civil society, collective action, cycles of contention, framing, mobilising structures, political opportunities, public sphere, repertoires of contention, state imperatives, trigger events, WUNC (worthiness, unity, numbers and commitment)
Social movements are behind many of the democratic political changes we now take for granted in Australia. Concerted efforts by movements of ordinary people outside the formal political system continue to challenge governments and political parties to change unjust policies and practices.
Knowing about how social movements emerge and how they make social change is critical to understanding how ordinary people interact with our political system. This chapter discusses what social movements are, when they form, who joins them and why, how they work, and why they end. The chapter also discusses the emergence of a variety of social movements in Australia.1
The term ‘social movement’ refers to loose coalitions of ordinary people who join forces to make broad social change. Political sociologist Charles Tilly emphasised how these movements emerge from the formal and informal relationships between political entities, especially nation-states, and the people that they represent.
Tilly also highlighted that, while such movements may come and go depending on internal and external conditions (what these conditions are is explored in the next section), movements are very different from one-off protests. Social movements may coordinate rallies and marches that might attract large crowds, but they are much more than sudden gatherings of angry people.2 Movements are made up of active participants who come together to coordinate such events: for example by planning actions to target multiple politicians across a city. Social movements even at times coordinate with other like-minded groups across neighbourhoods, cities, nations or even the globe.
Recently social movement scholars have explored how such movements increasingly focus on organisations and institutions beyond governments. Important targets of social movement action now include corporations, as well as the more subte forms of power that we experience in the ‘realms of culture, identity, and everyday life’.3 Here you might like to think about how social movements form to challenge racism or gender-based discrimination in places like schools, families or religious organisations.4 Examples of these kinds of movements are the recent successful school-based protests in Australia which have sought to exclude gender non-binary students.
Social movements emerge from conflicts about access to educational, economic and material resources as well as such freedoms. During the 19th and 20th centuries several important social movements emerged because different groups were excluded from formal voting.5 This lack of representation in the formal political system led to marginalised groups, such as the working class, women, migrant communities and Indigenous peoples asking for the right to vote (as explored in the case study below).
Inclusions for one group have led to other kinds of exclusions however, which in turn have generated further claims. Dryzek points out that around the time of Federation, working-class white men came together to promote their political and economic interests through organisations such as labour unions and local socialist parties.6 Before Federation in 1901, working men had been excluded from voting, and therefore inclusion in the state, because many areas of Australia had only allowed men who owned property to vote in elections.7
While the suffragists successfully pushed for women’s rights to vote and stand for office, one of the first acts passed by the Federal Parliament had been the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act, later known as the ‘White Australia’ policy, which prevented the migration of non-white people, particularly from Asia. Thus, while white working men, and white women, experienced inclusion, non-white immigrants as well as Indigenous peoples experienced exclusion when Australia became an independent nation.
Indigenous-led social movements have existed in Australia since colonisation. While Indigenous peoples have had the right to vote since the 1960s, they continue to protest about ongoing forms of exclusion and discrimination.
Indigenous peoples, via their representative groups and communities, such as the Australian Aborigines League in the 1930s and the Australian Aboriginal Fellowship in the 1950s and 1960s, have highlighted the institutional racism of historical and contemporary state policies since 1788. These ongoing exclusions have driven the formation of Indigenous-led social movements and claims for self-determination since colonisation.
Dryzek explains that the inclusion of groups, such as Indigenous people in settler-colonial states such as Australia, will come into conflict with core state imperatives, which explains are ‘any function that structures of government must perform for the sake of their own longevity and stability ... responding to [outside] parameters and ... independent of the preferences or desires of [any particular] government officials’.8 Indigenous peoples’ struggles in Australia to have local and enduring connections to land and formal land rights recognised in law and practice can be seen to directly conflict with the state imperatives of control over its territory and exploitation of resources. These imperatives are embedded in Western legal and political systems.
Yet, as Dryzek also points out, much of the success of Indigenous social movements – as well as class- and gender-based movements – have indeed been in instances where such movements call for barriers to economic participation to be removed. Recent conversations about the Uluru Statement’s call for a Treaty with Indigenous peoples highlight the limits to inclusion along these lines. It remains to be seen how the Australian state will respond in relation to these important calls for change and the broad-based social movement that is forming around these issues.
