The benefits of frame disputes for immigrant rights movements : the case of Amsterdam’s ‘we are here’ movement

(1)

The Benefits of Frame Disputes

for Immigrant Rights Movements:

Mariska de Vries

University of Amsterdam September 2015

Master Thesis Sociology - Migration and Ethnic Studies

Supervisor: Dr. Walter Nicholls Second reader: Dr. Sébastien Chauvin

The Case of Amsterdam’s ‘We Are Here’ Movement

(2)

Introduction

In September 2012, in Amsterdam, two rejected asylum seekers from Eritrea and Ethiopia asked a retired Dutch doctor for shelter from the persistent rain. Both were homeless. Their request was met with a demonstrative makeshift tent set up in the garden of a Protestant diaconate in the city center. Within a few weeks, dozens of rejected asylum seekers moved into the improvised shelter; an encampment emerged and the self-organized ‘We Are Here’ movement was born. In the ensuing years, this movement grew to more than two hundred rejected asylum seekers from over fifteen predominantly African countries who publicly repudiated their designated place in the isolated margins of society and insisted on staying together in squatted buildings and other makeshift shelters in Amsterdam. Similar dynamics could be observed in other countries in Europe. Almost simultaneous with the emergence of the protest in Amsterdam, cities such as Berlin, Hamburg and Vienna, followed by other European cities, saw the emergence of self-organized protests of rejected asylum seekers collectively taking shelter in encampments, squats and churches.

The asylum seekers maintained a sustained campaign against the Dutch immigration and asylum policy, which addressed multiple objectives. The main appeal of the asylum seekers was for a ‘normal life,’ which was essentially a demand for citizenship rights. But for many asylum seekers the struggle was as much a struggle for citizenship rights as it was a struggle for bare life. Being denied access to basic social services such as shelter and food, a second appeal of the movement called for the provision of these basic human needs. A third demand went beyond legal rights and encompassed the public recognition of their existence as human and political beings, captured in the movement’s name and slogan ‘We Are Here’. Within one year1 the protest resulted in hundreds of reports in local, national and international media. One year of protests also pressured local and national authorities to provide temporary shelter and services to the greater part of the movement. These measures represented small but significant political and symbolic victories for the movement and its allies.

Whereas recent campaigns concerning asylum seekers in the Netherlands were hitherto mounted by NGOs, churches, politicians and local activists, a remarkable aspect of this campaign was that the asylum seekers organized themselves, which allowed them to assume a prominent role in the campaign. Another remarkable aspect of the protest was the

1 _{As I am writing this, the ‘We Are Here’ movement hasn't stopped mobilizing its constituents. However, as the empirical}

findings of this study cover one year of ethnographic research, in this paper I use the past tense when referring to the movement.

(4)

highly heterogeneous composition of the movement’s social base. The group of asylum seekers was heterogeneous in terms of ethnicity, class, religion, gender, age, and level of assimilation into the dominant culture of the Netherlands. The equally motley group of Dutch supporters standing in solidarity with the asylum seekers ranged from anarchists to politicians, from Christians to Muslims, from artists to lawyers, and from students to pensioners, each with their own reasons to struggle for and with the asylum seekers.

The heterogeneity of the coalition was mirrored by the diverse and often cacophonous array of claims and tactics used in the campaign, which can be divided into three overarching frames2: two competing citizenship rights frames, commonly used by immigrant rights movements, and a third frame which did not address the distribution of citizenship rights but the issue of access to basic human needs. Activists using the universal legalization frame called into question the very existence of borders and called, amongst other things, for citizenship rights for all immigrants irrespective of their national origin, culture or legal status. In contrast, activists employing the deserving immigrant frame argued for reform of the asylum system and stressed specific attributes that would make some individuals or groups particularly deserving of citizenship rights. Lastly, activists using the basic needs

frame called for the provision of basic needs such as shelter and food for rejected asylum

seekers and other undocumented immigrants. Over the course of time, the latter frame was adopted by the vast majority of movement participants often in combination with one or both of the competing citizenship rights frames. As predicted in literature, the above-described rhetorical differences were the source of countless disputes within the movement, which have been referred to as frame disputes. Such disputes generally erupt between ideologically diverse wings of a movement.

The above described lack of unity amongst movement actors with regards to framing poses an interesting question, which has not received sufficient attention in the existing literature: What effect, if any, do frame disputes and the multiple frames they engender have on the mobilizing capacity of social movements? Recently Robert Benford (2013a: 2) noted “While numerous social movement scholars have analyzed the causes and subjects of frame disputes within various contemporary social movements, only a few have sought to determine the effects of such intramural conflicts” (see ibid for a review on this topic). Studies on the effects of frame disputes on the mobilizing capacity of social movements suggest that such

2_{Social movements rely on collective action frames for mobilization as will be elaborated in the following sections. Snow}

and Benford (2000: 614) define collective action frames as “action-oriented sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of a social movement organization.”

(5)

disputes may have different effects in different contexts. On the one hand, scholars argue that frame disputes may facilitate the mobilizing capacity of social movements. It is argued that frame disputes and the use of multiple frames these engender can be strategically beneficial by, among other mechanisms, enabling movements to mobilize a greater number of distinctive audiences than would have otherwise been the case (e.g. Resnick, 2009). While such findings are grounded in classical arguments regarding the positive functions of social conflict (Coser 1956 cited in Benford, 1993b), other researchers have suggested that frame disputes are generally detrimental to the mobilizing capacity of social movements. It is argued that such disputes can thwart mobilization and foster the extinction of movements by, amongst other mechanisms, increasing competition among participants over attracting scarce resources (e.g. Snow & McAdam, 2000). It remains, however, an open question under which conditions frame disputes tend to be predominantly facilitative of or detrimental to the mobilizing potential of social movements.

The present study has sought to contribute to an understanding of this issue by examining how frame disputes affected the mobilizing capacity of the movement under study as well as the intra-movement conditions under which such disputes affected constituent mobilization. The following research questions guided the study: (1) Who are the movement actors involved in the articulation of the frames? (2) What are the main frames and tactics used in the campaign? (3) What effect, if any, did frame disputes and the multiple frames they engendered have on the mobilizing capacity of the ‘We Are Here’ movement? As I will elaborate below and in the empirical part of this paper, this study suggests that frame disputes were predominantly facilitative of the mobilizing capacity of the ‘We Are Here’ movement. The findings of this study also demonstrate that many movement participants showed great flexibility in dealing with such internal conflicts, which was reflected, for example, in the fact that such disputes didn't prevent them to start or continue cooperation with those in favor of a competing citizenship rights frame. Hence, the final research question that emerged from the investigation explored: (4) What conditions mitigated conflicts associated with the frame disputes?

