The empirical literature on social movement framing has largely neglected the processes by which frames are made. This paper addresses this lacuna through a study of the Congress of Industrial Organizations’ (CIO) embrace of “free enterprise” in its postwar program in the 1940s. Conventional accounts present the CIO’s use of consensual language in this period as a reflection of the labor federation’s rightward ideological drift, but a close examination of the processes involved in the construction of the “free enterprise” frames reveals a more complicated story. Drawing from archival research, I show that free enterprise was viewed with suspicion and antipathy within the organization, which is reflected in early drafts of the program literature. I also demonstrate that the decision to ultimately embrace “free enterprise” was rooted in a defensive strategy, one that was shaped in part by the leadership’s perception of American political culture at the time.
American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations. 1958. Power—for What?Washington, DC: American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations.
2.
BenfordRobert D.1997. “An Insider’s Critique of the Social Movement Framing Perspective.” Sociological Inquiry67(4):409–30.
3.
BenfordRobert D.SnowDavid A.2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology26:611–39.
4.
CIO Executive Board. 1943. “Meetings of February 5–7.” Pp. 1-215 in Minutes of the Executive Board of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 1935-1955, Microfilm, edited by ZiegerRobert H.Bethesda, MD: University Publications of America.
5.
CIO Executive Board. 1944a. “Meetings of January 27–28.” Pp. 1-390 in Minutes of the Executive Board of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 1935-1955, Microfilm, edited by Robert H. Zieger. Bethesda, MD: University Publications of America.
6.
CIO Executive Board. 1944b. “Meetings of June 16–18.” Pp. 1-252 in Minutes of the Executive Board of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 1935-1955, Microfilm, edited by ZiegerRobert H.Bethesda, MD: University Publications of America.
7.
CoeAnna-Britt. 2011. “Pushing Back and Stretching: Frame Adjustments among Reproductive Rights Advocates in Peru.” Mobilization16(4):459–512.
8.
Congress of Industrial Organizations. 1943. Final Proceedings of the Sixth Constitutional Convention. Philadelphia, PA: Congress of Industrial Organizations.
9.
Congress of Industrial Organizations. 1944. Final Proceedings of the Seventh Constitutional Convention. Chicago, IL: Congress of Industrial Organizations.
10.
Congress of Industrial Organizations-Political Action Committee. 1944. The People’s Program for 1944. New York: Congress of Industrial Organizations-Political Action Committee.
11.
Congress of Industrial Organizations-Political Action Committee. n.d. Four Men Speak about Jobs for All. New York: Congress of Industrial Organizations-Political Action Committee.
12.
CowieJeffersonSalvatoreNick. 2008. “The Long Exception: Rethinking the Place of the New Deal in American History.” International Labor and Working-Class History74(1):3–32.
13.
DavisMike. 1986. Prisoners of the American Dream: Politics and Economy in the History of the U.S. Working Class. London, England: Verso.
14.
De CauxLen. 1970. Labor Radical: From the Wobblies to CIO, a Personal History. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
15.
Employment Act of 1946. 1946. Statutes at Large. ch. 33, section 2, 60 Stat. 23, codified as 15 U.S.C. § 1021.
16.
FerreeMyra M.2003. “Resonance and Radicalism: Feminist Framing in the Abortion Debates of the United States and Germany.” American Journal of Sociology109(2):304–44.
17.
Fones-WolfElizabeth A.1994. Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism, 1945-60. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
18.
FosterJames C.1975. The Union Politic: The CIO Political Action Committee. Columbia, MI: University of Missouri Press.
19.
FraserSteve. 1991. Labor Will Rule: Sidney Hillman and the Rise of American Labor. New York: The Free Press.
20.
GaerJoseph. 1944. The First round: The Story of the CIO Political Action Committee. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.
21.
HallgrímsdóttirHelga K.2006. “The Knights of Labor and the Failure of the Arbitration Platform, 1886-1887: Ideology, Hegemony, and Contextually Generated Opportunities for Frame Success.” The Sociological Quarterly47(4):521–42.
22.
HallgrímsdóttirHelga K.BenoitCecilia. 2007. “From Wage Slaves to Wage Workers: Cultural Opportunity Structures and the Evolution of the Wage Demands of the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor, 1880-1900.” Social Forces85(3):1393–411.
23.
HartStephen. 1996. “The Cultural Dimension of Social Movements: A Theoretical Assessment and Literature Review.” Sociology of Religion57:87–100.
24.
