Analysis of Framing as a Strategic Maneuver in the Discussion Stages

Having outlined my theory and the way in which I propose to incorporate framing into the pragma-dialectical framework, I will proceed to demonstrate the correlation between

discussion strategies and frames. In the following chapter I will summarise the strategic maneuvers and discussion strategies that can occur in each discussion stage. Following this, I will select a small case study for each discussion stage, analysing the strategic maneuvers and demonstrating how a particular a discussion strategy, in a particular discussion stage, correlates to a particular frame.

3.4.1 Frames in Confrontational Maneuvering

As noted above, I proceed in this chapter to detail the strategic maneuvers that can occur in the confrontation stage. Subsequently, I will demonstrate how framing manifests itself as a confrontational maneuver.

There are many strategic maneuvers that occur in this discussion stage, with a dialectical aim of defining the difference of opinion. It is however in the protagonist’s interest to shape the difference of opinion in a way that gives him or her a rhetorical advantage. A popular tactic is to diminish the difference of opinion between protagonist and the antagonist. This can be achieved in a variety of ways and can involve all three aspects of strategic maneuvering. When selecting from the topical potential, a “reasonable and effective choice of issues and critical responses” is made (van Eemeren et al, 2014, p. 555). When adapting to audience demand, a

“reasonable and effective adjustment of issues and critical responses to the audience” is made (van Eemeren et al, 2014, p. 555). When making a presentational choice, “a reasonable and effective presentational design of issues and critical responses” is used (van Eemeren et al, 2014, p. 555).

As noted above, in addition to the individual strategic maneuvers that occur in the confrontation stage, there also exists multiple confrontation strategies. An example of such a strategy is ‘humptydumptying’ whereby the protagonist deviates “from any preconceived idea of what the difference of opinion is about by determining the issues completely in one’s own way” (van Eemeren, 2010, p. 46). As a result, this strategy involves manipulating the difference of opinion. Having established the strategic maneuvering that can take place in the confrontation stage, I proceed by demonstrating how framing presents itself as a confrontational maneuver, and by extension, a confrontational strategy.

The following passage is taken from a morning talk show, This Morning, broadcast on the 16^th September 2020, in which the hosts and their guests discuss a new book written by JK Rowling. Following the publication of said book, it was declared offensive by many

transgender activists and quickly became controversial, as is the reason for this segment on the morning talk show. The fictional book tells the story of a male serial killer who dresses in women’s clothing. Transgender supporters and activists proclaimed that this book was very offensive to the transgender community, stating that although the fictional character in the book is not transgender, it depicts a negative association with the LGBTQI+ community as a whole.

The antagonist, an LGBTQI+ activist appearing as a guest on the show, presents his argument in support of the standpoint that the book should not be published.²

9.24 mins - “The point is, that when so few people know about trans people, when they’re so unfamiliar and so rarely covered in books like this, the idea that the only supposed representation, as most people will interpret it, of a trans person is that they are a killer who dresses as a woman in order to kill. That is ….”(Benjamin Butterworth, 2020, This Morning).

Towards the end of this passage, the protagonist, Piers Morgan who co-host’s the morning show, begins to interject with this response to the protagonist’s argument. Piers states the following:

9.41 mins - “So just to clarify what you’re saying… okay… to answer my question then we could never have a transgender killer in a novel.” (Piers Morgan, 2020, This Morning).

In this response, the protagonist has deviated from the original issue at hand. The antagonist explains in his argument that the problem lies with the lack of transgender representation in books like this. Therefore, when one of the only representations occurs in this manner, there lies the problem. In contrast, the protagonist employs the humpty-dumptying strategy and manipulates the difference of opinion by establishing a new standpoint on behalf of the antagonist. The protagonist now claims that the antagonist is defending the standpoint

2 The quotes taken from the various passages in this chapter closely represent the speaker’s words. When … is inserted, it is because other people have spoken over the speaker, or an irrelevant passage was taken out.

that there should never be a transgender killer in a novel. This is not the case, the protagonist has chosen to exaggerate the antagonist’s claim. In exaggerating the antagonist’s standpoint, the protagonist frames the LGBTQI+ activist as a non-sensical fanatic. The antagonist is framed as someone too sensitive and as someone who has unrealistic notions of how things should be censored. Thus, this confrontational strategy developed from a series of strategic maneuvers, translates into the framing of the antagonist as a fanatical activist.

