This essay analyzes the rhetorical framing tactics of a group of disability activists to understand how they use key words, topic shifts, and other framing maneuvers to amplify marginalized voices in public debates. Focusing on a town hall meeting and a legislator update meeting between activists and lawmakers, the author uses stasis theory to analyze how these maneuvers (1) create gateways for marginalized voices to enter the discussion and (2) anchor deliberations around topics of importance to the disabled community. This suggests a more complex role for framing in face-to-face deliberative contexts than studies of framing strategies in written texts have traditionally considered. I argue that a multidimensional view of framing uniting consideration of word choice with attention to interactive dynamics is necessary to appreciate how framing maneuvers can not only shape the content of debates but amplify the voices of people excluded by the tacit rules of democratic deliberation.
AngouriJ.MarraM. (2010). Corporate meetings as genre: A study of the role of the chair in corporate meeting talk. Text & Talk, 30(6), 615–636. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2010.030
2.
AnnammaS. A.ConnorD.FerriB. (2013). Dis/Ability critical race studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 16(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.730511
BenfordR. D.SnowD. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
CareyA. C. (2009). On the margins of citizenship: Intellectual disability and civil rights in twentieth-century America. Temple University Press. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/9236
7.
CharmazK. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
8.
CloudD. (2018). Reality bites: Rhetoric and the circulation of truth claims in US political culture. Ohio State University Press. https://doi.org/10.26818/9780814213612
ErevellesN. (2011). Disability and difference in global contexts: Enabling a transformative body politic. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137001184
GassonS. (2003). Rigor in grounded theory research: An interpretive perspective on generating theory from qualitative field studies. In WhitmanM. E.WoszcyzynskiA. B. (Eds.), The handbook of information systems research (pp. 79–102). Idea Group Publishing.
14.
GillM. (2015). Already doing it: Intellectual disability and sexual agency. University of Minnesota Press.
15.
GitlinT. (2003). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. University of California Press.
16.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
17.
GrigalM.HartD. (2010). Think College! Postsecondary education options for students with intellectual disabilities. Brookes Publishing Company.
18.
KaferA. (2013). Feminist queer crip. Indiana University Press.
19.
KiecoltK. J. (2000). Self-change in social movements. In StrykerS.OwensT. J.WhiteR. W. (Eds.), Self, identity, and social movements (pp. 110–131). University of Minnesota Press.
20.
KittayE. F. (2015). Dependency. In AdamsR.ReissB.SerlinD. (Eds.), Keywords for disability studies (pp. 233–250). NYU Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt15nmhws
21.
KuypersJ. A. (2010). Framing analysis from a rhetorical perspective. In D’AngeloP.KuypersJ. A. (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 286–311). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203864463
22.
LeibovitsI. (2020). Homeless women self-advocates: The quest from liminal to full citizenship. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 106(3), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2020.1785637
23.
LevinsonS. C. (1979/1992). Activity types and language. In DrewP.HeritageJ. (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge University Press.
NoakesJ. A.JohnstonH. (2005). Frames of protest: A road map to a perspective. In JohnstonH.NoakesJ. A. (Eds.), Frames of protest: Social movements and the framing perspective (pp. 1–29). Rowman & Littlefield.
OsorioR. (2022). Disabling citizenship: Rhetorical practices of disabled world-making at the 1977 504 sit-in. College English, 84(3), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.58680/ce202231678
30.
PriceM. (2019). The precarity of disability/studies in academe. In HesfordW. S.LiconaA. C.TestonC. (Eds.), Precarious rhetorics (pp. 191–211). Ohio State University Press.
StrykerS.OwensT. J.WhiteR. W. (2000). Introduction. In StrykerS.OwensT. J.WhiteR. W. (Eds.), Self, identity, and social movements (pp. 1–17). University of Minnesota Press.
34.
TrentJ. W. (1994). Inventing the feeble mind: A history of mental retardation in the United States. University of California Press.
35.
WickmanC. (2014). Rhetorical framing in corporate press releases: The case of British Petroleum and the gulf oil spill. Environmental Communication, 8(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2013.816329
36.
WilliamsV. (2011). Disability and discourse: Analysing inclusive conversation with people with intellectual disabilities. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470977934