The aim of this paper is two-fold. First, as noted above, this study aims to add to a better understanding the mechanisms through which and the conditions under which frame disputes tend to be facilitative of or detrimental to the mobilizing potential of social movements. Second, as I will elaborate in the second section, by addressing this issue in the context of immigrant rights mobilization, this study also aims to contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms that enable some collectives of undocumented immigrants

(6)

to sustain mobilization in current political contexts. The data forming the empirical base of this study is drawn from a one-year participant observation which started shortly after the movement had just began to mobilize and an extensive document research. The insider-outsider perspective, a unique characteristic of participant observation research, allowed me to identify in detail the frames and tactics employed in the protest and to observe the framing processes associated with their social construction, negotiation and contestation. In turn, these findings provided valuable insights into the complexities of the mobilization processes as well as the dynamics between different subgroups of movement participants.

Using the ‘We Are Here’ movement as a case study and drawing on theoretical considerations, this study suggests that, under certain conditions that will be specified below, the public use of multiple frames, rather than a single frame, can be strategically beneficial by allowing an immigrant rights movement to construct solidarity among distinct audiences that provide complementary resources. The findings of this study suggest that the use of the two citizenship rights frames introduced above allowed the movement under study to mobilize solidarity among different audiences that provided resources that were complementary and indispensable to sustained mobilization. Furthermore, the simultaneous use of a third frame, introduced above, which addressed a short-term goal of ensuring access to basic needs rather than the main goal of the protest, allowed the movement to mobilize solidarity among additional distinct audiences. The study also identifies the following combination of conditions, which will be elaborated in the empirical chapter, under which frame disputes and the use of multiple frames they engender are likely to be strategically beneficial for an immigrant rights movement. First, the condition of a localized, resource-poor social movement consisting of a considerably heterogeneous group of immigrants forming the movement’s social base (that is, heterogeneous in terms of legal, economic and cultural attributes) is likely to prevent a movement from sustaining mobilization with the sole use of the exclusive deserving immigrant frame. Second, the condition of a social movement operating in a political context characterized by restrictive immigration and asylum policies and anti-immigrant forces is likely to prevent a movement from sustaining mobilization with the sole use of the more radical universal legalization frame. Third, the condition of demands for basic human needs among immigrants forming the movement’s social base may introduce a common short-term goal among those in favor of different citizenship rights frames, that is, the goal of ensuring access to these basic needs. In turn, this common goal may allow movement participants to adopt an additional common frame (i.e. the basic needs frame) in combination with the citizenship rights frames, which may further mediate tensions between

(7)

participants in favor of competing citizenship rights frames and foster solidarity among a broad coalition of actors. The findings of this study demonstrate that the above conditions introduced strong interdependencies among movement participants. In turn, these interdependencies were partly responsible for motivating participants to adopt a pluralistic attitude to framing and offer flexibility in dealing with the frame disputes.

The study consists of four parts. The first part presents a discussion of the scholarship on immigration politics and contemporary citizenship regimes in order to identify the general political and discursive barriers and opportunities that undocumented immigrants confront in Western receiving contexts. Insight into these political and discursive barriers and opportunities will help us to better understand the strategic possibilities of undocumented immigrants as well as the strengths and limitations of the two citizenship rights frames commonly used in immigrant rights protests. The second part explores theoretical claims regarding the role of frames and framing processes in social movement mobilization. This section also addresses the challenge of producing sustained mobilization and reviews studies on the effects of frame disputes and the use of the multiple frames these engender. The third part introduces the methodological considerations that guided the collection and interpretation of the empirical data, which is followed by a discussion of the general discursive and political barriers and opportunities that rejected asylum seekers may confront in the Netherlands. The final part presents the key empirical findings and connects these findings to the theoretical framework to elaborate the above-introduced proposition of this study. This section is followed by a conclusion and a discussion of the implications from this study.

(8)

1. Receiving contexts: political and discursive barriers and opportunities

General political and discursive barriers

In the past few decades, anti-immigrant forces in the United States and Europe3 have argued that immigrants are a threat to the nation (Berezin, 2009; De Genova 2004; Chavez 2008; Joppke, 2007). Certain groups of immigrants are considered to pose greater threats than others. Undocumented immigrants are viewed as one of the most problematic groups because their very existence is considered to be a threat to national sovereignty and the rule of law (Berezin, 2009; Chavez, 2008; Nicholls, 2013b). Fueled by a climate of economic insecurity and xenophobia, undocumented immigrants are targeted by populist and official rhetoric as threats to the economic, social, and cultural foundations of the nation-state (Chavez, 2008, Berezin, 2009; Nicholls, 2013b). For example, in popular and administrative commentary, undocumented immigrants have been represented as competitors for hard-won jobs, welfare freeloaders, polluters of national cultures and natural born criminals (Ibid).

The stigma attributed to undocumented immigrants has paved the way for the rollback of rights for this population and the roll-out of a variety of repressive measures (Nicholls, 2013b; De Genova, 2004; Chavez, 2008). While the restrictiveness of immigration policies may vary across states and across cities within states (Walker and Leitner, 2011; Varsanyi, 2008; Koopmans, 2007), there is a consensus in immigration literature that undocumented immigrants’ civic exclusion typically results in subordinate inclusion (Chauvin and Garcés-Mascareñas, 2014; Menjívar, 2006; De Genova, 2004). Undocumented immigrants are often incorporated into the political community as economic participants but denied the status of insiders, which leaves them vulnerable to exploitation (De Genova, 2004: 178). The subordination of this group is further ensured through the threat of detention and deportation, that is, the state of “deportability” (De Genova, 2002: 422). In addition, undocumented immigrants often lack access to basic social services, which puts them at risk of facing homelessness and destitution (Menjívar, 2006: 1030). Lastly, undocumented immigrants not only lack the full range of citizenship rights, but they are also often denied the opportunity to express themselves as political beings, as national and international laws and practices prohibit or make it risky for undocumented immigrants to act politically (Benhabib, 2004:

3_{Pointing to the case of undocumented migrants in Malaysia, Blanca Garcés-Mascareñas (2010) rightly notes that what it means to be}

undocumented may vary significantly across nations and continents. This section focuses on the more general political and discursive barriers and opportunities that undocumented immigrants face in Western liberal democracies.