Social movements may develop as people accept changing attitudes on an issue and realise the injustice of certain laws through ‘trigger events’.9
Collective action is intrinsic to social movements.10 While individual people and organisations within movements may have different motivations and even contradictory ways of going about solving a social issue, they will share a sense of purpose. Recognition of the source of the conflict itself as outside the movement or individuals themselves is also essential.
Successful contemporary social movements, therefore, tend to have high levels of participation by individuals with these characteristics:
Often what begin as social movements later spawn political parties as they seek to consolidate forms of political participation.
This leads to debates about how public-spirited movements are. Mancur Olson’s classic study of why individual actors get together to act collectively argued that such action is primarily motivated by desire for individual benefit, but a benefit not available to a person acting alone.11
This approach also explains paradoxes in group formation: if groups produce public benefits that all can access, what is the incentive of participation for the individual? If groups become too large, some may benefit without paying the costs of the group. This problem of ‘free riding’ can be seen in the way some groups attempt to restrict the benefits of their collective action to their membership, such as when unions historically enforced ‘no ticket, no start’ requirements that workplaces must employ only union members.
Other approaches emphasise that groups are not simply aggregations of individuals calculating costs.12 An important critic of the ‘rational choice’ model and its focus on individuals through a purely economic lens was the English historian E.P. Thompson.13 By studying the history of social movements from ‘below’ – that is, from the perspective of the poorest people in the transition from feudal to free-market economies during the 18th and 19th centuries – Thompson found that common people shared ideas of fairness and helping each other in times of need, and they fought hard to defend these ideas without any expectation of individual benefits.
Scholars such as Thompson think that rational choice fails to explain participation, especially at the early stages of movements when chances of immediate success are limited.
What distinguishes social movements from political parties and other advocacy groups, such as charities, is the way that social movements work together for a common cause. Collectively the elements that make up this social world – formed of activist groups, voluntary associations and religious organisations – are known as civil society.
Because social movements emerge from the public sphere, rather than being integrated within or initiated by governments, their tactics and strategies reach beyond simply making policies to try to change society more broadly.
One of the other distinguishing features of the sustained challenges of social movements is how social movement actors display their strength to, and demand responses from, authorities. Tilly observes that social movements activists tirelessly work behind the scenes and in public, either within their own organisations or across several organisations to plan ‘joint actions, [build] alliances, [struggle] with competitors, [mobilise] supporters, [build] collective identities, [search] for resources and lobby’ authorities.14 But what distinguishes social movement forms of action is that at least one member group of a broader challenger coalition publicly displays strength to authorities via the formula that Tilly terms ‘WUNC’, an acronym that is shorthand for worthiness, unity, numbers and commitment.
The public display of WUNC means that social movements show worthiness by dressing formally during public meetings or demonstration, incorporating faith or community leaders and other high-status allies into their actions, and tabling grievances by highlighting previous and ongoing injustices. Signs of unity include wearing similar colours, or even uniforms, marching or dancing in unison, chanting slogans, singing, cheering, linking arms, or wearing or bearing common symbols such as T-shirts, badges, armbands, headgear or placards. Demonstration of numbers includes coordinated occupations of public space, gathering signatures on petitions, representing multiple units into a cohesive whole (for example, a public gathering of all local neighbourhood associations across a single city), as well as forms of quantifiable support by means of publishing polls, the number of paid-up members and overall financial contributions. Finally, indications of commitment include persisting in costly or risky activities such as going without pay during a strike, open-ended and disruptive actions such as sit-ins, or even resistance to attack such as forming a picket line or including human rights observers in protests.15
Sociologist Sidney Tarrow observed that major societal changes such as war, recession, political instability or large demographic or technological changes often prompt ‘cycles’ or ‘waves of contention’ that give rise to social movements whose members act in these ways.16 Much of the shared know-how of successful social movements rests on how to ride out these waves and to build them into widening cycles by making the impact of protest long-lasting through coordinating deeper systemic and political change, and even, at times, transforming state imperatives. Understanding how these waves work requires an understanding of how factors outside social movements influence their chances of success, which we turn to in the next section.
