are weak. They preside over fiscally distressed and overburdened administrative structures. Local legislatures, busy vying to control the few non-mandated expenditures in their budgets, are often no better. Even on the private-sector side, fewer areas today are home to suitable targets. Gone are most of the big, immobile businesses (typical of the industrial era of Alinsky's early organizing days) that were so heavily vested in the local community thatthey might be forced to respond to well-organized pressure. Today, companies and their capital are increasingly mobile-especially as the economy moves from fixed-plant manufacturing to the more mobile service sector-and can therefore afford to be indifferent to local political pressure. Set in this post-industrial landscape of decentralized power, conventional adversarial organizing is badly handicapped.

Related to concerns arising frorri industrial restructuring, rising poverty and unemployment rates within the nation's urban centers are also driving factors in many activists' resolve to engage the CBDM process. Charles Lee, an environmental justice leader, explains:

At the root of the problems confronting urban [contaminated] communities are massive economic shifts which have marked the past two decades. Hundreds of thousands/of industrial jobs have either disappeared or moved away from the central city and its neighborhoods. While some downtown areas have experienced revival, the jobs created are very different from those which once sustained neighborhoods, For many people in older city neighborhoods, new approaches to rebuilding their lives and communities, new openings, are a vital necessity (emphasis added)

Environmentalists approach consensus building with a keen sense of movement history. Most respondents articulated a theory about why envi ronmental tactics have changed recently. These explanations generally in cluded the need to diversify tactical repertoires to overcome the disadvan tages of traditional conflict organizing in an increasingly conservative political economy. A member of a national environmental organization offered this analysis:

Over the last twenty years, communities have often been put in a negative and obstructionist role when it comes to environmental decision-making. Results have

672 Pellow

not been spectacular for anyone. Local citizens commonly feel that they have little protection from pollution under laws and regulations which focus on permitting pollution instead of reducing it. Badly needed jobs may be risked. Industry may face spending billions of dollars in a system which tries to control pollution after it is created. At the same time companies can face long permitting delays as commu nities take the only route of action open to them and attempt to thwart the permit process every step of the way. This [consensus-building] project is aimed at breaking this us-versus-them cycle by creating a system in which communities playa positive and informed role, helping to improve the environmental and economic performance of local employers.

Contained in this statement is what activists term the "multi-stakeholder" perspective-the practice of viewing a problem from another actor's point of view. Thus, the above statement frames environmental pollution as

loss for citizens, environmentalists, government, and industry. Multi .akeholder participation is a cornerstone of consensus-based decision mak

ing (see Table I). Activists are attracted to this model because it attempts to equalize

power among participants possessing vastly unequal resources. The rules by which CBDM functions make a lot of sense to activists and organizations that are traditionally at a disadvantage vis-a-vis multinational corporations and the state with regard to technical, political, human, and economic resources. A member of a grassroots community-based organization work ing on a consensus-project sponsored by the federal government told me that:

The consensus model does away with the question of "numbers" and "voting." Instead of one person one vote, each participant has the full power to block a decision. The ground rule of full control over outcomes is important.

One environmentalist provided what is probably the most common defini tion of consensus:

Full agreement on the ultimate outcome of the process. In intermediate steps, disagreements may exist and be "set aside" if the process continues to hold a higher value to all individuals than the specific objections.

Thus CBDM anticipates disagreement, but practitioners prefer to "set aside" objections rather than allow the entire process to break down. That is, if a participant objects to the direction the group is taking, this objection is welcomed and integrated into the final decision. However, if that partici pant has an objection that is so strong that he or she refuses to move forward with other business, the group must compromise with that viewpoint before making any final decisions. In both scenarios, the process continues until decisions are made, with everyone "at the table." This is in marked contrast to traditional conflict organizing where negotiations often break down en tirely, and final decisions are rarely made with public input.

Most respondents indicated that CBDM provides the citizenry with a


voice in proceedings that traditionally excl~de laypersons. T?es~ activists have weighed the options outside of CBDM m a period ~f antrenvironmen tal sentiment in the U.S. Congress and many state legislatur~s-and ar.e actively engaging in multi-stakeholder organizing as an alternative to traditional conflict style organizing.