(9)

60). This equation between citizenship and the political has created an established speaking order where undocumented migrants are rarely perceived as agents or participants capable of making claims and demanding rights (Nyers, 2010: 130).

These observations reflect Hannah Arendt’s (1976) influential discussion of the plight of stateless people in interwar Europe. What the fate of stateless people demonstrated, according to Arendt (1976: 291), was that the “universal” and “inalienable” rights that were supposed to protect all individuals could in fact only be claimed by citizens. Arendt (1976: 292) observed that “the moment human beings lacked their own government and had to fall back upon their minimum rights, no authority was left to protect them and no institution was willing to guarantee them.” The loss of national rights had become identical with the loss of human rights, the former inevitably entailed the latter. This predicament would repeat itself countless times afterwards. Recent studies have emphasized that today not all stateless persons and other undocumented immigrants lack all government protection. For example, Soysal (1997: 513) stresses that international courts and human rights organizations have gained great authority in the past few decades and played crucial roles in pressuring nation states to recognize the rights of immigrants, not on the basis of their national membership but on the basis of being humans. While recognizing the importance of these institutions in this domain, other scholars have rightly noted that as these actors mobilize in a context in which rights and privileges are still strongly shaped by nation states, international human rights laws have been enforced with varying degrees of success (Varsanyi, 2008; Gibney, 2000; Nicholls, 2013b). Hence, in the case of many of today’s stateless persons and other undocumented immigrants, Arendt’s account of statelessness still seems accurate.

Drawing on the work of Isin (2002), McNevin (2006) notes that the above described discourses and practices can be understood as strategies and technologies of citizenship, a practice which constructs relations between insiders and outsiders. McNevin (2006) stresses “The articulation of undocumented migrants as illegitimate outsiders, along with each act of interdiction, incarceration and deportation reinforces the particular account of political belonging from which the state gains its legitimacy.” Similarly, drawing on the work of Elias (1994), Nicholls (2013b) emphasizes that the social and political construction, stigmatization and exclusion of the ‘other’ mark the boundaries that make the national community sacred and help citizens to maintain their national identity, which is perceived to be increasingly threatened by globalization. Political communities are by definition closed, employ insider-outsider categories to distribute rights, and exclude insider-outsiders as a means to ensure their viability (Nicholls, 2013b: 170). Nicholls (2013b: 170) notes “The nation-state may proclaim

(10)

equality for all, but equality of rights is reserved only for its core members. The exclusionary nature of the nation-state, therefore, makes it an entity that is by definition unequal and unjust.” Hence, a central contradiction of modern citizenship is that the promise of equality for all co-exists with the reality of the social, political, and spatial exclusion of others marked as illegitimate (Nicholls, 2013a: 88).

General political and discursive opportunities

This contradiction (the promise of equal rights coupled with the exclusion of others) has been an important driver of resistances against exclusionary citizenship regimes (Nicholls, 2013a: 88). Resistance occurs as outsiders attempt to recast their identity as politically legitimate subjects of justice (Isin, 2002, cited in McNevin, 2006). Outsiders can break into the “consensual” system and disturb this order by reframing the common sense, thus rendering existing power relations strange (Rancière, 2007: 561). The struggles and strategies of gay rights and feminist organizations, working classes, ethnic minorities and so on, expose the hidden lines of exclusion, reveal their arbitrariness and call the naturalness and inevitability of the existing order into question (Isin, 2002: 275 cited in McNevin, 2006). Although there are more formal forums in which collectivities can express their grievances, according to Snow (2013b: 1) there exists wide agreement that social movements have functioned as an important vehicle for many of the most significant events and political changes throughout the course of human history. The next section explores the concept of social movements and the role of collective action frames in social movement mobilization. Before turning there, however, I will first review the general discursive and political opportunities available to undocumented immigrants and their allies in Western liberal democracies.

While national communities are by definition closed, niche openings exist for cases protected by domestic laws and international treaties (Nicholls, 2013b). A number of scholars have argued that in current neoliberal times, access to citizenship and the full rights and benefits that come with it, increasingly depends on the successful performance of deservingness (see Chauvin and Garcés-Mascareñas, 2014 for a review on this topic). Certain groups of immigrants in possession of certain sets of attributes (cultural, economic, legal, etc.) are better placed to argue that they deserve basic rights in the country than others (Chauvin and Garcés-Mascareñas, 2014; Nicholls, 2014). In fact, states in Europe and the United States have been crafting sharply dualistic immigration policies targeting low-skilled immigrants whose numbers are to be reduced while those of high-skilled immigrants are to be increased

(11)

(Joppke, 2007; Ong, 1996). Consequently, these legal categories create a stratified system of belonging, that is subject to continuous change over time as immigration law continuously constructs, differentiates and ranks various categories of immigrants in response to neoliberal policies (Varsanyi, 2008; De Genova, 2004). According to Chauvin and Garcés-Mascareñas (2014), the currently available niche openings for undocumented immigrants can be divided into performance niches for those who can demonstrate their cultural integration and/or economic contribution as residents (e.g. productive workers) and vulnerability niches for those who have come or stayed due to exceptional circumstances associated with vulnerability (e.g. persecution in one’s home country, medical emergency, victimization during or after migration). In addition, niche openings are available for those who can simultaneously provide proofs of civic integration as well as victimization (Chauvin and Garcés-Mascareñas, 2014). In order to come to a better understanding of the moralities that underlie these legal openings, I will briefly discuss two relevant shifts in moral and political discourse that have taken place in Western liberal democracies.

The first shift in discourse and policies that I will discuss is the shift towards cultural assimilation, a political response designed to protect national cultures and identities that, as noted above, are perceived to be threatened by processes of globalization that have taken place in these contexts (Berezin, 2009). A number of studies have noted that in the past few decades, governments have been moving away from the multicultural policies introduced in some countries since the 1970s, which recognize the right to cultural and religious difference (Vasta, 2007; Joppke, 2007; Entzinger, 2006; Bloemraad, 2007; Rietveld, 2013; Hurenkamp et al., 2012). New policies introduced in the late 1990s have been characterized by a move towards assimilation, with governments emphasizing national identity and shared values over cultural diversity (Ibid). As a consequence, access to national communities has come to depend on the ability of immigrants to sufficiently demonstrate identification with the dominant norms and values of the nation (Nicholls, 2013b). This widespread demand for national conformity is aptly illustrated by Joppke (2007: 5) who observes that one of the European Union’s common basic principles for immigrant integration policy states: “Basic knowledge of the host society’s language, history, and institutions is indispensable to integration.” Chauvin and Garcés-Mascareñas (2014: 427) note that in neoliberal times, gainful employment and self-sufficiency are also framed as key civic duties for citizens as well as for noncitizens. Furthermore, in addition to stressing national conformity, immigrants are increasingly expected to stress distance with “foreign” symbols, which is evident, for

(12)

example, in recent public and political controversies across Europe which focused on Islamic head and body covering (Bloemraad, 2007: 318).

