FRAMING THE ISSUE OF FOOD
Submitted By: Gabriel J. Gerzon
Senior Honors ThesisCommunication and Culture ProgramClark UniversityApril 2011Advisor: Matthew MalskyDepartment of CommunicationsSecond Reader: Professor Jaan Valsiner Department of Communications
FRAMING FOODTable of Contents
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................5BACKGROUND ON SOCIO-POLITICAL FRAMING..............................................7
Disciplinary Background..............................................................................................................................9
THE POWER OF FRAMING: RATES OF ORGAN DONATION..........................12INTRODUCING TWO OF AMERICA’S EXISTING DEEP FRAMES ON FOOD............................................................................................................................................15
Deep Frame #1: ‘Food as Fuel’...................................................................................................................16
Etymology of Fuel, Food & Nutrition......................................................................................................19‘Food as Entertainment’............................................................................................................................20
Deep Frame #2:‘Consumerism’ and Its’ Semi-Surface Frames: ‘Modernism’ & ‘HealthIndividualism’ ..............................................................................................................................................23
Consumerism............................................................................................................................................23Health Individualism.................................................................................................................................24Modernism ...............................................................................................................................................26
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................27Meritocracy..................................................................................................................................................33Episodic vs. Thematic Framing..................................................................................................................34Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................35A Briefer on Reframing...............................................................................................................................36Enlightenment Reason: A Barrier to Reframing......................................................................................37Reframes That Are Actually De-Frames, & The Mythology of the Western Diet................................37Civil Disobedience Vs. Non-Collusion........................................................................................................39
REFRAME: SUN-BASED FOOD OVER OIL-BASED FOOD.................................43
How “Industrial Agriculture” Relies on Oil.............................................................................................43Reframe: Industrial Agriculture as Oil or Petrochemical-Based...........................................................46
Nutritional Deficiency of Petrochemical-based Food...............................................................................46Nutritional Integrity of Sun-based Food...................................................................................................47
2
FRAMING FOOD
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................48
REFRAMING FOOD AS FUEL...................................................................................50
Energy from Other Sources........................................................................................................................50The Uncaring Corporate Food Structure..................................................................................................52
FRAMEWORKS MOST EFFECTIVE REFRAMES................................................54
Food and Fitness Environment Frame......................................................................................................55The Runaway Food Model..........................................................................................................................56Lakoff’s Critique of the FrameWorks Institute.......................................................................................57
FOOD WITHIN THE LARGER PROGRESSIVE FRAME.....................................59
The “Silo Problem” and The Larger Frame.............................................................................................59
Focus on Food...........................................................................................................................................60
THE LIMITS OF FRAMING........................................................................................61
Disciplinary Limits......................................................................................................................................62
LIKE ALL OTHER BRANCHES OF COMMUNICATIONS THEORY,FRAMING HAS LIMITATIONS. ................................................................................62A COMMITMENT TO FINDING FRAMES THAT RESONATE WITHVARIOUS STRAINS OF THE PUBLIC REQUIRES RESOURCE-INTENSIVERESEARCH. APPROACHING SOCIAL ISSUES LIKE FOOD FROM AFRAMING PERSPECTIVE ALSO NECESSITATES A LONG-TERMENGAGEMENT THROUGH A PROCESS OF VALIDATING HYPOTHESIZEDFRAMES THROUGH RESEARCH AND TESTING. ...............................................62SUSAN NALL BANES, CO-FOUNDER OF FRAMEWORKS, HERSELF NOTESTHAT THE SFA MODEL “DIRECTS ITS ATTENTION TO THE MOSTCOMMONLY HELD CULTURAL FRAMES, LEAVING IT VULNERABLE TOCHARGES THAT IT OVERLOOKS MINORITY VIEWS IN FAVOR OF THEMOST WIDELY SHARED FRAMING SOLUTIONS, AND THAT IT DOES NOTPAY ADEQUATE ATTENTION TO THE VIEWS OF POLICY ELITES THATCONTROL THE POWER STRUCTURE WITHOUT REGARD TO PUBLICOPINION.” IT IS INTERESTING THIS POTENTIAL CRITICISM STRONGLYRESEMBLES THE ONE LAKOFF OFFERED UP IN OUR PERSONALCOMMUNICATION.......................................................................................................62
Cultural Limits.............................................................................................................................................62
3
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