COLLABORATIVE AND TACTICAL FRAMING

Environmentalists use CBDM as a way of engaging in ':collabo~ativ.e framing" with their adversaries to achieve gains. CollaboratIve fr~mm~ IS a repertoire activists developed both to challenge ~n? better negohat.e.wlth adversaries. Curiously, I note that with CBDM, activists draw on trad:tlOnal confrontational frames to diagnose their problems but t~e~ en?age m.col laborative actions to seek solutions. This apparent co.n~radlctlOn IS explained by understanding what CBDM means to many activists. .

New dimensions of collective action and frame analysis can be. better understood if we view social action itself as a type of frame. That IS.' .thus far frame analyses have focused almost exclusively on "speeches, wntmgs, sta~ements, or other formal ideological pronouncements by. move~ent .actors . . . [while] the actions taken by insurgents an? th~ tactical choices they make [also] represent a critically important contribunon to the overall signifying work of the movement" (McAdam, 1996:341). CBDM ther~~ore serves as a "tactical frame" that signifies potent symbols s~c.h as part~cIpa tory democracy, sustain ability, cooperation, and accountabIlIty. ~~us It has a meaning that resonates strongly with most environmental activists.

Participatory Democracy

In a publication circulated among industry, labor, go:er~ment, and environmental stakeholders around the nation, one orgamz~tlOn argued that CBDM can "sustain the democratic principles of our SOCIety" (Aspen Institute, 1996:19). In principle, public participati?n is a ~orn~rstone of democratic politics. In practice, however, the p~bhc o~t~n IS ah~nated by or blocked from involvement in most public policy decision makmg. !"lany environmentalists view CBDM as an attempt to reinvig?~at~ meaningful public participation in politics. Unlike the majority of ~~tlVlty m the demo cratic political process where elected officials make decisions, CBDM allows the public to make decisions direc~l~. Thus C~I?M exte~ds the ~ormal democratic process to achieve a participatory decision-making practice that

674 Pellow

allows every participant a voice. Two environmentalists writinz in a Chi- cago-based newspaper make this point: '"

Today more and more people are disillusioned with "top-down" structures in which a po,:",erful few make decisions. for everyone. Even. the democratic ideal of majority rule IS found wanting because It almost always results in a disempowered minority. All over the world peopl~ are seeking ,:"ay~ to discuss and resolve common problems and bUll;! ~ future !or their children which IS both ecologically sound and socially just. Th~ decision-making process which best supports this intention is called consensus. (Bnggs and Leyshon; 1996:52)

. CBDM proponents draw on the symbolism of democracy by emphasiz mg CBDM's potential to equalize power among stakeholders at the table. A group of environmental organizations expressed this sentiment to the governmental facilitator of a national CBDM project:

We ~elieve [this project's] success lies in your commitment to bringnon-government, non-~ndustry participants to the table as full and equal partners with government and industry.

Sustainability

Over the last decade, the concepts of sustainability and sustainable development have become symbols imbued with spiritual significance for many environmentalists. Since the 1987 publication of Our Common Future and the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero, these concepts now pervade the culture of many environmental organizations around the nation and the world. Environmentalists involved in CBDM invoked these images frequently. One organization described its mission as an effort to

. . . develop a new way to protect and enhance the environment consistent with a sustainable society characterized by a vibrant economy, protection of public health and the natural environment, and social and environmental justice. (Aspen, Institute, 1996:2)

A veteran advocate for environmental justice in urban commumties of color who also finds the notion of sustainability appealing explained:

One"reason for our i?terest in the [environment] issue is that it provides a "win dow to pursue a discourse over the need for a national urban revitalization agend~ .... We ar~ ple~sed to hay.e .observed a significant shift in the framing of these Is~ues by, public policy. and opimon makers over the past year to incorporate .. .social equity, and other Issues .... It is ultimately a discourse over habitat sus tainability.