Another shift in moral and political discourse and practices is the shift towards humanitarianism, which refers to a mode of governing that concerns those in the most precarious positions such as victims of poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and exile, as well as of disasters, famines, epidemics, and wars (Fassin, 2012: 5). This moral and political shift is aptly captured in Didier Fassin’s (2012) study Humanitarian Reason. According to Fassin (2012) contemporary moral economies have been constituted around a new relation to suffering which makes it a central element of our public life. Fassin (2012: 250) notes “the representation of suffering through images and narratives has become increasingly commonplace in the public sphere where it furnishes an effective justification for action.” Fassin uses the concept of moral sentiments to describe the emotions that direct our attention to the suffering of others and make us want to remedy them. These sentiments, Fassin (2012: 1) argues, have become an essential force in contemporary politics: “they nourish its discourses and legitimize its practices particularly where these discourses and practices are focused on the disadvantaged and the dominated.” Fassin notes the following paradox, which guides the deployment of moral sentiments:

On the one hand, moral sentiments are focused mainly on the poorest, most unfortunate, most vulnerable individuals: the politics of compassion is a politics of inequality. On the other hand, the condition of possibility of moral sentiments is generally the recognition of others as fellows: the politics of compassion is a politics of solidarity (Fassin, 2012: 3).

According to Fassin (2012: 3) this tension between inequality and solidarity is constitutive of all humanitarian government and explains the frequently observed ambivalence, indifference and hostility toward the victims of misfortune. This tension is grounded in classical theories on stigma and inequality-legitimating ideologies that suggest that the disadvantaged have long been stigmatized and blamed for their predicament and excluded from full social acceptance. So far, I have introduced the general political and discursive barriers and opportunities available to undocumented immigrants and their allies. In the next section, I will turn to the concept of framing and social movements and examine some of the main framing challenges that social movement confront when attending to the process of mobilizing audiences.

(13)

2. Frames, frame disputes and mobilization processes

Social movements and collective action frames

Understanding the character and course of social movements

Before I turn to the concept of framing I provide a brief discussion of the literature on the character and dynamics of social movements in order to come an understanding of the main factors that account for their emergence and flourishing. Goodwin and Jasper (2009: 4) refer to social movements as collective, organized, sustained, and non-institutional4 challenges to authorities, power-holders or cultural beliefs and practices. They are dynamic and heterogeneous entities that frequently include multiple social movement organizations (SMOs), which McCarthy and Zald (1977) define as complex or formal organizations that identify with the goals of a social movement and attempt to implement those goals. There is little question that social movements are important social phenomena (Snow, 2013b). Social movements are a major source of political change and often the first to articulate new political issues and ideas (Goodwin and Jasper, 2009: 4). As with many phenomena in the social sciences, there is little consensus as to which factors are the most important in explaining the emergence and flourishing of social movements (Snow, 2013b). Over recent years, the literature on social movements has emphasized political opportunities, resource mobilization and framing processes as central dynamics in understanding the character and course of social movements (Snow and Benford, 2000). According to Snow (2013a), these perspectives should be seen not so much as competing, but rather as shedding light on different aspects of the nature and dynamics of social movements. Writers in the political opportunity tradition suggest that the emergence and course of social movements is primarily affected by the available opportunities and threats set by the political environments in which mobilizing groups operate (e.g. Tilly, 1978; Tarrow, 1998). The resource mobilization approach places the availability and accessibility of resources (e.g. human time and effort, money, facilities) at the center of the emergence and success of social movements, which vary over space, through time and across constituency (McCarthy and Zald, 1977: 1220). The framing perspective emerged in the 1980s and can be seen as being a response to increasing criticisms that the other perspectives neglected the relationship between meaning and mobilization (Snow,

4_{As the definition suggests, scholars typically define social movements by their use of non-institutional tactics (e.g. street protests,}

occupations), however as Jasper (2008:35) notes, the majority of modern social movements employ both disruptive and institutionalized means of political influence.

(14)

2013a). This perspective rightly emphasizes that movement actors are not merely passive recipients of political opportunities. Rather they are viewed as signifying agents actively engaged in the definition and creation of opportunities through the collective attribution of meaning (Snow and Benford, 2000: 613). An opportunity, it is argued, cannot invite mobilization unless it is a) visible to potential challengers and b) perceived as an opportunity (McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly 2001: 43, cited in Goodwin and Jasper, 2004: 118). Framing scholars also suggest that perceptions are not only necessary to recognize opportunities, but can also create opportunities (Goodwin and Jasper, 1999: 52). For example, Gamson and Meyer note “if movement activists interpret political space in ways that emphasize opportunity rather than constraint, they may stimulate actions that change opportunity, making their opportunity frame a self-fulfilling prophecy” (1996: 287, cited in Snow and Benford, 2000: 613). In the next subsections I will turn to the concept of collective action frames and discuss some of the main challenges of mobilizing audiences through framing. In the final subsections I will introduce the concept of frame disputes and explore theoretical claims regarding their effects on constituent mobilization. I will draw primarily on the work of William Gamson, David Snow and Robert Benford who stand out as particularly important in laying out the conceptual groundwork for the study of framing.

Collective action frames and mobilization processes

The concept of framing is borrowed from Ervin Goffman’s work on the organization of experience (1974). For Goffman, frames denote “schemata of interpretation” that allow us to “locate, perceive, identify, and label” occurrences that are defined within the terms of that frame (Goffman, 1974: 21). Frames contribute to this interpretive work by performing three basic functions: a) they focus attention by punctuating what is relevant and what is irrelevant; b) they help to render events or occurrences meaningful by articulating and elaborating relevant elements within the frame; c) they often transform the meanings associated with the object of attention by reconstituting the way in which some objects of attention are seen or understood (Snow, 2013a). Just like everyday interactional frames, collective action frames also perform this interpretive function but in ways that are intended to mobilize people to act (Snow and Benford, 2000: 614). Snow and Benford (2000: 614) define collective action frames as “action-oriented sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of a social movement organization.” According to Snow and Benford (2000), the relative success of collective action frames in performing their mobilization functions is partly dependent on the extent to which they attend to three core

(15)

framing tasks: diagnostic framing, prognostic framing and motivational framing (Snow & Benford, 2000). I will briefly discuss each of these framing tasks.

