Social Movement Rhetoric and the Social Psychology of Collective Action

This article examines the social psychology concept of social categories and discusses how these categories can be used in argumentation for the purposes of political mobilisation. In this case, the authors examine the rhetoric and techniques used in the anti-abortion movement by conducting an in-depth textual analysis of a speech given by an activist to a university audience. The anti-abortion campaign is a social movement that relies on very strong imagery in its communications, but this imagery is nevertheless dependent on certain social categories for the anti abortion protagonists themselves (the subject), the fetus/baby and women (the objects of debate), pro-abortion activists (the opposition) and the general public at large (the audience). While these categories are specific to this social movement the authors point out that these same processes of categorisation occur across movements, regardless of the content of the campaign. This review will focus on the generalised characteristics of the rhetoric.



The authors' work has its basis in self-categorisation theory or SCT, which postulates that people are able to define themselves at different levels of abstraction, generally in terms of the individual or in terms of social categories (e.g. by race or ethnic group). They argue that social mobilisation is mediated by the identification as a category and involves adherence to the category's "vocabularies of motive" and in group/out group definitions. Political mobilisation is largely dependent on these processes.

One of the first tasks for all social movements is to set the category boundaries of the protagonists (movement supporters) as widely as possible. A public speaker can be expected to attempt to define herself and her audience in the same category, either as a member of a specialised group or as "everyday people" depending on the nature and homogeneity of the audience. Defining the anti-abortion movement as one that is composed of and whose ideas resonate with common people has been especially important for the movement as they attempt to break away from their historical dependence on religious argumentation - to which the general public is largely unreceptive. The speech analysed by the authors demonstrated this effort, the speaker tried to deflect suggestions that his movement represented a minority position (which is the case in the UK) by focusing on the growth of his organisation and the belief that there are many people who would rally to the cause if they just had the "facts". The speaker also represented the anti-abortion argumentation as one based on common sense and that there are many "naturally pro-life" people who have been lulled to the other side by arguments such as those that suggest the outcome of a return to "back-street abortions". This is an attempt to demonstrate a fundamental congruency between what people "naturally" feel and the anti-abortion message. The association is furthered by the selective usage of "stand-ins" for general public opinion. Many of the visuals associated with their message involve happy couples examining the ultra-sound images of their unborn child, suggesting that babies are always intimately valued. These are willing parents who have reorganised their lives in anticipation of the child and who obviously attribute to it great value. And it is this happy couple that is more likely to be associated with the general public opinion than the despondent, unwed teen mother who rarely makes her way into anti-abortion imagery. These strategies work to associate the movement with the perceptions of the common person, an essential task for all social movements that are attempting mass mobilisation.

The corollary is that the opposition, the pro-abortionists, are basing their campaign on a very different set of tactics, that obfuscate the facts and that they work in collaboration with the media to move the common person away from the common-sense position. The opposition is represented as the minority interest that is out of sync with everyday values. This perception is reinforced by attempting to differentiate between the styles of argumentation, suggesting that the opposition's methods are inherently deceitful while the anti-abortion message is based on the simple presentation of fact and does not require persuasive messages. This is especially important for the movement in defending their use of imagery as anti-abortion campaigns often use graphic pictures of aborted fetuses for which they are criticised for as examples of shock propaganda, but which they are argue is simple presentation of fact.

The central point of construction for the movement, however, does not have to do with the protagonists themselves but rather the categorisation of the fetus (the object). First and foremost it is necessary to define it as a human person right from the moment of conception - this is done by building a sense of continuity - the embryo contains all the information that will eventually become the new person, height, hair color, personality, health conditions. By suggesting that it is
"all there" at the moment of conception it attempts to disrupt arguments based on arbitrary definitions between embryo/fetus/baby. These are discarded as technical definitions that are not recognised by the common person (e.g. the happy expectant couple). The fetus is also ascribed an agency, it has a desire to live, it acts inside the womb: smiling swimming - purposeful behaviours that are attributable to a personified thing. It is through this process of constructing the fetus as a human being that the movement can cast abortion as "killing".

The authors find that the construction of the rhetorical devices of this particular speaker are not only consistent with that of the anti-abortion cause but are also comparable to other movements, including their own research on labour groups that use similar methods for category boundaries and category content that support their position as one representing the mass of public opinion. While there are bound to be substantive differences across different movements, these constructive processes are fundamental to securing mass movement participation. The authors have now shifted their focus from the broadcasters of these constructions to understanding how audiences respond to these messages - the essential flipside of the process of mobilisation.

Note: This article is not available online. Archives for Human Relations journal only go back to the year 2000. Please contact Sage Publications through their online form to inquire about the article - click here.