3.4.2 Frames in Opening Maneuvering

The dialectical aim in the opening stage of a critical discussion is to reasonably establish the point of departure. This entails agreeing on the discussion procedure, the burden of proof, starting points and discussion rules. As always, there are ways to do this that is rhetorically advantageous to the protagonist. For the topical selection, it entails a “reasonable and effective choice of the procedural starting points” (van Eemeren et al, 2014, p. 555). For the adaption to audience demand, it entails a “reasonable and effective adjustment of procedural and material starting points to the audience” (van Eemeren et al, 2014, p. 555). When making a presentational choice, “a reasonable and effective presentational design of procedural and material stating points” is used (van Eemeren et al, 2014, p. 555).

In addition to these individual maneuvers, there are also opening strategies that can develop. Such strategies include ‘broadening the zone of agreement’. This strategy involves the establishment of multiple starting points in order to present to the antagonist that there are many things that both parties agree on. Additionally, ‘creating a smokescreen’ is a strategy that involves emphasising other, irrelevant starting points, in order to distract from the topic at hand (van Eemeren, 2010, p. 46). Having established the strategic maneuvering that can take place in the opening stage, I proceed by demonstrating how framing presents itself as an opening maneuver.

The following passage is taken from a politics talk show in the United Kingdom, named the Politics Show. In this segment that was broadcast on the 31st March 2009, the host, Jon Sopel, questions the then leader of the Conservative political party, David Cameron. Sopel assumes the role of the antagonist in the critical discussion as he challenges Cameron, the protagonist, on the recent expense claim scandal involving Andrew MacKay. It had recently been unearthed that MacKay and his wife had abused the expense claim procedure by claiming

mortgage interest on both the homes they owned. This, along with claiming each other’s travel costs, was illegal and fraudulent, taking advantage of the system in an attempt to claim more money than they were in reality owed. In the wake of this scandal, the Conservative party announced that MacKay would stand down at the 2010 general election. In this segment, Sopel points out that this is an inadequate response to the scandal as it enables MacKay to continue his term in office, and in doing so allows him to continue to receive his salary. Sopel emphasises that due to the nature of his crimes, and the money he owes back to the British public, this is not an appropriate punishment. In response to such allegations, Cameron explains that he does not have the power to call an earlier general election, and explains that he has instead removed MacKay from his front bench, forced his retirement, and demanded he go in front of a scrutiny panel. Cameron elaborates that if MacKay refuses to go in front of a scrutiny panel, he will take away the power of the whip.

In the following passage, Cameron establishes multiple starting points in the opening stage of this critical discussion and in doing so deploys the strategy of ‘broadening the zone of agreement’.

1.52 mins - “Now I know that’s not enough. And I know people losing the whip isn’t enough. And I know people retiring isn’t enough. And that’s why we need to have a general election. That’s why the public feel so cheated” (David Cameron, 2009, Politics Show).

As stated above, Cameron establishes four consecutive starting points. In the first starting point, Cameron is claiming to agree with his audience, the British public, that demanding MacKay go in front of a scrutiny panel isn’t enough. In the second, he claims to agree with the audience that removing the power of the whip isn’t enough. In the third starting point, he claims to agree with his audience that forcing retirement isn’t enough. Finally, in the fourth starting point, Cameron claims to understand why the public feel so cheated, giving credit to their feelings. By establishing multiple starting points, Cameron employs the strategy of ‘broadening the zone of agreement’. He positions himself on the audience’s side of the entire scandal. As a result, by broadening the zone of agreement, Cameron has framed himself as an ally of the audience. This is an effective frame as it improved his image and relationship with the British public.

3.4.3 Frames in Argumentational Maneuvering

The dialectical aim in the argumentational stage of a critical discussion is the reasonable advancement of arguments. This includes attacking the antagonist’s standpoints and defending one’s own. Of course, the protagonist also aims to be effective in their arguments. For the topical selection, it entails a “reasonable and effective choice of arguments and criticisms” (van Eemeren et al, 2014, p. 555). For the adaptation to audience demand, it entails a “reasonable and effective adjustment of arguments and criticisms to the audience” (van Eemeren et al, 2014, p. 555). When making presentational choices, “a reasonable and effective presentational design of arguments and criticisms” is used (van Eemeren et al, 2014, p. 555).

In addition to these individual maneuvers, there are also argumentational strategies that can develop. A popular argumentational strategy is the ‘instantaneous argumentation’ strategy (van Eemeren, 2010, p. 46). This discussion strategy makes an attempt to force the antagonist to accept their standpoint by pointing out the desirable consequences of doing so, or sometimes the undesirable consequences of not doing so. This is often achieved via pragmatic argumentation. Having established the strategic maneuvering that can take place in the argumentation stage, I proceed by demonstrating how framing presents itself as an argumentational maneuver.