The first task, diagnostic framing, entails two aspects: the identification of a perceived problem in need of change, and the attribution of blame or responsibility for its occurrence. It typically involves the identification of the "victims" of a given injustice, the amplification of their victimization, and the identification of targets responsible for bringing about harm and suffering (Snow and Benford, 2000: 615). The second framing task, prognostic framing, suggests a remedy for the diagnosed problem (Snow and Benford, 2000: 617). It involves the articulation of a proposed solution to the problem, or at least a plan of attack, and the frame-consistent tactics for carrying it out. This framing task typically includes refutations of the logic or efficacy of solutions advocated by opponents. The latter has been referred to as “counter framing,” a concept which, Benford defines as attempts “to rebut, undermine, or neutralize a person's or group's myths, versions of reality, or interpretive frame work" (1987 cited in Snow and Benford, 2000: 626). By pursuing these two framing tasks movement actors engage in consensus mobilization, which serves to foster or facilitate agreement among targeted audiences (Snow and Benford, 2000: 615). There are, however, a number of reasons why people who sympathize with a movement’s goals do not join collective action5. For example, personal costs can be an impediment deterring people from participating, their agreement with the movement’s political analysis not withstanding. As Gamson (1995:89) notes “Action may be risky or, at a minimum, require forgoing other more pleasurable or profitable uses of time.” Also, one may be completely convinced of the desirability of changing a situation while gravely doubting that collective action can bring about the desired change (Gamson, 1995: 89).

The aim of the third framing task, motivational framing, is to attend to such impediments. This task addresses action mobilization and serves to draw individuals to active participation, so that they move, metaphorically, from the balcony to the barricades (Snow and Benford, 2000: 615). Here it is important to note that there seems to be agreement among scholars in the framing literature that political attitudes are often developed during or after participation, rather than a priori (e.g. Benford, 1993a: 209; Gamson, 1995: 89). For example, Gamson (1995: 89) stresses that agreement with a movement’s political analysis is not necessarily a precondition for participation, as “people sometimes act first and only through

5_{I use the following definition of collective action participation: Any time people are acting as a member of the group and}

(16)

participating develop the political consciousness that supports the action.” This observation is in agreement with that of Goffman (1974: 21) who suggested that individuals need not be able to articulate or even recognize all components of a frame to apply it as an interpretive schema. Literature on collective action mobilization suggests that the perceived efficacy of joining others in the cause, perceptions of injustice and a sense of identification with the collectivity can be considered key variables in predicting collective action (e.g. see Klandermans, 2013). I will briefly discuss these concepts below.

Before collective action is likely to occur, a critical mass of people must socially construct a sense of injustice, which refers to a sense of moral indignation (Benford, 1997: 415). Benford (1993a: 201) notes that the challenge for movement actors is to convince audiences that the problem is so serious and urgent that they must take action to alleviate it. Similarly, Gamson (1995: 90) notes that injustice is not merely a cognitive or intellectual judgment about what is fair but what psychologists call a ‘hot cognition,’ one that is laden with emotion. Injustice, as Gamson (1995: 91) puts it, “focuses on the righteous anger that puts fire in the belly and iron in the soul.” Also significant in explaining movement participation is the concept of collective identity, which refers to “a shared sense of ‘one-ness’ or ‘we-ness’ among those individuals who compose the collectivity” (Snow and McAdam, 2000, 42). Individuals come to see themselves as part of a group when some shared characteristic becomes salient and is defined as important (Van Stekelenburg, 2013: 2). The more people identify with a group the more they are inclined to be morally outraged on behalf of that group and the more they are inclined to engage in collective action (Van Stekelenburg and Klandermans, 2013: 890; Hoffman, 1990: 167). Lastly, there is agreement among scholars that people are more likely to participate in collective action when they believe that the action will be efficacious, that is, that collective action can bring about the desired change (Gamson, 1995, 90; Benford, 1993: 204). The more effective people believe collective action participation to be, the more they are inclined to participate (Ibid).

So far, I have identified the main components of a frame and the mobilization processes by which social movement actors may win adherents (i.e. those who sympathize with the movement’s goals) and draw people into collective action. In the next subsection I will introduce the concept of solidarity in order to address the challenge of producing

sustained mobilization. Nicholls notes that this is a goal that many mobilizations have failed

to reach: “In countless cases, the claims of protesters pierce the public sphere and then quickly fade from the public’s political imagination” (Nicholls, 2013b: 14). This discussion is followed by an introduction to two citizenship rights frames commonly used in immigrant

(17)

rights protests, which will be elaborated in the empirical section, and an introduction to two framing strategies, conceptualized as frame alignment strategies, that will help us to understand the main strengths and limitations of both citizenship rights frames.

Sustaining mobilization: the challenge of constructing solidarity among multiple audiences

Solidarity is one of the concepts6 considered to be important in explaining how movements mobilize adherents and participants around a cause (e.g. see Benford, 2013b for a review on this topic). Social movement literature suggests that this concept is closely associated with the concept of collective identity and perceptions of injustice, as solidarity depends upon an identification with a collectivity as well as the identification of a common cause or fate (Hunt and Benford 2004: 434, 439). Hunt and Benford refer to solidarity as “an identification with a collectivity such that an individual feels as if a common cause and fate are shared” (2004: 439). Similarly, for Fireman and Gamson ‘‘solidarity is rooted in the configuration of relationships linking the members of a group to one another’’ (1979: 21, cited in Hunt and Benford, 2004). The concept has been conceptualized as having two basic foci: internal and external (Benford, 2013b: 1). Internal solidarity is focused on the specific group or movement organization to which an individual belongs. External solidarity pertains to the identification of and with groups to which a person does not belong (Hunt & Benford, 2004). Research suggests that the ability of movements to sustain mobilization is partly dependent on the extent to which they succeed in constructing both internal and external solidarity, as frames that either fail to generate support among bystanders or potential adherents, or to draw individuals to active participation, fall on deaf ears (Snow and Corrigall-Brown, 2005: 223). In turn, the construction and promotion of a collective sense of solidarity contributes both to empowerment within a movement, as well as to an increased concern on the part of the movement’s opponents about the movement’s potential to disrupt the status quo (Benford, 2013b). In the next few paragraphs, I will discuss two prevalent strategic processes, conceptualized as frame alignment strategies (Snow and Benford, 2000: 624), that are used to construct solidarity among a targeted audience through the linkage or conjunction of a social movement organization’s interests and frame(s) with the recipients of a frame. These alignment strategies are referred to as frame bridging and frame transformation. As noted

6_{Here it is important to note that the concept of frame resonance is often referred to as related to the mobilizing capacity of a frame (Snow}

and Benford, 2000: 619 - 622). However, as this concept represents a difficult phenomenon to define and measure the theoretical and empirical part of this research focus primarily on the concept of solidarity.