Political opportunity is a key explanation of why movements form and how they build their effectiveness. This theory, in contrast to earlier theories of ‘resource mobilisation’, emphasises that beyond the internal resources of ‘money or power’, which movements often lack, social movement groups have access to resources which ‘can be taken advantage of by even weak or disorganised challengers but in no way “belong” to them’.17 Seen through this framework, social movements, in order to be successful, must be alert to and grasp favourable political conditions when they emerge (see Table 1). Taken together these external conditions are known as the political opportunity structure facing any given movement.
The most risky, aspect of the political opportunity structure is the willingness of the state to contain and repress social movements by the use of force, which constitutes a direct threat to civil liberties and, potentially, human lives. Shifts in either direction in this last aspect in authoritarian states are crucial for movement actors to assess and understand, because the increasing or decreasing propensity of the executive arm of the state to deploy police or military in internal conflicts will quickly close down or open up movement leadership. But these factors are also at play in more socially acceptable ways in democratic states, and may manifest in new laws to outlaw certain types of protest, such as has been seen in the early 2020s in New South Wales with the introduction of strict anti-protest laws targeting direct action groups such as Blockade Australia.18 The next section explores how such groups provide the collective vehicles for social action, linking the lived experiences of exclusion or injustice with the wider political environment.
While the external factors encapsulated in the political opportunity model help explain how social movements themselves form and reform the society that they are part of, movements would not, without effective organisation, be able to shape and respond to these kinds of opportunities. Successful movements need ways of making decisions and acting collectively. To understand why and how groups form within a wider social movement and further constitute that movement, we now turn our attention to the role of organisations.
Social movement theorists argue that movements are more than an aggregation of individuals, but spring from people organised into both formal and informal entities. These building blocks of social movements are termed mobilising structures, which are the collective vehicles through which people come to mobilise and engage in collective action (see Table 2).19 These structures range from formalised groups with highly exclusive membership, such as being a member of an specific industry and active in one’s workplace in order to join a union, or being prepared to pay dues and be involved in high-impact protests to be part of an environmental organisation. Inclusive membership, on the other hand, is seen in churches and media-based campaigns, in which structures might be composed of informal networks of friends and neighbours who come together around a shared experience or concern.20
Organisations with exclusive membership may generate very tight bonds between members. Organisations with inclusive membership may have less common ground in a political issue, but they also will be easier for members to join. Informal networks can start off social movement action but will often struggle when they get bigger, unless they build democratic processes of decision making and ensure that they collaborate with other groups.21 Formalised and exclusive organisations may also have to work hard to maintain relevance and bonds of trust with their membership.
This focus on organisations as nodes within social movement networks highlights that we should pay attention not just to why people come together to make social change, but also how they come together, to understand effective social movement action. This focus on structures gives rise to the question of ‘what’ social movement action is about, which is explored in the next section.
Literature about social movements sheds light on the way that issues are ‘framed’ by organisations to garner support for a social movement or for policy change. Framing refers to how groups link interpretations of individual interests, values and beliefs with their activities, goals and ideology. Gitlin provides a useful definition of framing and its role in shaping our perceptions of the social world when he describes frames as
principles of selection, emphasis, and presentation composed of little tacit theories about what exists, what happens, and what matters … we frame reality in order to negotiate it, manage it, comprehend it, and choose appropriate repertoires of cognition and action.22
Because they routinely question dominant frames, movements need to actively negotiate shared understandings of a problem that might have been previously invisible or lacked a language to express.
The concept of framing builds on, but involves much more than, the traditional notion of agenda setting in media and politics because ‘it acknowledges that any account involves a framing of reality’.23 Frames, typically in a narrative form, structure the focus of an event or situation, and seek to direct emotions and energy accordingly.
Narratives use stories to associate events and experiences, making meaning relatable and enhancing the message for a collective purpose. The framing process within social movements moves emotional states and experiences of anger, shame or hope towards collective, action-oriented, political directions.24 Social framing usually undertakes three important ‘tasks’:
When these frames emerge and are widely shared within and among social movement organisations they are known as collective action frames.