Cooperation

Environmentalists interviewed for this study were quick to acknowl edge the many differences and conflicts among SMOs, government, and


industry. However, they were also intent upon experimenting with new forms of collective action, including collaborative action with adversaries. A prominent environmentalist from New York City stated,

It occurs to me that environmental justice advocates and community residents would greatly benefit from a better understanding of business concerns and interests.

Another nationally recognized member of a corporate watchdog organiza tion explained,

This is the first time I have ever been able to sit down face-to-face with industry and really talk to them and hear their concerns and let them hear ours.

The executive director of an international network of environmental justice organizations put it this way:

[CBDM] will allow diverse groups of people to create a history of thinking and working together; and will put this [consensus] concept to a meaningful test.

An organization that promotes CBDM around the nation argues that con sensus-building

... is founded on a new, more cooperative relationship between regulators, regu lated companies and communities, and affected constituencies-stakeholders who are impacted by the decisions and outcomes. (Aspen Institute, 1996:9)

Recognizing the expertise of all stakeholders is important. This is particularly so, given the historical bias against allowing laypersons a voice on many technical and scientific matters in policy making (Brown and Mikkelsen, 1990). A former member of an influential national environmen tal organization who now works on consensus fora spoke to this concern when she addressed a multi-stakeholder group in Washington, DC:

This forum will move us beyond the adversarial process by getting everybody on board and putting everything on the table. We must harness the expertise of industry-the people who know first-hand how industrial processes work and who know better than anyone else how to clean them up. We must harness the expertise of environmental leaders and grassroots activists who know the problems that most concern the public and often the solutions that will work. We must listen to the expertise of state, local, and federal government officials who have struggled for years with these very problems.

Accountability

In order to make the CBDM process work, all participants must be held accountable. From the environmentalists' perspective, however, as industry and government are to blame for ecological degradation, they had to be held accountable first and foremost. Henry, an environmental attorney based in the Northeast made this point:

676 Pellow

Community members hav~ a righ.t to hold ::orporations accountable to community standards .... A good neighbor IS responsible to government, the community, and to employees.

Cheryl, a member of a small organization in the Midwest stated, Before we. even .tal~ about pollution prevention and environmental justice, the three basehne objectives we seek to gain are a dialogue, real trust, and accountability among all participating parties.

By using CBDM, activists worked and struggled with industry and governme~t to produce a "collaborative frame." Additionally, the act of collaboration among these stakeholders constitutes what I term a "tactical frarr:e:" The tactical frame signifies the powerful images of cooperation, oarticipatory democracy, accountability, and sustainability. Even so, the .fforts to enforce accountability among stakeholders often led to conflict within CBDM fora. The delicate process of balancing these conflicts with constructive collaboration is the subject of the next section.

Balancing Confrontation and Collaboration

One of the foundations of the CBDM process is to ensure that the ~ollective finds common ground without sacrificing each participants' self interests. The payoff of this challenge can be attractive to all parties, but t~e p:-ocess usually involves working through significant conflicts. An orga ruzation that promotes CBDM in environmental policy addresses this concern:

Choosing to be bro~dly i~clusive of varied viewpoints rather than to seek an easy cons~nsus .among hke-_mmded people ... is the challenge of working through seemingly mt~actable differences. The occasional heat of the argument tempers the consensus being forged, with the result being a stronger product that is less likely to shatter under attack from parties not at the table. (Aspen Institute, 1996:vi)

Many environmentalists agree. One organization's position paper on CBDM argues that

Not surpri~in~ly, when collaborations first begin, influence and power are often unevenly distributed among the partners, with some partners having greater control <:ver the process, .r~sources, and i?-~ormation. Success in collaboration seems closely linked to .the ability of the participants to resolve or overcome these inequities. (New National Opportunities Network, 1997:3)

In one multiyear, national CBDM forum involving hundreds of stake holders from several industry sectors, environmental organizations, and government agencies, there were bound to be disagreements over the extent to which pollution should be regulated. At several points environmentalists felt that they were being dis empowered vis-a-cis industry. In the following

