Abstract
Lawsuits against national states present a relatively new approach of environmental activism and, specifically, their resonance in public discourses has not yet been studied. Combining theories on social movement frames and legitimacy maintenance, this chapter develops and applies a theoretical framework for the analysis of public discourses that put the legitimacy of democratic systems for solving problems of sustainable development to the test. The central question addressed is which factors contribute to controversies and their solutions concerning governmental responsibilities to accelerate sustainable development? Two recent lawsuits in the Netherlands have received ample public attention and the surrounding debates in the national news are presented as exemplary case studies. The public controversy surrounding both trials is conceptualized as legitimacy test during which different orders of worth—normative principles associated with specific institutional environments—are employed by participating actors to justify their conflicting positions. Comparing these two cases revealed that the focus on civic, moral aspects spurs public support while discussing causes and solutions can trigger strong opposing voices in a debate hindering broader public support and agreement on the issue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Benford RD, Hunt SA (2003) Interactional dynamics in public problems marketplaces: movements and the counterframing and reframing of public problems. In: Holstein JA, Miller G (eds) Challenges and choices: constructionist perspectives on social problems. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp 153–186
Benford RD, Snow DA (2000) Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Ann Rev Sociol 26(1):611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
Bergkamp L, Stone S (2015) The Trojan horse of the Paris agreement on climate change: How multi-level, non-hierarchical governance poses a threat to constitutional government (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2715145). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2715145
Boltanski L, Thévenot L (2006) On justification: Economies of worth (Vol. 27). Princeton University Press.
Chong D, Druckman J (2007) A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. J Commun 57(1):99–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331.x
Corner A, Markowitz E, Pidgeon N (2014) Public engagement with climate change: the role of human values. Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev: Clim Change 5(3):411–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.269
Cox R (2014) The liability of European states for climate change. Utrecht J Int European Law 30(78). http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.ci.
Cox R (2016) A climate change litigation precedent: urgenda foundation v the state of the Netherlands. J Energ Nat Res Law 34(2):143–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2016.1147887
Eurostat (2020) Shareof renewable energy in the EU up to 18.0%: Renewable energy in the EU in 2018. News Release, 23 January 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/energy/publications
Feldman L, Hart PS, Milosevic T (2017) Polarizing news? Representations of threat and efficacy in leading US newspapers’ coverage of climate change. Public Understanding Sci 26(4):481–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515595348
Ferree MM (2003) Resonance and radicalism: feminist framing in the abortion debates of the United States and Germany. Am J Sociol 109(2):304–344. https://doi.org/10.1086/378343
Gamson W (2004) Bystanders, public opinion, and the media. In: Snow DA, Soule SA, Kriesi H (eds) The Blackwell companion to social movements. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, pp 242–261
Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Gupta J (2007) Legal steps outside the climate convention: litigation as a tool to address climate change. Revi European Commun Int Environ Law 16(1):76–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2007.00541.x
Ketelaars P (2016) What strikes the responsive chord? The effects of framing qualities on frame resonance amongst protest participants. Mobilization: An Int Quart 21(3): 341–360. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17813/1086-671X-21-3-341
Koopmans R, Olzak S (2004) Discursive opportunities and the evolution of right-wing violence in Germany. Am J Sociol 110(1):198–230. https://doi.org/10.1086/386271
Koopmans R (2004) Movements and media: selection processes and evolutionary dynamics in the public sphere. Theory Soc 33(3/4):367–391. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RYSO.0000038603.34963.de
Lafaye C, Thévenot L (1993) Une justification écologique?: Conflits dans l’aménagement de la nature. Revue Française De Sociologie 34(4):495–524. https://doi.org/10.2307/3321928
McCammon HJ, Campbell KE, Granberg EM, Mowery C (2001) How movements win: gendered opportunity structures and U.S. women’s suffrage movements, 1866 to 1919. Am Soc Rev 66(1): 49–70. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/2657393
McCormick S, Glicksman RL, Simmens SJ, Paddock L, Kim D, Whited B (2018) Strategies in and outcomes of climate change litigation in the United States. Nat Clim Change 8(9):829–833. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0240-8
Nachmany M, Fankhauser S, Setzer J, Averchenkova A (2017, May). Global trends in climate change legislation and litigation: 2017 update. https://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publications/
Patriotta G, Gond JP, Schultz F (2011) Maintaining legitimacy: controversies, orders of worth, and public justifications. J Manage Stud 48(8):1804–1836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00990.x
Pepermans Y, Maeseele P (2014) Democratic debate and mediated discourses on climate change: from consensus to de/politicization. Environ Commun 8(2):216–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.906482
Ryan C (1991) Prime time activism: media strategies for grassroots organizing. South End Press, Boston
Snow DA, Vliegenthart R, Ketelaars P (2019) The framing perspective on social movements: Its conceptual roots and architecture. In: Snow DA, Soule SA, Kriesi H, McCammon HJ (eds) The Wiley Blackwell companion to social movements, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Oxford, UK, pp 392–410
Snow DA, Benford R, McCammon H, Hewitt L, Fitzgerald S (2014) The emergence, development, and future of the framing perspective: 25+ years since “frame alignment”. Mobilization: An Int Quart 19(1): 23–46
Snow DA, Benford R (1988) Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research 1:197–219
Suddaby R, Greenwood R (2005) Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Adm Sci Q 50(1):35–67. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.35
Taylor DE (2000) The rise of the environmental justice paradigm. Am Behav Sci 43(4):508–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764200043004003
Tschötschel R, Schuck A, Wonneberger A (2020) Patterns of controversy and consensus in German, Canadian, and US online news on climate change. Global Environmental Change 60:101957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101957
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wonneberger, A. (2021). Pushing Governmental Responsibility for Sustainable Development: How Orders of Worth Evoked by Diagnostic and Prognostic Frames Contribute to Movement Support. In: Weder, F., Krainer, L., Karmasin, M. (eds) The Sustainability Communication Reader. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31883-3_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31883-3_27
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-31882-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-31883-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)