Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:31:21.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Breaking the Chains?: Constraint and the Political Rhetoric of Religious Interest Groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2011

Katherine E. Knutson
Katherine E. Knutson*
Affiliation:
Gustavus Adolphus College
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Katherine E. Knutson, Gustavus Adolphus Colllege, 800 West College Avenue, Saint Peter, MN 56082. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some scholars of religious interest groups argue that one challenge facing religious groups in their pursuit of political goals is that they are unwilling or unable to compromise, which makes it difficult for them to operate strategically within the secular political environment. An alternate explanation is that the types of arguments religious groups use are multifaceted but do not filter into the public discourse. In this article, I examine the concept of constraint in the context of mediated debates of contentious political issues by looking at the extent to which religious and nonreligious groups differ in their development of argument frames. Compared with nonreligious groups, religious groups do display more evidence of constraint in mediated debates over public policies. Patterns of constraint relate to visibility, framing, group resources, and group purpose. More importantly, however, I find that the patterns of constraint have more to do with journalistic decisions to filter arguments made by religious groups than with the actual rhetorical strategies of religious groups.

Type
Articles
Information
Politics and Religion , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , August 2011 , pp. 312 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abbott, Jennifer Young. 2006. “Religion and Gender in the News: The Case of Promise Keepers, Feminists, and the ‘Stand in the Gap’ Rally.” Journal of Communication and Religion 29:224–261.Google Scholar
Andsager, Julie L. 2000. “How Interest Groups Attempt to Shape Public Opinion with Competing News Frames.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 77:577–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andsager, Julie L., and Smiley, Leiott. 1998. “Evaluating the Public Information: Shaping News Coverage of the Silicone Implant Controversy.” Public Relations Review 24:183–202.Google Scholar
Andrews, Kenneth T., and Edwards, Bob. 2004. “Advocacy Organizations in the U.S. Political Process.” Annual Review of Sociology 30:479–506.Google Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank, and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, W. Lance. 1990. “Toward a Theory of Press-State Relations in the United States.” Journal of Communication 40:103–125.Google Scholar
Bennett, W. Lance. 2009. News: The Politics of Illusion. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Blumler, Jay G., and Gurevitch, Michael. 1981. “Politicians and the Press: An Essay on Role Relationships.” In Handbook of Political Communication, eds. Nimmo, Dan D., and Sanders, Keith R.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Callaghan, Karen, and Schnell, Frauke. 2001. “Assessing the Democratic Debate: How the News Media Frame Elite Policy Discourse.” Political Communication 18:183–212.Google Scholar
Cappella, Joseph N., and Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 1997. Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Peter B., and Wilson, James Q.. 1961. “Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 6:129–166.Google Scholar
Cook, Timothy E. 1998. Governing with the News: The News Media as a Political Institution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, Alan. 1980. Thunder on the Right: The “New Right” and the Politics of Resentment.” New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Danielian, Lucig, and Page, Benjamin. 1994. “The Heavenly Chorus: Interest Group Voices on TV News.” American Journal of Political Science 38:1056–1078.Google Scholar
Diamond, Sara. 1998. Not by Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right. New York, NY. The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Dillon, Michelle. 1993. “Argumentative Complexity of Abortion Discourse.” Public Opinion Quarterly 57:305–314.Google Scholar
Dillon, Michelle. 1995. “Institutional Legitimation and Abortion: Monitoring the Catholic Church's Discourse.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 34:141–151.Google Scholar
Domke, David. 2004. God Willing? Political Fundamentalism in the White House, the “War on Terror,” and the Echoing Press. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, Murray 1988. Constructing the Public Spectacle. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Entman, Robert. 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43:51–58.Google Scholar
Ferree, Myra Marx M., Gamson, William Anthony, Gerhards, Jurgen, and Rucht, Dieter. 2002. Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gamson, William A. 1992. Talking Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gamson, William A., and Modigliani, Andre. 1987. “The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action.” Research in Political Sociology 3:137–177.Google Scholar
Gans, Herbert. 1979. Deciding What's News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Gutterman, David S. 2005. Prophetic Politics: Christian Social Movements and American Democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hertzke, Allen D. 1988. Representing God in Washington: The Role of Religious Lobbies in the American Polity. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee.Google Scholar
Hofrenning, Daniel J.B. 1995. In Washington but Not of It: The Prophetic Politics of Religious Lobbyists. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Hojnacki, Marie., and Kimball, David C.. 1999. “The Who and How of Organizations' Lobbying Strategies in Committees.” Journal of Politics 61:999–1025.Google Scholar
Hoover, Stewart M. 1998. Religion in the News: Faith and Journalism in American Public Discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto. 1992. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacoby, William. 2000. “Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science 44:750–767.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Sanders, Lynn M.. 1996. Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.Google Scholar
Leech, Beth L., and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 1998. “Lobbying Friends and Foes in Washington.” In Interest Group Politics, eds. Cigler, Allan J., and Loomis, Burdett A.. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Moen, Matthew C. 1994. “From Revolution to Evolution: The Changing Nature of the Christian Right.” Sociology of Religion 55:345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z. 2001. “The Public Clash of Private Values.” In The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, ed. Mooney, Christopher Z. New York, NY: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., and Oxley, Zoe M.. 1999. “Issue Framing Effects on Belief Importance and Opinion.” The Journal of Politics 61:1040–1067.Google Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., Oxley, Zoe M., and Clawson, Rosalee A.. 1997. “Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects.” Political Behavior 19:221–246.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur 1971. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rohlinger, Deana A. 2002. “Framing the Abortion Debate: Organizational Resources, Media Strategies, and Movement-Countermovement Dynamics.” The Sociological Quarterly 43:479–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozell, Mark J., and Wilcox, Clyde. 1996. “Second Coming: The Strategies of the New Christian Right.” Political Science Quarterly 111:271–294.Google Scholar
Salisbury, Robert H. 1984. “Interest Representation: The Dominance of Institutions.” American Political Science Review 78:64–76.Google Scholar
Salisbury, Robert H. 1969. “An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 13:1–32.Google Scholar
Shepard, Alicia. 1995. “The Media Get Religion.” American Journalism Review 17:18–25.Google Scholar
Sigal, Leon V. 1973. Reporters and Officials. Lexington, KY: D.C. Heath & Co.Google Scholar
Silk, Mark. 1995. Unsecular Media: Making News of Religion in America. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, John L., Piereson, James E., and Marcus, George E.. 1978. “Ideological Constraint in the Mass Public: A Methodological Critique and Some New Findings.” American Journal of Political Science 22:233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenger, Katherine. 2005. “Voices Crying Out in the Wilderness: Religious Groups and Media Coverage of National Policy Debates.” Ph.D.diss. University of Washington.Google Scholar
Terkidsen, Nayda, Schnell, Frauke, and Ling, Christina. 1998. “Interest Groups, the Media, and Policy Debate Formation: An Analysis of Message Structure.” Political Communication 15:45–62.Google Scholar