Introduction

The aim of this paper is to consider how and why issues of gender politics become salient in the mainstream analysis of political behaviour in the United States, and in particular how the agenda of the women's movement combined with popular accounts in the media to frame the dominant interpretation of the gender gap in political science. To argue this case the paper explores theories of framing, which have become popular in media studies, and considers how this could also be applied to understand the dominant agenda in political science. The conclusion considers the implications for how we study gender politics in political science.

Theories of Framing Gender Politics

One way to understand the politics of gender is through the theory of framing, first introduced by the sociologist Erving Goffman (1974). Frames provide contextual cues giving order and meaning to complex problems, actions, and events. Defined fairly narrowly, the concept of framing refers to subtle issues of presentation (Iyengar, 1991). In surveys, even small changes in the wording of question choices has been found to produce different preferences among respondents (Iyengar, 1991). Such framing effects have been detected in experimental and survey studies across a wide range of subjects. Defined more broadly, frames provide interpretative structures which set particular events within their broader context (Entman, 1991, 1993a; Gitlin, 1980, 1994).In popular culture, frames guide the selection, presentation, and evaluation of information, for journalists and readers, by slotting the novel into familiar categories. In Gitlin's words:

Media frames are persistent patterns of cognition, interpretation, and presentation, of selection, emphasis, and exclusion, by which symbol handlers routinely organise discourse, whether verbal or visual. (Gitlin, 1980, p. 7)

Some simple examples make the concept clearer. Within election campaigns the familiar 'horse race' frame (who is ahead, who is behind) dominates coverage of the primaries (Hallin, 1990). In discussing Vietnam, Americans who refused to serve in the war were commonly referred to as draft 'evaders', rather than in their own term, as draft 'resisters' (Tuchman, 1978). In covering the student protest movement, activists were widely depicted as scruffy, flag-burning, radical extremists on the streets contrasted with calm, reasonable-sounding authorities in the studio (Gitlin, 1980; Small, 1994). In reporting complex acts of 'terrorist' violence the victim-perpetrator frames amplifies the attribution of responsibility (Cohen and Wolfsfeld, 1993). The black-white 'race riot' frame often shapes coverage of civil disturbances, even where inappropriate (Smith, 1994). The developing world has long criticised the framing of news about their countries only in terms of 'coups, earthquakes and disasters'(Mowlana, 1985). International conflict was often explained by a 'Cold War' frame identifying friends and enemies, until this broke down following the fall of the Berlin Wall (Norris, 1996). Alternative social movements such as anti-nuclear groups (Entman, 1993b) have been framed in ways which they judge inappropriate.

Since the concept of 'framing' is complex, we need to try to clarify the main components. The theory remains under-developed, nevertheless it provides a general framework to help understand why there have been common criticisms by women of the conventional gender lens provided in popular accounts and political science. When applied to communications, the theory suggests that news 'frames' to simplify, prioritise, and structure the narrative flow of events (Tuchman, 1978; Gitlin, 1980). News frames bundle key concepts, stock phrases, and conventional images to reinforce common ways of presenting developments. Events are open to multiple interpretations, but some frames become the conventional way to treat developments. The essence of framing is selection to prioritise some facts, events or developments over others, thereby promoting a particular interpretation (Entman, 1993a). Reporters can 'tell it like it is' within 60 seconds, rapidly sorting key events from surrounding trivia, by drawing on reservoirs of familiar stories to cue readers. Through the selection, presentation and evaluation of information particular events are understood within broader interpretative categories (Gitlin, 1980).

Where do frames comes from? Following Gans (1979), we can suggest that media frames are the product of the interaction between sources, journalists and audiences. The broader political process provides a range of sources, notably the communication strategies of politicians, parties and groups, such as the role of NOW and academic analysts in publicising the gender gap. Once frames are established, Tuchman (1978) suggests they are institutionalised by news organisations, including news 'beats' and 'pack' journalism. Frames can be reinforced by professional training, practices and cultures which strengthen a common interpretation of events. Lastly, frames can be influenced by the dominant norms and values of the audience in the wider political culture.