~

i I ~ ! ~

I * I I I

I j I :1

I ! I

I


memo, activists give voice to these sentiments, even while reaffirming their commitment to collaborate with their adversaries:

Over the past year, we have all worked hard at working together. We have each made a tremendous commitment to struggle together within the consensus model. We have persevered in the collective effort to frame a common language and a common vision of environmental protection. We have understood from the begin ning that participation in this multiple stakeholder process would be, to say the least, an arduous investment. ... Let us be clear, it is the promise of consensus, a good faith commitment to discover and integrate our collective interests, that has been our great hope and allowed us to stay at the table. Without consensus, [this forum] lacks the capacity to design a vision of relief, regulatory and otherwise, not only for industry but for the environment, communities, and workers as well. We are acutely aware that between public interest participants and EPA, there exists significant differences in organizational behavior and expectations. In particular, we came into this process without representation, resources, and common language which industry and EPA have long enjoyed. This process, which is oft called multi stakeholder, need also be recognized as multicultural in regards to how each of us operates with a different set of typical standards and mores.

Environmental participants to many CBDM fora were intent also upon not "selling out" the interests of their constituents. Many environmentalists therefore saw the need to explore the possibility of aggressive tactics within these fora. The integration of conflict perspectives within the consensus process was common among activists, particularly those who represented small grassroots and community organizations. Many of these activists trav eled to CBDM fora in Washington, DC, and other cities from their respec tive communities around the nation (Detroit, West County, Cal., and South east Chicago, for example) and were often adamant in representing their particular constituencies' concerns. This insistence often required adversar ial tactics. Tactics included confrontational interactions in formal and infor mal settings with state, industry, and even other environmental representa tives; as well as letter writing to facilitating government officials protesting various objectionable practices.

An African American environmental activist explained his method of engaging in consensus building to protect his community'S interest without compromising his strong ideological stance:

If you are coming in talking about the interests of your community and not just in the interest of consensus then yes it works. If consensus-based processes are not processes that foster negotiation, then what's the use? One example is that when regulatory agencies and public interest/environmentalist stakeholders agree on an issue and industry doesn't. The ones that don't give a damn about the interests of consensus is the industry group. The only thing they are interested in is the interest of their stockholders and companies. My point is that I think every stakeholder should do that because then that's the basis for negotiation. Corporate power, [i.e.] corporate culture only has one interest in mind and that's theirs. And for you to enter the process and give up your interest when industry is never going to give theirs up, to me is ludicrous. You have to maintain the same position, your philosophical or policy ground because you cannot give up your position because otherwise every thing is negotiable.

678 Pellow

This activist is well aware of the conflicting motives among communi ties, environmentalists, producers, and the state. However, rather than exploring traditional conflict-based tactics (boycotts, pickets, etc.) he chooses to subsume this aggressive ideological stance within a more co operative framework. Scholar-advocates of consensus-based negotiations support this strategy. Briggs and Leyshon (1996) are quick "not to sug gest. . . that [ the] consensus process presupposes. . . complete peace and harmony. . . [gjiven . . .; the complexity of the decisions we face, conflict is inevitable" (5). The recognition of some conflict in all forms of decision making is well documented (March, 1987). For environmentalists, the con sensus framework provides an opportunity for conflict-oriented ideologies to take root within an atmosphere of compromise.

In making the decision to join a CBDM forum, several large and small environmental organizations saw this as an opportunity to build coalitions among and across the varied wings of the environmental movement:

Why work together? Because we can: win what can't be won alone; increase the impact of individual actions; increase resources; and broaden our scope. In order to do this properly we must first understand and respect each participant's institu tional self interest. Participants must be clear and up front about these matters. This means we must also help organizations achieve their self-interest. Groups need to feel they are benefiting from the cooperative effort.

One member of a Boston-based organization fighting corporate environmental crime told me,

A couple of realities are clear and cause for concern: 1) this [forum] will only work if organizing at the community level and aggressive escalation of demands continues, and 2) stakeholder participants must be accountable to their constituencies.

