| This study traces the construction, application, and development of frames on issues and courses of action in social mobilization campaigns. Using mostly materials from the mass media---including the Internet---it depicts the stances proposed by advocates for potential allies to support, and looks for changes in the stances through the life history of each of the eleven campaigns (in China, Indonesia, Philippines, and Thailand). Quantitative analysis supplements the qualitative analysis.;The findings corroborate the postulated use of Habermas' grounds of validity (truth and rightness). Advocates and addressees apply these standards when they define a situation, explain its causes, or project its consequences. They apply the same standards when they evaluate options for dealing with the situation or tactics to express their stance. Persuading policymakers is important because courses of action to deal with the situation would be enforced on all constituents (stakeholders). A campaign may start with many views, which then crystallize to a few major stances. The closer a stance is to the public's worldview, the more likely it is that the public will support the stance. As a campaign develops, issues get subsumed into the solution frame (which deals with courses of action pertaining to the situation---or policy options). Participants in collective action generally employ a combination of institutional tactics and disruptive tactics---to the extent that the latter serve as corrective to the way institutional procedures are conducted.;Campaigns on the environment entail specialty-based knowledge that may be new to the addressees or to the policymakers. But once the situation is understood, human concerns serve as the standard against which options for action are evaluated. Campaigns on non-environmental matters mostly restructurate the prevailing consensus on norms and values. |