The effects of framing may be positive, negative, or neutral for women, depending upon the broader political context. Stories about a woman running for the Senate, for example, may be framed as a breakthrough for an 'outsider', someone who can bring a more honest, caring and fresh approach to politics as usual (the 'Mom in tennis shoes'). This may be electorally advantageous for women candidates if voters are unhappy with Congress and want to rid themselves of incumbents. Yet this may be an electoral liability if voters feel that they need experienced leaders to deal with serious problems of the federal deficit or international security. The context influences whether the media acts as an obstacle or resource for women (Kahn, 1991b).

Applying Frames to the Gender Gap

To understand how frames are used to interpret gender politics we can compare the way a gendered lens has been used to interpret recent American elections. After the 1982 elections there were a slew of articles about the 'gender gap' in the electorate. The story originated from the National Organisation of Women, who developed the phrase as a dramatic and simple way to publicise the women's vote (Bonk, 1988). The story first broke with Judy Mann "Women are Emerging as Political Force" in The Washington Post (October 16 1981), based on a briefing pamphlet developed by NOW. The story was picked up again in a lengthy, front-page article by Adam Clymer in The New York Times in June 1982, who throughout focused on the change among women rather than men:

HEADLINE "Women's Political Habits Show Sharp Change"

The political habits of women appear to be undergoing deep changes that worry the Republicans and raise long-range hopes of the Democrats. A variety of newly available statistics show that women, who in the past have voted at a lower rate than men, are now voting at roughly the same level. These statistics also show that women, whose political attitudes used to be barely distinguishable from those of men, are beginning to take positions on issues that sharply differ from those taken by men.

By October, the gender gap had become one of the major stories in the campaign, an issue discussed by campaign managers and pollsters. Throughout the focus remained on how women's voting behaviour had shifted, speculation about the possible reasons for this, and reaction by party strategists. The story took off dramatically in the analysis of the mid-term results (Borquez, Goldenberg and Kahn, 1988), where the gender gap was treated as one of the most significant developments in the election, indeed the basis for a possible realignment. In Adam Clymer's words:

But another kind of realignment, in which more women are tying themselves to the Democratic Party while men vote more heavily for Republicans, could have a more profound impact on American politics than a shift in partisan dominance. This so-called gender gap....may influence American life in the 1980s as much as the civil rights revolution did in the 1960s. (Adam Clymer, The New York Times October 31 1982, 4:1.)

The extensive coverage of the gender gap in 1983 and 1984 provided leverage which prioritised women's issues, and strongly influenced the choice of Geraldine Ferraro as Vice Presidential candidate in the Democratic party. Moreover it generated a substantial academic literature seeking to explain this 'new' phenomenon.

Why was the 1982 election framed in terms of the gender gap? Was it because this was the first time there had been a significant difference in the voting preferences of American women and men? No. During the 1950s Gallup surveys indicate there was a consistent gender gap, with women leaning towards the Republicans (Stanley and Niemi, 1994, 105), but this received minimal coverage in the news. Moreover, as an alternative frame, the story about gender differences in voting during the 1980s could have been framed in terms of a strong Republican shift among men, yet this was far less common. Stronger Democratic support among women, although one interpretation among differing meanings, rapidly became the conventional way to understand this development.