An activist with several years experience fighting against the chemical industry made his position clear to fellow environmentalists at a CBDM meeting in Chicago:

I just want to make sure that you all are with me in thinking that we're not gonna walk around with our tails between our legs when dealing with industry, just because the Republicans took over Congress [February 1995].

Likewise, another leader in the people of color caucus at one CBDM project threatened to withdraw her contingent from the proceedings if their demands were not met:

I have been very clear about our interest in exploring a grassroots-driven initiative opposed to this existing industry-driven/government-dominated forum.

DISCUSSION

Since the early to middle 1980s, the grassroots and professional arms of the environmental movement have encountered problems of access to


government and industry in the quest for social justice and ecological preservation (Gould et al., 1996; Szasz, 1994). As SMOs and scholars Con tinue to link the problems of social inequality and environmental quality (Bryant, 1995), both the grassroots and professional organizations often have coalesced in order to gain access to the political system. These "places at the table" SMOs have secured are real, but tenuous, as much of social movement research reveals.

In his comparative study of the nuclear disarmament movement, Kitschelt (1986) argues that SMOs in nations with relatively open political structures, like the U.S., have multiple points of access. SMOs therefore most often attempt to work through established institutions with "assimila tive strategies." Assimilative strategies include litigation, petitioning gov ernment bodies, using referendum campaigns, lobbying and involvement in elections. This is in contrast to "confrontational" strategies, which include civil disobedience and public demonstrations. However, I would maintain that this distinction is not so clear. As McAdam (1983) argues, any strategy, no matter how seemingly confrontational, will eventually be countered and adapted by elites if practiced long enough to become routinized. Similarly, assimilative points of access can be used in creative and confrontational ways.

CBDM represents a curious mixture of seduction and coercion for environmentalists. On one hand, it represents getting a "place at the table" with the state and industry. On the other hand, many activists point out that this is one of the only forms of action for which philanthropic founda tions are supporting SMOs. Furthermore, after activists are allowed places at the policy-making table, they soon realize that the "output" side of the process (i.e., reaching decisions and implementing them) is more difficult than the "input" side (i.e., getting to the table). This is in part because for the first time, they are negotiating directly with state and industry, an entirely new terrain.

The common characterization of social movement actors as outsiders vis-a-vis the polity (Gamson, 1975:140), while often the case, must be tem pered with the realization that many challenging groups' status is in a constant state of flux. Environmentalists who participate in CBDM projects may not have "routine access to decisions that affect them" (140), but they do enjoy access at one or more points in time. This punctuated access makes them periodic players-a sort of "outsider within" (Collins, 1990).

Environmentalists working through consensus fora attempt to offset the assimilative tendencies of CBDM by sometimes launching confronta tional challenges. Thus activists draw on a combination of "negotiation and confrontation" (Stoecker, 1995:119) and thereby employ new forms of framing with their opponents to achieve their goals.

680 Pellow

The principal questions in this paper are whether SMOs and their antagonists produce collective action frames together and how. Based on in-depth interviews with many environmental activists involved in CBDM, I argue that SMOs do produce collaborativeframes with their opponents. For both grassroots and professional environmentalists, CBDM represents a significant change in movement tactics, from the litigious and otherwise disruptive to a combination of "negotiation and confrontation" (Stoecker, 1995). While it is true that the vast majority of environmentalists in the modern era would probably fall into what Gould et al. (1993:227) call the "reformist" category, CBDM seems to have attracted both "reformists" and the more radical flanks seeking "social equity."

The literature on social movements and framing processes is growing and becoming more sophisticated. Studies of SMOs reveal that framing activities are complex and ever-changing (Adair, 1996; Noonan, 1996), particularly during frame disputes between SMOs and opponents (Benford, 1993a; Ellingson, 1996). However, the majority of the literature on collective action frames presents activists and SMOs exclusively using oppositional frames aimed at mobilizing adherents and demobilizing antagonists. There fore, studies of collective action frames have yet to consider the possibility that SMOs would actually engage in framing that would mobilize antago nists in a collaborative process. In this paper I demonstrate that activists are producing collaborative frames with their opponents in policy-making that may have direct impacts on the health of the environment, workers, and residents across the nation and around the world.