Social movements have always used frames, but provocations to pay conscious attention to how they frame issues have their basis in cognitive linguist George Lakoff’s work on the underlying metaphors in political language. Lakoff pointed out that these metaphors evoke certain frames that in turn evoke problems that need to be met with corresponding solutions. He gives examples of metaphors circulating in US politics during the 1980s and 1990s, such as ‘government as a burden’ versus ‘government as common good’, both of which presuppose political positions on contentious issues. Whether a politician gives a speech about her government ‘providing relief for taxpayers’ (evoking the burden metaphor) or builds a case for ‘public investment in health/infrastructure/education’ (evoking the common good metaphor) depends on the overarching political response that the speaker seeks to evoke.26
While an organisation’s frame can evolve through challenges from within its own membership or by other members within a field of organisations, when it is attacked by a political opponent, ‘framing contests’ ensue, in which an opponent adopts an element of the movement’s frame to reframe and thereby direct debate on the issue towards the opponent’s position.27 A recent example in Australia was the Morrison Coalition government’s Religious Discrimination Bill, which drew on anti-discrimination policies that had been embedded in legal frameworks during the second half of the 20th century to protect marginalised groups to reframe hegemonic religious groups as needing ‘protection’ from discrimination. The Bill was widely described by historians and sociologists of religion, as well as legal and civil liberties experts, as a response by the Coalition to pressure from conservative Christian groups to legitimate acts of discrimination against LGBTIQ+ people.28 Legal advocacy groups further pointed out that the legislation would also potentially allow employers and employees in the faith-based care sector and religious schools to discriminate against and vilify people with disabilities and people of minority faiths as well as agnostic and atheist workers.29 By appropriating the language of civil rights enshrined in legal frameworks such as the Sex Discrimination Act, although ultimately unsuccessful, the campaign attempted to push through legislation that entrenched discrimination against a range of minorities and ‘others’.
Throughout the last three decades, as internet use has become widely adopted, social movements have increasingly used websites and social media to negotiate and disseminate collective action frames, rapidly communicate issues and mobilise people online. The internet has significantly reduced the costs of recruitment and lowered barriers to participation as traditional movement repertoires of contention, such as strikes, public meetings, street encounters, marches, rallies and mailed newsletters have become increasingly more burdensome in comparison to the low costs of engagement through internet-based apps such as Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. Debate exists within social movements themselves and social movement scholarship about whether internet-based movements can respond to political opportunities and engage in collective action framing to the same extent as face-to-face forms of organisation. Movements also increasingly question how open and democratic the ‘horizontal’ and inclusive membership structures associated with born-digital organisations are.30
While the internet has supplemented traditional activism to some extent, it has also provided virtual spaces for exchanges and engagement. The worldwide border closures and internal lockdowns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic from March 2020 onwards highlighted the value of such virtual spaces for sustaining social movement activity during a public health crisis. Many social movements drew on their existing digital networking expertise to quickly pivot to Zoom meetings and other platforms to discuss the emerging economic and social exclusions wrought by political responses (and lack thereof) to the pandemic.
Just as groups and movements continue to form and act in response to their context, they also disappear if they are no longer relevant.
Scholars have described five conditions under which social movements can decline through interaction with the political opportunity structure:
It is possible that social movements undergo more than one of these forms of decline at once: for example, for a social movement might experience external repression leading to internal failure when stakes of contention are raised sharply, and organisational leaders and members can become isolated as a result. A recent example of this has happened in the anti-Extradition Bill (Anti-ELAB) movement in Hong Kong. Or a movement can experience success and formalisation at the same time, when the specific issue that it has been campaigning on is resolved, and there is widespread inclusion of movement actors within the decision-making apparatus, as in the mainstreaming of the feminist movement in the Australian state from the 1970s onwards. But many activists and movement scholars would argue, to return to the earlier discussion of state imperatives, that only those issues that directly align with acts that governments must perform for the sake of their own longevity and stability will be accommodated into the mainstream. It is possible that the radical and utopian parts of social movements that are unassimilable will always be excluded, and therefore act as a source of future renewal.