HayduJeffrey. 1999. “Counter Action Frames: Employer Repertoires and the Union Menace in the Late Nineteenth Century.” Social Problems46(3):313–31.
25.
HortonLynn R.2010. “Defenders of Nature and the Comarca: Collective Identity and Frames in Panama.” Mobilization15(1):63–80.
26.
KoopmansRuud. 1999. “Political. Opportunity. Structure. Some Splitting to Balance the Lumping.” Sociological Forum14(1):93–105.
27.
KoopmansRuudStathamPaul. 1999. “Ethnic and Civic Conceptions of Nationhood and the Differential Success of the Extreme Right in Germany and Italy.” Pp. 225–51 in How Social Movements Matter, edited by GiugniMarcoMcAdamDougTillyCharles. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
28.
KubalTimothy J.1998. “The Presentation of Political Self: Cultural Resonance and the Construction of Collective Action Frames.” The Sociological Quarterly39(4):539–52.
29.
LichtensteinNelson. 1982. Labor’s War at Home: The CIO in World War II. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30.
LindstedtNathan. 2018. “Shifting Frames: Collective Action Framing from a Dialogic and Relational Perspective.” Sociological Compass12(1):e12548.
31.
McCammonHolly J.2013. “Discursive Opportunity Structure.” In The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, edited by SnowDavid A.PortaDonna DellaKlandermansBertMcAdamDoug. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm073
32.
McCammonHolly J.MuseCourtney SandersNewmanHarmony D.TerrellTeresa M.2007. “Movement Framing and Discursive Opportunity Structures: The Political Success of the U.S. Women’s Jury Movements.” American Sociological Review72(5):725–49.
33.
National Association of Manufacturers. 1936. “The Future in America.” Pp. 1-15 in You and Industry Series. Booklet 5. New York: National Association of Manufacturers of the United States of America.
34.
NoakesJohn A.JohnstonHank. 2005. “Frames of Protest: A Roadmap to a Perspective.” Pp. 1–32 in Frames of Protest: Social Movements and the Framing Perspective, edited by JohnstonHankNoakesJohn A.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
35.
PollettaFrancescaHoM. Kai. 2006. “Frames and Their Consequences.” Pp. 187–209 in The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, edited by GoodinRobert E.TillyCharles. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
36.
ReeseEllenNewcombeGarnett. 2003. “Income Rights, Mothers’ Rights, or Workers’ Rights? Collective Action Frames, Organizational Ideologies, and the American Welfare Rights Movement.” Social Problems50(2):294–318.
37.
RiordanRobert J.1949. “UAW Told: Labor Must Take Lead—Plea for Strong Action Winds up Parley Here.” Pp. 1-2 in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January24.
38.
SchicklerEricCaugheyDevin. 2011. “Public Opinion, Organized Labor, and the Limits of New Deal Liberalism, 1936–1945.” Studies in American Political Development25(2):162–89.
39.
SnowDavid A.BenfordRobert D.1988. “Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization.” International Social Movement Research1(1):197–217.
40.
SnowDavid A.BenfordRobert D.McCammonHolly J.HewittLyndiFitzgeraldScott. 2014. “The Emergence, Development, and Future of the Framing Perspective: 25+ Years since ‘Frame Alignment.’”Mobilization19(1):23–45.
41.
SnowDavid A.RochfordE. BurkeWordenSteven K.BenfordRobert D.1986. “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review51(4):464–81.
42.
SwidlerAnn. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review51(2):273–86.
43.
SwidlerAnn. 1995. “Cultural Power and Social Movements.” Pp. 25–40 in Social Movements and Culture, edited by JohnstonHankKlandermansBert. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
44.
TedlowRichard S.1976. “The National Association of Manufacturers and Public Relations during the New Deal.” The Business History Review50(1):25–45.
45.
ThomasNorman. 1946. “‘Program for Our Times,’ in ‘Ideas for a New Party: A Symposium.’”The Antioch Review6(4):618–19.
46.
WallWendy. 2008. Inventing the “American Way”: The Politics of Consensus from the New Deal to the Civil Rights Movement. New York: Oxford University Press.
47.
WilliamsRaymond. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London, England: Fontana.
48.
WilliamsRhys H.2004. “The Cultural Contexts of Collective Action: Constraints, Opportunities, and the Symbolic Life of Social Movements.” Pp. 91–115 in Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by SnowDavid A.SouleSarah A.KriesiHanspeter. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
49.
ZiegerRobert H.1995. The CIO, 1935-1955. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
