Over the past several years, political pundits have talked increasingly of “spin”—the persistent attempts by politicians and their handlers to describe events and issues in terms most favorable to their position or candidate. But spin is not new, nor necessarily evil. It is probably as old as the use of language itself. Academics call it “framing.”
Over the past several years, political pundits have talked increasingly of “spin”—the persistent attempts by politicians and their handlers to describe events and issues in terms most favorable to their position or candidate. But spin is not new, nor necessarily evil. It is probably as old as the use of language itself. Academics call it “framing.”
When I was in law school, the most enduring lesson I learned was the importance of framing, the probability that “he who frames the issue wins the debate.” If I ask you how important public safety is, you are likely to say very important. If instead I ask you whether you are willing to allow government to invade your privacy, or your civil liberties, whenever John Ashcroft deems it necessary, your response may be rather different. Pollsters are especially aware of the importance of the way questions are asked: “Do you believe a woman or the government should have the right to decide if she has children?” elicits a very different response from “Do you believe a woman has the right to kill her unborn child?”
In the introduction to her book Making All the Difference, Harvard Law Professor Martha Minow emphasizes the importance of framing in determining how we see differences. She tells the story of a scientist whose research required experimentation on mice. University policy meant that he had to fill out forms describing his methods, and guaranteeing humane treatment of the mice involved. But let a laboratory mouse escape (or a field mouse enter the lab), and suddenly those same mice were pests, to be eradicated in any way practical. More ironic—when the scientist’s young son’s pet mouse died, the family conducted a burial in the backyard, complete with eulogy and headstone. The way mice are viewed depends upon whether we describe them as subjects of experimentation, pests or pets.
A brief glance at the issues important to the gay community confirms how incredibly important framing is. Perhaps the best (or worst) example is the success the extremist right has had with the phrase “special rights.” What gay citizens see as simply equal treatment under the law, the right wing sees as “special rights.” To the extent they have been able to make “special rights” the issue, gays have lost referenda that would have added sexual orientation to the categories of citizens protected by city and state civil rights laws.
In Indianapolis, as I write this, City-County Councilor Karen Horseman has introduced an ordinance to extend employment benefits to the unmarried partners of City employees. I see that ordinance as a matter of elementary fairness, and—in the current labor market—competitive necessity. If employee A gets paid 35,000 plus health insurance for his family at a reduced cost, why shouldn’t employee B, doing the same job, receive comparable compensation? A growing number of major corporations are adopting such policies in order to compete for and retain good employees. Opponents of the Horseman ordinance, however, do not describe it as I do. They frame the extension of partner benefits as “legitimizing sin.” When the full council has to vote, it is a fair bet that whoever has been most successful in framing the issue will win. Predictably, Councilors are all in favor of fundamental fairness, and adamantly opposed to sin.
All of this discussion begs the really important question: which description of the issue at hand is the fairest? Which language best captures what is really at issue? Those who care about the integrity of public policy deliberations try to frame issues accurately. Those who are ideologically blinded, intellectually dishonest, or whose goal is to win at any cost, just spin.
If gays are pedophiles, perverts, abominations…they don’t deserve equal rights. If they are simply human beings who love differently, they do. If the good guys want to win this debate, we’d better be the ones who frame the issues.