(18)

above, insight into these strategic processes will help us to better understand some of the main strengths and limitations of two citizenship rights frames commonly used by immigrant rights activists, which will be introduced below and discussed in detail in the empirical part of this paper.

Frame alignment strategies and the main strengths of two citizenship rights frames

The most prevalent frame alignment processes, according to Snow and Benford (2000: 624), is frame bridging. Frame bridging occurs between organizations, or at the individual level, when two or more ideologically compatible but previously unconnected frames regarding a particular issue are linked together into a single frame (Snow and Benford, 2000: 624). Hence, a large number of diverse claims included in struggles is evidence of frame bridging (Tarrow, 2003: 21). In the context of immigrant rights mobilization, literature suggests that the universal legalization frame is a frame with frame-bridging capacity (e.g. McNevin, 2006; Nicholls, 2013b). This frame links the formal exclusion and subordinate inclusion of undocumented immigrants to the root cause, that is, the system of neoliberal globalization. Those employing this frame call into question the very existence of borders and demand equal rights for all immigrants irrespective of their national origin, culture or legal status. Hence the frequently used slogan ‘no human being is illegal’ (Chauvin and Garcés-Mascarenas, 2014; McNevin, 2006; Nyers, 2010). McNevin’ (2006: 146) study on the struggle of a French sans

papiers movement emphasizes the considerable frame-bridging capacity of this frame when

noting that identifying the struggle as a “more generalized opposition to neoliberalism” has enabled activists to bridge their frame and forge solidarity alliances with undocumented immigrants in France and other states, non-immigrant organizations such as French trade unions and a range of other supportive organizations throughout Europe and globally.

A second important alignment process, frame transformation, is the most important framing device in movements that radically challenge conventional lifestyles and existing interpretive frames (Tarrow, 1998: 110). Those who oppose the changes advocated by a movement may then publicly challenge the movement's framings (Snow and Benford, 2000: 626, Snow et al., 1986: 473). When such is the case, old understandings and meanings have to be changed and new ones have to be generated, so that things are seen differently than before (Snow et al., 1986: 474). One aspect relevant to this interpretive change is a change in the perceived seriousness of the condition, such that what was previously seen as an unfortunate but tolerable situation is redefined as inexcusable, unjust, or immoral (Snow et al., 1986: 474). Another important aspect is a corresponding shift in attributional orientation. As Snow

(19)

et al. (1986: 474) note, a life of impoverishment may be defined as an injustice, but its relationship to action is partly dependent on whether blame or responsibility is internalized or externalized. The shift involves a change from victim-blaming to system-blaming and from fatalism or self-blaming to structural-blaming (Snow et al., 1986: 474). In the context of immigrant rights protests, research suggests that the deserving immigrant frame is a frame with frame-transformation capacity. Rather than advocating for equal rights for all immigrants irrespective of their attributes, those employing the deserving immigrant frame claim legalization for individuals or groups of immigrants with specific attributes on the basis of a particular niche (e.g. being a student, a worker, or a refugee) (Chauvin and Garcés-Mascareñas, 2014). Nicholls’ (2013b) study of the United States-based immigrant rights movement the DREAMers aptly demonstrates the frame-transformation capacity of the deserving immigrant frame. Nicholls study demonstrates that in order to mobilize solidarity among a leery and antagonistic public, undocumented immigrants must craft discourses that represent undocumented immigrants in ways that align with the dominant values of the national public and that focus narrowly on highlighting specific attributes that match existing niche openings (Nicholls, 2013b: 10). For example, Nicholls (2013b: 176) notes that this may require undocumented immigrants to stress attributes such as individual talents and work ethic that nationals would recognize as good and virtuous. Also, recent studies suggest that in the current era of increasing criminalization of migration, demonstrating conformity with normative values of the nation often requires undocumented immigrants to stress that they have come or stayed due to factors that are “no fault of their own” (e.g. due to exceptional circumstances associated with vulnerability) and that it was and not a matter of choice (Chauvin and Garcés-Mascareñas, 2014: 426; Nicholls, 2013b: 54). Nicholls explains that such discourses may cleanse the group of polluting stigmas, introduced in the first section of this paper, that are commonly attributed to undocumented immigrants (de-stigmatize) and provide a justification for an exemption from exclusionary immigration laws (Nicholls, 2013b: 12). Nicholls underscores the frame-transformation capacity of this frame when noting that “Demonstrating the way [undocumented immigrants] fit into the country and identify with national values transforms immigrants from foreign and threatening outcasts into acceptable and sympathetic newcomers” (Nicholls, 2013a: 91 emphasis added). Nicholls’ (2013b) study demonstrates that the use of this frame has allowed undocumented students of the DREAMers movement to effectively mobilize solidarity among undocumented students, the broad public and a variety of allies such as well-established immigrant rights organizations, politicians, etc.

(20)

Frame alignment strategies and the main limitations of the two citizenship rights frames

As noted above, one of the most important and challenging tasks for social movements is to mobilize solidarity among of different audiences simultaneously. A frame that succeeds in mobilizing solidarity among some audiences may fail to construct solidarity among other audiences that share different interests, values or attitudes and therefore potentially lack the capacity to produce sustained mobilization around a common frame. This challenge of mobilizing multiple audiences may result in frame disputes and the use of multiple frames for different audiences. I will introduce the concept of frame disputes and explore theoretical claims regarding the effects of such disputes in the next subsection. But first, I will explore some of the main limitations of the above-discussed citizenship rights frames identified in literature. Insight into the strengths and limitations of both citizenship rights frames will help us to understand some of the main sources of frame disputes that may erupt between those in favor of different citizenship rights frames. Furthermore, the below discussion of the trade-offs associated with the use of these frames will help us to identify the complementary aspects of the two frames, which will be elaborated in detail in the empirical section.

