‘hermaphrodite,’ such as ‘male pseudo-hermaphrodite’ or ‘female pseudo-hermaphrodite’ were used (Feder & Karkazis 2008). Whereas the ‘hermaphrodite permutations’ were clinical terms used to diagnose individuals, the term ‘intersex’ was used in attempts to change the code into an identity. The term ‘intersex’ was embraced to shift the power of naming from a medical diagnosis thrust onto the individual to the chosen category ‘intersex’, which either functioned as an identity, a term of political cohesion and collective action, or a mixture of these.
Analyses of situated in interpretive
framing in social movement research examine how codes are produced and
the social sphere.
Snow and Benford
define a frame as, “an out there’ by selectively
punctuating and encoding objects, situations, events, experiences, action in one’s present or past environment” (Snow & Benford 1992;
and sequences 137). Frames
interpretive in ways to garner bystander
that are, support,
“intended to mobilize potential adherents and constituents, and to demobilize antagonists” (Snow & Benford 1988;
198). Later research by Snow and Benford focuses on producing frames, and they conceptualize the process
act of framing
constructing and as, “an active,
processual phenomenon that implies agency and contention at construction” (Snow & Benford 2000; 614). Framing is the active attempt to reshape a discourse. Whereas knowledge is produced
the level of reality engagement with or through pre-existing
paradigms in a discourse and is generally salient and unquestioned, intentional and active attempt to re-shape a discourse. The production of cultural codes is always in the process of construction,
framing is an
and reproduction. Frames are antagonists but also between
developed in conflict between movement groups and different SMOs within the same social movement.
study will focus on the latter, the internal framing disputes within
same movement. particular codes.
three SMOs of