The Intersection Between Deep Moral Frames and Rhetorical Style in the Struggle over U.S. Immigration Reform

Abstract

This essay highlights and explores a point of tension between theoretical writings on style and moral frames. Past political communication scholarship points to the importance of the feminine style in today's televisual era of politics. In this same political era, the conservative strict parent moral frame has dominated most policy debates. Surprisingly, this highly successful moral frame appears squarely at odds with the feminine style so closely connected with political success. This essay attempts to unravel this tension between styles and frames by examining discourse drawn from the 2007 debate over comprehensive immigration reform. To account for the success of conservative messages within this debate, this essay both (a) calls into question the nature of the relationship between the television medium and the feminine style and (b) expands our understanding of the discursive operation of deep moral frames by drawing a distinction between intra-familial and extra-familial policy discourse.

Keywords:

• Feminine Style
• Immigration Reform
• Masculine Style
• Nurturant Parent Frame
• Strict Parent Frame

Notes

In his writings, Lakoff actually referred to a strict father frame, rather than a strict parent frame. However, Lakoff (1996) also pointed out that the strict father frame can just as easily be employed by “a strict mother as well” (p. 67). Thus, the strict father frame terminology inaccurately implies that only male parents employ this particular moral perspective. To better clarify that both mothers and fathers can make use of the strict moral frame to conceptualize family and politics, we have opted to refer to this frame as the strict parent frame throughout this essay.

Santa Ana (2002) did make extensive use of Lakoff's early theorizing on metaphors; however, he made only a passing reference to Lakoff's later writings on moral frames.

Our characterization of politicians as attempting to move immigration policy in a liberal direction is not based on party affiliation; rather, it is simply based on their support for the proposed immigration reform measure. Admittedly, any effort to characterize a legislative stance as liberal or conservative is fraught with difficulty, particularly when it comes to immigration policy because this policy area has historically produced odd coalitions of self-identified liberals and conservatives. However, in recent years, a more consistent liberal/conservative divide has emerged on immigration issues. Specifically, since the “new era of American nativism” began in the mid-1990s, “conservative” organizations have generally favored curbing immigration, whereas “liberal” groups have generally supported more permissive immigration policies (Tichenor, 2002, p. 245). Thus, we characterize support for the proposed immigration reform measure—a measure that included an expanded guest worker program and a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants—as an effort to move immigration policy in a more liberal direction. Conversely, we depict those fighting against this bill as attempting to defend more conservative immigration policies.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

David G. Levasseur

David G. Levasseur (Ph.D., University of Kansas, 1994) is a professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Chester University.

J. Kanan Sawyer

J. Kanan Sawyer (Ph.D., University of Texas, 2006) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Chester University.

Maria A. Kopacz

Maria A. Kopacz (Ph.D., University of Arizona, 2007) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Chester University.