I start with discussing the main limitation of the deserving immigrant frame. While this exclusive frame seems to have a considerable frame-transformation capacity, research suggests that it has a weak capacity of frame bridging. For example, Nicholls’ (2013b: 158) study on the undocumented student movement the DREAMers suggests that the frame’s narrow focus on immigration reform conceptually obscured the link with other movements for social justice (e.g. non-immigrant rights organizations), thereby undermining activists’ abilities to bridge their frames and build solidarity alliances with these groups. Nicholls (2013b: 158) notes: “While non-immigrant rights organizations may have sympathized with past struggles to win immigration reforms […], they were reluctant to contribute their own resources to these campaigns because [the movement’s] goals were narrow immigration reform.”

Conversely, the above-introduced universal legalization frame with its considerable frame-bridging capacity, seems to lack the capacity of frame transformation. Rather than changing dominant opinions, recent studies suggest that in political contexts characterized by restrictive immigration policies and high levels of hostility toward undocumented immigrants, more radical discourses that call for the end of borders and the extension of citizenship rights for all undocumented immigrants, irrespective of their attributes, would likely be ignored or rejected by a broad public (e.g. Nicholls, 2013b: 12). The latter limitation of the universal legalization frame has led some scholars to suggest that in these political contexts, the

(21)

discursive strategy that is likely to be the most effective for immigrant rights mobilizations is to use a common frame that focuses narrowly on targeting a particular niche opening (i.e. the deserving immigrant frame) as well as a centralized communication strategy that ensures a consistent message by silencing those public utterances that may distort the central message of the frame (e.g. Nicholls, 2013b: 135). This study takes a different view in that it proposes a modification to the above theory. As I will elaborate and suggest in the empirical section, in these political contexts and under certain additional conditions that will be discussed later, the public use of multiple frames simultaneously is likely to be the most effective discursive strategy for specific immigrant rights movements as in these contexts and under these specific conditions it is unlikely that a movement can sustain mobilization using only the exclusive deserving immigrant frame. In order words, in these political contexts and under conditions that will be specified later, frame disputes and the use of multiple frames they engender can be strategically beneficial by allowing an immigrant rights movement to construct solidarity among distinct audiences that provide resources that may be both complementary and indispensable to sustain mobilization. In the next few paragraphs I will introduce the concept of frame disputes and explore theoretical claims regarding their effects on constituent mobilization.

Frame disputes and their effects on constituent mobilization Introduction to the concept of frame disputes

Frame disputes have been referred to as “differences of opinion or preference regarding claims associated with framing activities that social movement actors fashion” (Benford, 2013a: 1). Such disputes are a pervasive aspect of movement’s dynamics and generally erupt between ideologically diverse wings of a movement (Snow and Benford, 2000: 626). As Benford (2013a) notes “At one extreme are those moderates who prefer to build bridges and establish allies with the targets of change. At the other extreme are those who prefer to dethrone the current elites and to build an entirely new system.” According to Benford (2013a: 1) frame disputes tend to take three forms: 1) Disputes that pertain to diagnostic framing - the identification of a perceived problem and the attribution of blame; 2) Disputes that entail disagreements regarding prognoses - what is to be done to correct the designated problem; 3) Disputes that erupt from motivational framing - how the movement should portray its grievances and solutions so as to maximize mobilization.

Some studies suggest that such infighting is particularly salient in the struggles of identity movements (e.g. LGBT and immigrant rights movements) due to the zero-sum

(22)

character inherent to these types of struggles (e.g. Lobel, 2007; Nicholls, 2013b). For example, Nicholls (2013b) study notes that by stressing those attributes that make certain groups of undocumented immigrants into “good” and “deserving” immigrants (e.g. culturally assimilated, contributing workers, families), those lacking the same attributes (e.g. culturally unassimilated, jobless, single males) are by default less deserving. Similarly, other scholars have noted that with a focus on legal reform, immigrant rights groups indeed reproduce, within themselves, the exclusionary and polarizing tendencies characteristic of neoliberal politics (Mayer, 2000; Uitermark, 2012; Uitermark and Nicholls, 2014; Nicholls, 2013b; Lobel, 2007; McNevin, 2006). As I will discuss below, Nicholls’ (2011) study shows that the frame disputes that emerge from these internal hierarchies and exclusions may undermine internal solidarity in such a way as to tear a movement apart.

The targets of social movements often take advantage of a lack of unity amongst actors with regard to framing and tactics. As Benford (1993a: 696) notes “a movement comprised of opposing factions is particularly vulnerable to ‘divide and conquer’ tactics.” For example, authorities may try to sideline the militant wing of a movement and decide to interact only with the counterpart that is perceived to be more moderate (Coy, 2013). Also, authorities may attempt to co-opt a movement by bringing some movement actors into the system as participants (Coy, 2013). In turn, these developments may instigate and aggravate conflicts and antagonisms within movement organizations and within the movement sector (e.g. Mayer, 2000; Uitermark and Nicholls, 2014).

The effects of frame disputes on constituent mobilization

The above introduction may give the impression that frame disputes are a destructive force within social movements. However, studies on the effects of frame disputes on constituent mobilization suggest that such disputes may have very different effects depending on the specific nature of the mobilization. On the one hand, studies suggest that frame disputes and the use of multiple frames these engender may facilitate both the mobilizing potential and political achievement of social movements (Resnick, 2009; McCammon et al., 2008; Jessup, 1997 cited in Benford 2013). For example, Resnick’s (2009) study of a transnational movement’s framing rifts notes that frame disputes and the use of multiple frames they engender can be strategically beneficial by allowing a movement to appeal to different audiences, international and domestic, who offer the movement distinct and complementary resources. While such findings are grounded in classical arguments regarding the positive functions of social conflict (Coser 1956 cited in Benford, 1993a), other researchers have

(23)

noted that such disputes can thwart mobilization and foster the extinction of movements by, amongst other mechanisms, increasing competition among participants over attracting scarce resources (e.g. Snow & McAdam, 2000: 61; Tarrow, 1998: 23; Nicholls, 2011: 17). For example, Snow & McAdam (2000: 61) note that as cohesive movements grow beyond their localized origins and become increasingly heterogeneous in composition, resultant conflicts and identity divergence can foreshadow rapid movement decline. Similarly, Nicholls (2011) study on a French sans papiers movement demonstrates that competition among participants over attracting scarce resources can foster the extinction of a movement. Nicholls (2011) study notes that cooperative networks between resource-poor undocumented activists and resource-rich French support associations placed the latter in a dominant representational position within the network. The study demonstrates that salient disputes between those who advocated for the goal of ensuring regularization of all sans papiers and those who advocated for the regularization of certain categories of immigrants (i.e. parents) to the neglect of others led to the movement’s rapid demise.