While the political sphere undergoes change from digital disruption and disaffection with democracy, social movements form an important conduit to ensure that ordinary people’s concerns and lived experiences are taken account of and reflected in policy. Theories of social movement formation and dynamics can help explain why some groups emerge and last, and some decline or are formalised.
An individual’s decision to join a social movement can be influenced by a variety of factors, but collective action is key to bringing about long-term change. Most importantly, social movements are the means by which more just alternatives to the status quo are imagined and made possible.
Adams, Rebecca G. and Koji Ueno (2008). Friendship and community organization. In Ram A. Cnaan and Carl Milofsky, eds. Handbook of community movements and local organizations, 193–210. New York: Springer.
Benford, Robert D., and David Snow (2000). Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–39.
Carty, Victoria (2018). Social movements and new technology. New York: Routledge.
Christiansen, Jonathan (2009). Social movements and collective behavior: four stages of social movements. EBSCO Research Starter 1: 1–7.
Diani, Mario (1992). The concept of social movement. Sociological Review 40(1): 1–25.
Dryzek, John S. (2002). Including Australia: a democratic history. In Geoffrey Brennan and Francis G. Castles, eds. Australia reshaped: 200 years of institutional transformation, 115–47. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Earl, Jennifer (2003). Tanks, tear gas and taxes: toward a theory of movement repression. Sociological Theory 21(1): 44–68.
——, Thomas V. Maher and Jennifer Pan (2022). The digital repression of social movements, protest, and activism: a synthetic review. Science Advances 8(10).
Eyerman, Ron (2005). How social movements move: emotions and social movements. In Helena Flam and Debra King eds. Emotions and social movements, 41–56. London: Routledge.
First Mardi Gras Inc. (2022). The first Mardi Gras. https://www.78ers.org.au/what-happened-at-the-first-mardi-gras
Fominaya, Cristina Flesher (2010). Collective identity in social movements: central concepts and debates. Sociology Compass 4(6): 393–404.
Gitlin, Todd (2003). The whole world is watching: mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Gregoire, Paul (2018). Religious exemption laws: an interview with Professor Marion Maddox. Sydney Criminal Lawyers, 18 January. https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/religious-exemption-laws-an-interview-with-professor-marion-maddox/
Guigni, Marco (2009). Political Opportunities: From Tilly to Tilly. Swiss Political Science Review 15(2): 361-368.
Kitzinger, Jenny (2007). Framing and frame analysis. In Eoin Devereux, ed. Media studies: key issues and debates, 134–61. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Lakoff, George (2014). Framing 101: How to take back public discourse. Don’t think of an elephant!: know your values and frame the debate: the essential guide for progressives, 1–32. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
Liveris, Tass (2022). The good and the bad of the religious discrimination bill: the Law Council’s verdict. Law Council of Australia, 9 February. https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/media/news/the-good-and-the-bad-of-the-religious-discrimination-bill-the-law-councils-verdict
Maddison, Sarah and Sean Scalmer (2005). Activist wisdom: Practical knowledge and creative tension in social movements. Kensington: University of NSW Press.
McAdam, Doug, John McCarthy and Mayer N. Zald (1996). Introduction: opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processes – toward a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements. In Doug McAdam, John McCarthy and Mayer N. Zald, eds. Comparative perspectives on social movements: political opportunity structures, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings, 1–20. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McAlevey, Jane (2016). No shortcuts: organizing for power in the new gilded age. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, Timothy (1990). Everyday metaphors of power. Theory and Society 19(5): 545–77.
Moyer, Bill (1987). The movement action plan: a strategic framework describing the eight stages of successful social movements. History Is A Weapon. https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/moyermap.html
Olson, Mancur (2022 [1965]). The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Parkes-Hupton, Heath (2022). NSW parliament passes new laws bringing harsher penalties on protesters. ABC News, 1 April. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-01/nsw-new-protest-laws-target-major-economic-disruption/100960746
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) (2022). Extremely disappointing reports fail to address fundamental problems in Religious Discrimination Bill. PIAC: media releases, 4 February. https://piac.asn.au/2022/02/04/extremely-disappointing-reports-fail-to-address-fundamental-problems-in-religious-discrimination-bill/
Ricketts, Aidan (2012). Public sector activism: how to change the law and influence government policy. Activists’ handbook, 106–129. London: Zed Books.