Activists interviewed are drawn from a wide array of environmental organizations, from small, community-based groups to large, professional organizations with national membership rolls. Most interviewees articulated both political economic and environmental justice frames to assign blame .or environmental degradation and to underscore their demands for envi ronmental protection. However, environmentalists draw on both these op positional frames in their efforts to produce a strategy to address these problems-a strategy that is ultimately collaborative rather than simply oppositional. CBDM addresses the concerns articulated in the political economic and environmental justice frames but does so in an unexpected way that is intended to allow protagonists and antagonists to seek common ground without sacrificing each other's interests. Thus CBDM is a "collabo rative" frame. It also functions as what I call a "tactical frame" in that the act of collaboration between SMOs and opponents itself performs a signifying function (McAdam, 1996). This collective action event transmits messages and symbols to both potential adherents and opponents, signifying important ideas such as accountability, sustainability, cooperation, and par ticipatory democracy. These findings illuminate new tactics movements


employ during periods of economic and political crisis and raise new ques tions about unexamined dynamics of frame analysis.

Although there are no data on how widespread CBDM is, the practice is growing rapidly within the environmental movement. Whether consensus based decision making represents the successful cooptation of the environ mental movement during a downturn in a "cycle of protest" (Tarrow, 1983) or the success of young activists seeking innovative forms of collective action is a question for future research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the helpful comments provided by Allan Schnaiberg, Randy Stoecker, Lisa Park, Ira Silver, David Shulman, Kenneth Gould, Adam Weinberg, Kris Smock, Amy Wong, and three anonymous re viewers.

REFERENCES

Adair, Stephen 1996 "Overcoming a collective action frame

in the remaking of an antinuclear opposition." Sociological Forum 11: 347-375.

. Albrecht, Stan 1995 "Equity and justice in environmental

decision-making." Society and Natu ral Resources 8:67-72.

Aspen Institute 1996 The Alternative Path: A Cleaner,

Cheaper Way to Protect and Enhance the Environment. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

Benford, Robert . 1993a "Frame disputes within the nuclear

disarmament movement." Social Forces 71:677-701.

1993b "'You could be the hundredth mon key': collective action frames and vo cabularies of motive within the nuclear disarmament movement." Sociologi cal Quarterly 34:195-216.

Best, Joel 1987 "Rhetoric in claims-making: Con

structing the missing children prob lem." Social Problems 34:101-121.

Bluestone, Barry and Irving Bluestone 1992 Negotiating the Future. New York:

Harper Collins.

Briggs, Beatrice and Shari Leyshon 1996 "Consensus: The way healthy commu

nities make decisions." Conscious Choice (January/February): 52-53.

Brown, Phil and Edwin Mikkelsen 1990 No Safe Place. Berkeley: University of

California Press. Bryant, Bunyan 1995 Environmental Justice: Issues, Poli

cies, and Solutions. Island Press: Washington, DC.

Bullard, Robert 1990 Dumping in Dixie. Boulder, Co: West

view Press. Bullard, Robert, ed. 1993 Confronting Environmental Racism.

Boston: South End Press. Bullard, Robert and Glenn Johnson, eds, 1997 Just Transportation. Philadelphia, P A:

New Society Publishers. Capek, Stella 1993 "The 'environmental justice' frame: A

conceptual discussion and an applica tion." Social Problems 40:5-24.

Collins, Patricia Hill 1993 Black Feminist Thought. New York:

Routledge. Consensus Organizing Institute 1994 Concept and Background Paper. Bos

ton, MA.