The above discussion of the effects of frame disputes and the use of multiple frames they engender on a social movement’s mobilizing potential suggests that this is a highly contingent process that depends on the specific nature of the mobilization. The above research suggests that, in some contexts, frame disputes tend to be predominantly facilitative of a movements mobilizing potential, whereas, in other contexts, such infighting may lead to a movement’s rapid demise. It remains, however, an open question under which conditions frame disputes and the use of multiple frames these engender tend to be predominantly facilitative of or detrimental to the mobilizing potential of social movements. Benford (2013) recently noted:

While numerous social movement scholars have analyzed the causes and subjects of frame disputes within various contemporary social movements, only a few have sought to determine the effects of such intramural conflicts. ... Additional research needs to illuminate the conditions under which frame disputes tend to be facilitative of or detrimental to the achievement of SMO and social movement goals as well as to the longevity of SMOs and social movements.

The present study has sought to contribute to an understanding of this issue by examining how frame disputes and the use of multiple frames they engendered affected the mobilizing potential of the movement under study as well as the conditions under which such disputes affected constituent mobilization.

Consistent with some of the above-mentioned research, this study suggests that frame disputes were predominantly facilitative of the mobilizing potential of the ‘We Are Here’

(24)

movement by allowing the movement to mobilize solidarity among distinct audiences that provided resources that were both complementary and indispensable to sustained mobilization. The study identifies the following combination of conditions, which will be elaborated in the empirical chapter, under which frame disputes and the use of multiple frames they engender are likely to be strategically beneficial for an immigrant rights movement. First, the condition of a localized, resource-poor movement consisting of a considerably heterogeneous group of immigrants forming the movement’s social base (that is, heterogeneous in terms of legal, economic and cultural attributes) is likely to prevent a movement from sustaining mobilization with the sole use of the deserving immigrant frame. The findings of this study suggest that the combination of limitations imposed by the locality and the condition of a considerably heterogeneous group of immigrants forming the movement’s social base may prevent a movement from sustaining solidarity among a considerable part of its core members when using only the deserving immigrant frame. Under these conditions, the exclusive discourses of this frame, which target narrow niche openings, may only represent a fraction of immigrants within the localized collective that share the same attributes. In addition, the findings of this study suggest that resource scarcity within a movement resulting from, for example, a lack of access to substantial amounts of resources from well-established NGOs, can render a movement highly dependent on resources provided by a range of smaller social justice organizations. Consistent with research cited above (e.g. Nicholls, 2013b: 158), the findings of this study suggest that it is likely that the sole use of the exclusive deserving immigrant frame will not allow a movement to sustain solidarity among these audiences.

Second, the findings of this study suggests that the condition of a movement operating in a political context characterized by restrictive immigration and asylum policies and anti-immigrant forces is likely to prevent a movement from sustaining mobilization with the sole use of the universal legalization frame. Consistent with above mentioned research (Nicholls, 2013b: 12), the findings of this study suggest that the frame’s more radical discourses that call for the end of borders and the extension of citizenship rights to all undocumented immigrants irrespective of their attributes, are likely to be ignored or rejected by mainstream actors (e.g. representatives of mainstream media, politicians etc.). As I will elaborate in the empirical chapter, under these conditions, the use of both citizenship rights frames simultaneously may allow a movement to mobilize solidarity among distinct audiences that provide complementary resources.

(25)

Third, the condition of demands for basic human needs among immigrants forming the movement’s social base may introduce a common short-term goal among those in favor of different citizenship rights frames, that is, the goal of ensuring access to these basic needs. In turn, this common goal may allow movement participants to adopt an additional common frame (i.e. the basic needs frame) in combination with the citizenship rights frames, which may further mediate tensions between participants in favor of competing citizenship rights frames and foster solidarity among a broad coalition of actors including refugee-activists that do not share the same attributes. As I will demonstrate in the empirical chapter, under the above conditions movement participants may experience strong interdependencies among themselves. In turn, these interdependencies were partly responsible for motivating participants to adopt a pluralistic attitude to framing and offer flexibility in dealing with the frame disputes. I will elaborate on these mechanisms and conditions in the final section. First I will introduce the methodological considerations that guided the collection and interpretation of the empirical data.

(26)

3. Methodological considerations

Research design and selected case

The research and theorizing of this study follow a deductive methodological approach inspired by Michael Burawoy’s ‘extended case method’. Burawoy (1998: 5) argues that we should use existing theories in order to extract the general from the unique, to move from the “micro” to the “macro” and to connect the present to the past. But equally important, according to Burawoy, is that we seek out refutations in order to propose modifications to existing theories. As Burawoy (1998: 16) notes “We begin with our favorite theory but seek not confirmations but refutations that inspire us to deepen that theory.” Hence, from this approach, the uniqueness of a case is not seen as a cause for theoretical dejection but for an opportunity for novel angles of vision and theoretical expansion (Burawoy, 1998: 22). Once modified, the theory is more robust and therefore better able to explain empirical realities in

other cases (this is what Burawoy calls ‘extending out’ from the case).

The extended case method is a reflexive model of science that embraces not detachment but engagement as the road to knowledge (Burawoy, 1998: 5). It takes as its premise the intersubjectivity of scientist and subject of study, and deploys participant observation to locate everyday life in its extra local and historical context (Burawoy, 1998: 1). Participant observers join the subjects of study in their natural environment for extended periods of time employing different roles on a continuum from detached observer to full-fledged, active participant (Emerson, 2001: 1). This insider-outsider perspective provides researchers with unique insights into how subjects of study define and make meaning of their reality (Emerson, 2001: 2). In turn, thorough knowledge about what happens on the ground in the daily lives of the subjects of study can provide important information to challenge our assumptions (Ibid). To carry out ethnographic7 research, the participant observer takes extensive descriptive notes on the people, places, actions, and interactions under study, codes those notes into emergent categories, develops new hypotheses or refines initial ones, chooses new settings or people for further observation, all of which differ from the conventional hypothesis-testing logic of social science (Lichterman, 2013). Followed in a rigorous and self-reflexive way, this process of coding and observing produces a well-supported, social-scientific argument (Ibid).

7

In this study the terms ethnography and participant observation are used interchangeably. Burawoy (1998: 6) refers to ethnography as “writing about the world from the standpoint of participant observation.”

The benefits of frame disputes for immigrant rights movements : the case of Amsterdam’s ‘we are here’ movement