Smith, Rodney, and Anika Gauja (2019). Chapter 3: Who can vote. State Library of NSW. https://legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au/hot-topics-voting-and-elections/who-can-vote
Snow, David A., Sarah A. Soule and Hanspeter Kriesi (2004). Mapping the terrain. In David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule and Hanspeter Kriesi, eds. The Blackwell companion to social movements, 3–16. Oxford: Blackwell.
Suh, Doowon (2001). How Do Political Opportunities Matter for Social Movements?: Political Opportunity, Misframing, Pseudosuccess, and Pseudofailure. The Sociological Quarterly 42(3): 437-460.
Tarrow, Sidney G. (2011). Power in movement: social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, Marilyn (2008). The nature of community organizing: social capital and community leadership. In Ram A. Cnaan and Carl Milofsky, eds. Handbook of community movements and local organizations, 329–45. New York: Springer.
Taylor, Verta A., and Nella Van Dyke (2004). ‘Get up, stand up’: tactical repertoires of social movements. In David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule and Hanspeter Kriesi, eds. The Blackwell companion to social movements, 262–93. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thompson, Edward Palmer (1971). Moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century. Past & Present 50: 76–136.
Tilly, Charles (1978). From Mobilisation to Revolution. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Tilly, Charles (1999). From interactions to outcomes in social movements. In Marco Giugni, Doug McAdam and Charles Tilly, eds. How social movements matter: theoretical and comparative studies on the consequences of social movements. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Tufecki, Zeynab (2017). Twitter and tear gas: the power and fragility of networked protest. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Van Dyke, Nella, Sarah A. Soule and Verta A. Taylor (2004). The targets of social movements: beyond a focus on the state. Research in social movements, conflicts and change 25: 27–51.
Zald, Mayer N., and Roberta Ash (1966). Social movement organizations: growth, decay and change. Social Forces 44: 327–41.
Dr Justine Lloyd is an urban and cultural sociologist in the discipline of sociology at the School of Social Sciences, Macquarie University. She teaches courses on gender and power, activism, and social change and social theory. She researches urban social movements and how they use place-based narratives and media to promote social justice.
1 This Chapter includes text from “Pressure groups and social movements” by Moira Byrne (2021), available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike 4.0 International License.
2 Diani 1992.
3 Van Dyke, Soule and Taylor 2004, 29.
4 Snow, Soule and Kriesi 2004, 11.
5 Dryzek 2002.
6 Castles in Dryzek 2002, 123.
7 Smith and Gauja 2019.
8 Dryzek 2002, 116.
9 Moyer defines ‘trigger events’ as ‘shocking incident[s] that dramatically [reveal] a critical social problem to the general public in a new and vivid way, such as the arrest of Rosa Parks for refusing to move to the back of a Montgomery bus in 1955 or NATO’s 1979 announcement to deploy American Cruise and Pershing 2 nuclear weapons in Europe. Trigger events can be deliberate acts by individuals, governments, or the opponents, or they can be accidents.’ Moyer 1987, 2.
10 Fominaya 2010.
11 Olson 2002 [1965].
12 Maddison and Scalmer 2005, 23.
13 Thompson 1971.
14 Tilly 1999, 45–6.
15 Tilly 1999, 261.
16 Tarrow 2011, 26.
17 Tarrow 2011, 33.
18 Parkes-Hupton 2022.
19 McAdam, McCarthy and Zald 1996, 3, 18.
20 Zald and Ash 1966, 330–1; Adams and Ueno 2008.
21 Taylor 2008, 336.
22 Gitlin 2003, 6.
23 Kitzinger 2007, 137.
24 Eyerman 2005, 45–6.
25 Benford and Snow 2000, 615–18.
26 Lakoff 2004.
27 Benford and Snow 2000.
28 Gregoire 2018.
29 Liveris 2022; PIAC 2022.
30 Tufecki 2017; Carty 2018.
31 Earl 2003; Earl, Maher and Pan 2022.
32 Christiansen 2009, 4.