Gender Gap in Voting, 1952-1994

% Voting Democratic:

year------Men-----Women
1952-----47-------42
1956-----45-------39
1960-----52-------49
1964-----60-------62
1968-----41-------45
1972-----37-------38
1976-----53-------48
1980-----38-------44
1988-----44-------48
1992-----41-------46
1994-----46-------54

In the same way, the 1992 election was widely framed as the 'Year of the Woman'. Why? Four new women won Senate seats. Twenty-four new women were elected to the House, raising the number of women there from twenty-nine to forty-seven. Women continued to increase their numbers in state legislatures. But women remained far from parity. Nearly all women who challenged House or Senate incumbents lost, often by large margins. Moreover, it was not the year for all women: few who won were Republicans. As we have seen earlier, women's representation in Congress remains low compared with legislatures in many established democracies. If we compare the proportion of women in the House with comparable legislatures, there are twice as many women in Canada, Austria and Germany; three times as many in the Netherlands and Denmark; four times as many in Sweden, Norway and Finland. The advancement brought America up to the world average, no better. In this context, the election could have been framed equally accurately as the year where women's gains in the United States were much as might be expected from world-wide secular trends. Or the year where America did much worse than many comparable countries. But no, the frame overwhelmingly emphasised the positive news of 'dramatic' gains. Similar trends in the 1992 British general election, where women MPs increased from 6.2 to 9.6 per cent, were covered by the press in one or two articles at most, and were regarded by women activists as relatively disappointing. Therefore the frame offered one meaning to the outcome, out of many alternatives. Yet this popular frame shaped the scholarly literature and research agenda in political science.

In the same way the 1994 mid-term Congressional elections were framed as the 'Year of the Angry White Male', on grounds which are strongly open to challenge. In a Nexis search of the major newspapers since 1990, the first reference to this phrase came in an article by Richard Morin and Barbara Vobejda on November 10 1994 in The Washington Post:

Two years ago, it was the Year of the Woman. This time around, the election may become known as the Year of the Man, or the Year of the Angry Man....

In the next two weeks the phrase 'angry white male voter' was rapidly picked by all over the country in the post-mortem of the election results, in The Atlanta Constitution (November 12th), The Houston Post (November 14th), The Los Angeles Times (November 15th), The Boston Herald (November 15th), USA Today (November 18th), and so on. Interviews rapidly located people who had started to describe them selves as' angry white men'. Some journalists challenged the framing, but most went along. By the end of November, the following example in The Plain Dealer was typical coverage:

HEADLINE: "White male voters receptive to GOP message"

Democratic and Republican leaders, meeting separately to rehash the election, agreed on one conclusion: Angry white men fuelled the GOP landslide and could consign Democrats to long-term minority status.

The Democrats, meeting at Walt Disney World in Florida to figure out what went wrong, talked about winning back independents, increasing their margin among union members and finding some way to become competitive in the South. They conceded, with some discomfort, that all of these categories were a manifestation of a problem that has been building for a generation:

White men increasingly don't vote Democratic.
(Peter A. Brown, The Plain Dealer November 27 1994, 8)

The 'gender gap' story was turned on its head. The Nexis search revealed no recent references to 'angry white men' voters in the major American papers prior to November 10 1994. By the end of the year thirty-two stories had appeared about this, with the number escalating to 208 stories in spring/summer 1995. Therefore in successive elections first the Democratic edge among women, then the Republican edge among men, (angry or not), became the conventional interpretation of gender differences in voting behaviour, the dominant frame which could be adopted in a flexible way to cover stories about different regions, candidates, or party strategies. As shown in Figure 1, the basic gender difference between women and men voters had not substantially altered, but the media frame switched with the suddenness of a roller coaster.

The Theory of Framing and Political Science

The theory of framing has been applied most extensively in communications studies yet it can equally be translated to understand the nature of the dominant agenda in political science. Since frames can be expected to reflect broader social norms, political minorities challenging the dominant culture are most likely to prove critical of the way they are portrayed. Journalists and their readers, or political scientists, are likely to regard frames as 'just common sense'. This is particularly common in mainstream political science where we have a unified discipline, colleagues are addressing a broad audience, and we share a common cultural consensus. The situation is more complex where colleagues are seeking to address a specific subgroup of the profession, such as those studying development politics or women and politics. Major disputes about the dominant frames in political science arise when colleagues aim to reach a wide audience which is deeply divided, where the interpretation and depiction of politics is a matter of cultural dissonance. The battle over the dominant frames in political science is itself a political process when minorities challenge the creation and portrayal of social reality.

