Difference between revisions of "Interpretive framing"
m (→Overview: fallacy of moderation) |
m (→Overview: fixed formatting glitch) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Overview== | ==Overview== | ||
| − | [[category:manipulative tools]][[Interpretive framing]], also known as '''political framing''' or just ''framing''', is a rhetorical device in which a complex [[issue]] is explained in simpler terms chosen to emphasize certain aspects of the issue and downplay others. It is typically used as a form of [[rhetorical deception]], though it can be used non-deceptively (see Legitimate Uses). | + | [[category:manipulative tools]][[Interpretive framing]], also known as '''political framing''' or just '''framing''', is a rhetorical device in which a complex [[issue]] is explained in simpler terms chosen to emphasize certain aspects of the issue and downplay others. It is typically used as a form of [[rhetorical deception]], though it can be used non-deceptively (see Legitimate Uses). |
It is a cousin to the [[emotional argument]] in that it favors viewing the argument in simplistic terms – which are typically emotionally-weighted, although they do not have to be – rather than examining every detail to the greatest possible extent. In other words, it is [[arational]] at best and can be used for [[anti-rational]] purposes. | It is a cousin to the [[emotional argument]] in that it favors viewing the argument in simplistic terms – which are typically emotionally-weighted, although they do not have to be – rather than examining every detail to the greatest possible extent. In other words, it is [[arational]] at best and can be used for [[anti-rational]] purposes. | ||
Revision as of 17:00, 26 July 2008
Overview
Interpretive framing, also known as political framing or just framing, is a rhetorical device in which a complex issue is explained in simpler terms chosen to emphasize certain aspects of the issue and downplay others. It is typically used as a form of rhetorical deception, though it can be used non-deceptively (see Legitimate Uses).
It is a cousin to the emotional argument in that it favors viewing the argument in simplistic terms – which are typically emotionally-weighted, although they do not have to be – rather than examining every detail to the greatest possible extent. In other words, it is arational at best and can be used for anti-rational purposes.
It is also related to the Overton window, another rhetorical device that essentially frames a discussion in terms of two "opposites" which both represent the side the speaker wants to bolster, coloring any alternative views (especially sensible ones) as "extreme" or "fringe" options which nobody takes seriously and setting up issue-neophytes to fall right into the fallacy of moderation. [1]
Legitimate Uses
The only justifiable use of this technique seems to be when an issue has already been framed in terms that are unfair; an alternate framing may make it easier to see this unfairness, especially for those not inclined to look past the surface. However, this is generally playing to the strengths of those who would distort the truth rather than seek it, and does not really resolve anything.
Related Pages
- The effectiveness of interpretive framing is probably best explained by memetic theory.