682

Ellingson, Stephen 1996 "Understanding the dialectic of dis

course and collective action: Public de bate and rioting in antebellum Cincin nati." In Doug McAdam and David Snow (eds.), Social Movements: Read ings on Their Emergence, Mobiliza tion, and Dynamics: 268-280 Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Freudenberg, Nicholas 1984 Not in Our Backyards. New York:

Monthly Review Press. Gamson, Willlam 1992 "The social psychology of collective

action." In' Aldon Morris and Carol Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory: 53-76. New Ha ven, CT: Yale University Press.

1975 The Strategy of Social Protest. Home- wood, II: Dorsey.

Gamson, William, Bruce Fireman, and Steven Rytina . 1982 Encounters with Unjust Authority.

Homewood, II: Dorsey Press. GotTman, Erving 1974 Frame Analysis. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press. Gould, Kenneth, Allan Schnaiberg, and Adam Weinberg 1996 Local Environmental Struggles. New

York: Cambridge University Press. 1993 "Legitimating impotence: Pyrrhic vic

tories of the modern environmental movement." Qualitative Sociology 16:207-246.

Hofrichter, Richard 1993 Toxic Struggles. Philadelphia, PA:

New Society Publishers. Kitschelt, Herbert 1986 "Political opportunity structures and

political protest: Anti-nuclear move ments in four democracies." British Journal of Political Science 16:57-85.

Klandermans, Bert 1984 "Mobilization and participation: So

cial-psychological expansions of re source mobilization theory." Ameri can Sociological Review 49:583-600.

Lee, Charles 1987 Toxic Wastes and Race in the United

States. New York: United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice.

Logan, John and Harvey Molotch 1987 Urban Fortunes: The Political Econ

omy of Place. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Pellow

Lukes,Steven 1974 Power: A Radical View. London: Mac

millan. McAdam, Doug 1996 :'The framing function of movement

tactics: Strategic dramaturgy in the American civil rights movement." In Doug McAdam, John McCarthy, and Mayer Zald (eds.), Comparative Per spectives on Social Movements: 338- 355. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Uni versity Press.

1983 "Tactical innovation and the pace of insurgency." American Sociological Review 48:735-754.

March, James 1987 "Theories of choice and making

decisions." In F. Cox, J. Erlich, J. Rothman, and J. Tropman (eds.), Strategies of Community Organiza tion: 279-297. Itasca, II: F. E. Pea cock Publishers.

Morris, Aldon 1992 "Political consciousness and collec

tive action." In Alden Morris and Carol Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory: 351-373. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

New National Opportunities Task Force 1997 Lessons Learned from Collaborative

Approaches. Washington, DC. Noonan, Rita 1996 "Women against the state: Political

opportunities and collective action frames in Chile's transition to democ racy." In Doug McAdam and David Snow (eds.), Social Movements: Read ings on Their Emergence, Mobiliza tion, and Dynamics: 252-267. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Park, Lisa Sun-Hee . 1997 "Navigating the anti-immigrant

wave." In Nancy Naples (ed.), Com munity Activism and Feminist Politics: 175-195. New York: Routledge.

Perrolle, Judith 1993 "The emerging dialogue on environ

mental justice." Social Problems 40:1-4

Snow, David and Robert Benford 1992 "Master frames and cycles of protest."

. In Aldon Morris and Carol Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory: 133-155. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Environmental Movement Tactics

1988 "Ideology, frame resonance, and par ticipant mobilization." International Social Movement Research 1:197-217.

Snow, David, E. Burke Rochford, Jr., Steven K Worden, and Robert Benford 1986 "Frame alignment processes, micro-

mobilization, and movement partici pation." American Sociological Re view 551:464-481.

Stoecker, Randy 1995 "Community, movement, organiza-

683

tion: The problem of identity conver gence in collective action." Sociologi cal Quarterly 36:1-130.

Szasz, Andrew 1994 Ecof'opulisrn. Minneapolis: Univer

sity of Minnesota Press. Tarrow, Sidney 1983 Struggling to Reform: Social Move

ments and Policy Change During Cy cles of Protest. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Documents

Framing emerging environmental movement tactics: mobilizing consensus, demobilizing conflict