Understood in this way, it becomes clearer why the usual gender lens in popular accounts and in political science has often been criticised by women. During the last thirty years the women's movement has sought to challenge the dominant culture and social norms. Periods of major cultural change - like the transformation in women and men's role in politics since the 1960s - highlight awareness of frames. Traditional gender roles, once taken for granted, come to be seen as out of touch with social reality. If political scientists are unaware of these developments, projecting images of women which are no longer appropriate, their portrayal of the sexes may no longer be seen as meeting academic standards of accuracy and balance. The process of social change requires political scientists to be sensitive to slow, subtle, grinding shifts in the tectonic plates of society. Moreover, since political science departments continue to be disproportionately white, male and middle-class, based on their own experience colleagues may not understand why traditional gender frames are no longer appropriate in a more diverse society.

Notes and References

Borquez, Julio, Edie N. Goldenberg and Kim Fridkin Kahn. 1988. "Press Portrayals of the Gender Gap", in The Politics of the Gender Gap (ed) Carol M.Mueller. Beverly Hills, CA., Sage.
Bonk, Kathy. 1988. "The Selling of the 'Gender Gap': The Role of Organized Feminism" in Carol M. Mueller (ed). 1988. The Politics of the Gender Gap Newbury Park, CA, Sage.
Cohen, Akiba A. and Gadi Wolfsfeld, eds. 1993. Framing the Intifada: People and Media. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Dines, Gail and Jean M.Humez (eds). 1995. Gender, Race and Class in Media. Thousand Oaks, CA,: Sage.
Entman, Robert M. 1993a. "Framing: Towards Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm." Journal of Communication 43/4.
Entman, Robert. 1993b. "Freezing out the Public: Elite and Media Framing of the U.S. Anti-Nuclear Movement." Political Communication 10/2, pp. 55-173.
Entman,RobertM.1991. "Framing U.S.Coverage of International News" Journal of Communication 41/4. pp. 6-28.
Faludi, Susan. 1991. Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. New York: Crown Publishers.
Gans, Herbert. 1979. Deciding What's News. NewYork, Pantheon.
Gitlin, Todd. 1994. Inside Prime Time. London: Routledge.
Gitlin, Todd. 1980. The Whole World is Watching Berkeley, University of California Press.
Goffman, Ervine. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York, Harper & Row.
Hallin, Daniel 'Sound bite news' in Gary Orren (ed)Blurring the Lines Free Press, New York, 1990.
Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1994a. "The Distorted Mirror: Press Coverage of Women Candidates for Statewide Office". Journal of Politics. 56/1, pp. 154-74.
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1991a."Women Candidates in the News: An Examination of Gender Differences in U.S. Senate Campaign Coverage" Public Opinion Quarterly 55/2, pp. 180-200.
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. 1991b. "The Media: Obstacle or Ally of Feminists?" The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 515/2, pp. 104-113.
Lont, Cynthia M. (ed). 1995. Women and Media: Content/Careers/Criticism. Belmont, C.A., Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Mowlana, Hamid. 1985. International Flow of Information: Global Report and Analysis Paris, UNESCO, 1985.
Norris, Pippa. 1996. "The Restless Searchlight: Network New Framing in the Post Cold War World" Political Communication.
Smith, Erna. 1994. Transmitting Race: The Los Angeles Riot in Television News Cambridge, MA, Joan Shorenstein Center.
Small, Melvin. 1994. Covering Dissent New Brunswick. NJ, Rutgers University Press.
Stanley, Harold W. and Richard G.Niemi. 1994. Vital Statistics on American Politics Washington, DC, CQ Press.
Tuchman,Gaye. 1978. Making News NewYork, The Free Press.
Tuchman, Gaye, Arlene Kaplan Daniels and James Benet. 1978. Hearth and Home: Images of Women in the Mass Media. New York, Oxford University Press.