In the passage below, Carla Hodges, the step-daughter of Leslie Lawrenson, a man who died from Covid-19 after refusing to get vaccinated, is quoted in a news article, pleading for others to get vaccinated. Hodges explains that her step father believed he did not need the vaccination in order to fight Covid-19, and that he was concerned by the potential long-term side effects of the vaccine. Hodges is quoted in the article:

"Once you've been through what we've been through, people understand it. It's so sick, it's so dangerous, it's a killer, and vaccines are out there to protect us now. And that's what I'm trying to get across to people - please, please rethink. Don't be a family like ours and have regrets." (Carla Hodges, 9^th August 2020, Sky News).

This is a critical discussion because Hodges is advancing the standpoint that people should get vaccinated. This is a single non-mixed difference of opinion because Hodges has advanced one standpoint and is responding to anticipated criticism from those who refuse to take the vaccine. In support of this standpoint, the protagonist advances pragmatic argumentation. The protagonist states “Don’t be a family like ours and have regrets”. In stating

this, Hodges implies that if others refuse to get the vaccine, their fate will match Lawrence’s.

In other words, the protagonist has emphasised the undesirable outcome of not adopting the prescribed standpoint. In doing so, the argumentative strategy of ‘instantaneous argumentation’

has been deployed. This is effective as it presents an instantaneous argument that is difficult to counter. In deploying this strategy, the protagonist frames the covid-19 vaccine as a matter of life or death. If you don’t get the vaccine then you will die, hence the vaccine is framed as a life-saving product. This frame stands out from the frames used by organisations such as governments and scientific institutions, who simply frame the vaccine as an aid that reduces the risk of hospitalisation and death. I stress here that the key messaging of official organisations emphasise a reduction of risk. In contrast, Hodges frames the vaccine as a certifiable life-saving product. When we compare both emphasis frames, we can see how the instantaneous argumentation employed by Hodges has framed the Covid-19 vaccine as a matter of life or death.

3.4.4 Frames in Concluding Maneuvering

The dialectical aim in the concluding stage is to reasonably conclude the results of the critical discussion. In doing so, the protagonist can employ strategic maneuvers that render their conclusions rhetorically effective. For instance, when selecting from the topical potential, a reasonable and effective choice of conclusion is presented (van Eemeren et al, 2014, p. 555).

When adapting to audience demand, a reasonable and effective adjustment to the conclusion is made and presented to the audience (van Eemeren et al, 2014, p. 555). Finally, when making presentational choices, a reasonable and effective presentational design of the conclusion is used (van Eemeren et al, 2014, p. 555).

In addition to these individual maneuvers, there are also concluding strategies that can develop. A popular concluding strategy is “making the audience bite the bullet” (van Eemeren, 2010, p.46). This strategy makes the conclusion appear unavoidable, and as such the audience have no choice but to accept. Having established the strategic maneuvering that can take place in the concluding stage, I proceed by demonstrating how framing presents itself as a concluding maneuver.

In the following passage, Eamonn Holmes and Ruth Langsford host Martin Kenny and Dr Sarah Bosman on their morning talk show, This Morning, broadcast on the 1^st August 2018,

as both parties debate whether the moon landing was faked. Martin Kenny is of the opinion that no one has ever landed on the moon, and that any scientific data claiming to prove the alternative has been faked. In contrast, Dr Sarah Bosman, a scientist and cosmologist, defends the standpoint that the moon landing was not faked.

In the following passage, Kenny employs the concluding strategy of ‘making the audience bite the bullet’ by framing his standpoint as a ‘smoking gun’.

“Well, here’s the smoking gun. We can argue all day long about you know what I think.

We’ve never been to the moon, none of us have been you know below the surface of a certain altitude. Now the only way we can discern whether this happened or not is by analysing and studying the actual data that was taken during those Apollo missions…to end this, if we had the data now and we could scrutinise it, if we could test it, which is the scientific method, test it observe it … not only has it not been released, NASA destroyed it” (Martin Kenny, This Morning, 1^st August 2018).

As demonstrated above, Kenny predicates his conclusion with the words “here’s the smoking gun”. In doing so, Kenny presents to the audience that acceptance of his standpoint is unavoidable. Kenny argues that because NASA destroyed the data of the moon landing, it is an unavoidable conclusion that the moon landing has been faked. In order words, Kenny attempts to make the audience bite the bullet and come to a conclusion that he has satisfactorily supported his standpoint. In employing this concluding strategy, Kenny frames his standpoint as a fact. The notion that the moon landing was faked no longer has the status of a conspiracy theory. Instead, it is framed as an irrefutable fact.