Naming, Blaming, and Claiming in Public Disputes:
The 1998 Maine Referendum on Civil Rights Protection
for Gay Men and Lesbians
By Carolyn Wiethoff
Wiethoff’s use of the Fesltiner’s theory on naming, blaming and claiming proves to be quite interesting in this article. She easily demonstrates how the Christian Civic League of Maine used this three-step narrative to appeal two distinct groups of voters – ultra-conservative Christians and undecided voters in the general public – in order to over to endorse a referendum ending civil rights protections for GLBTs. Because the response to this attack was very limited by GLBT groups, the CCLM was able to name possible social harms, attribute them to GLBTs, and then make a legal claim for the referendum in order to ensure those harms do not happen.
I found Wiethoff’’s take on the naming, blaming and claiming narrative to be very accurate, and troubling. I was also intrigued by how much the process overlapped with the idea of a moral panic. In retrospect, that is what this type of narrative allowed the CCLM to launch against homosexuals living in Maine.
Demon Activity – homosexuality and its perceived harms/risks
Minority Group – obviously blame is attributed to GLBTs
Victims/Group in Need of Protection – children and Christians
Policy Proposed – 1998 Main referendum banning civil rights protections
First, they identified the harm/demon – homosexuality. Surprisingly they were able to demonize homosexuality through the fear of old stereotypes (HIV/AIDS), the belief that homosexuals were actually a powerful force in society unworthy of civil rights protection because they would likely use that power to endorse homosexual teachings in schools and threaten the Christian way of life. Naturally, in the 2nd part of the process, GLBTs were the minority group blamed/attributed with creating and perpetuating this type of risk and social harm through their life-style choices.
The next step in the moral panic was to identify a group in need of protection. The CCLM effectively portrayed children and those of the Christian faith to be the most directly threatened by homosexuality, both physically (through the perceived risk of being more likely to be exposed HIV/AIDS) and spiritually (endorsing a homosexual lifestyle and threatening Christian beliefs/freedoms).
Finally, the CCLM proposed legislation through it’s referendum to abolish civil rights protection for GLBTs, which they argued would protect children and Christians by keeping homosexual groups from becoming too powerful and pushing their risky lifestyles and harmful practices on the rest of society.
It’s incredible to see how easily the CCLM was able to pull of this obviously discriminatory maneuver, largely without much dispute from the GLBT community, while at the same time quite I found it appalling that our legal system could be manipulated and used in such a way even in this day and age. It just goes to show you how powerful the naming, blaming, claiming narrative is, especially when combined and presented in the context of a moral panic.
The 1998 Maine Referendum on Civil Rights Protection
for Gay Men and Lesbians
By Carolyn Wiethoff
Wiethoff’s use of the Fesltiner’s theory on naming, blaming and claiming proves to be quite interesting in this article. She easily demonstrates how the Christian Civic League of Maine used this three-step narrative to appeal two distinct groups of voters – ultra-conservative Christians and undecided voters in the general public – in order to over to endorse a referendum ending civil rights protections for GLBTs. Because the response to this attack was very limited by GLBT groups, the CCLM was able to name possible social harms, attribute them to GLBTs, and then make a legal claim for the referendum in order to ensure those harms do not happen.
I found Wiethoff’’s take on the naming, blaming and claiming narrative to be very accurate, and troubling. I was also intrigued by how much the process overlapped with the idea of a moral panic. In retrospect, that is what this type of narrative allowed the CCLM to launch against homosexuals living in Maine.
Demon Activity – homosexuality and its perceived harms/risks
Minority Group – obviously blame is attributed to GLBTs
Victims/Group in Need of Protection – children and Christians
Policy Proposed – 1998 Main referendum banning civil rights protections
First, they identified the harm/demon – homosexuality. Surprisingly they were able to demonize homosexuality through the fear of old stereotypes (HIV/AIDS), the belief that homosexuals were actually a powerful force in society unworthy of civil rights protection because they would likely use that power to endorse homosexual teachings in schools and threaten the Christian way of life. Naturally, in the 2nd part of the process, GLBTs were the minority group blamed/attributed with creating and perpetuating this type of risk and social harm through their life-style choices.
The next step in the moral panic was to identify a group in need of protection. The CCLM effectively portrayed children and those of the Christian faith to be the most directly threatened by homosexuality, both physically (through the perceived risk of being more likely to be exposed HIV/AIDS) and spiritually (endorsing a homosexual lifestyle and threatening Christian beliefs/freedoms).
Finally, the CCLM proposed legislation through it’s referendum to abolish civil rights protection for GLBTs, which they argued would protect children and Christians by keeping homosexual groups from becoming too powerful and pushing their risky lifestyles and harmful practices on the rest of society.
It’s incredible to see how easily the CCLM was able to pull of this obviously discriminatory maneuver, largely without much dispute from the GLBT community, while at the same time quite I found it appalling that our legal system could be manipulated and used in such a way even in this day and age. It just goes to show you how powerful the naming, blaming, claiming narrative is, especially when combined and presented in the context of a moral panic.
Posts
I read this article and I have to say your explaining of it was excellent. You hit all the points they tried to make, and you didn't even need 20 pages.
ReplyDeleteAs to your comment at the end, I think it's pretty frightening how often discrimination still occurs today, especially against the GLBT community. American people constantly remember the majority rules aspect of our government while completely disregarding the minority protections that are also supposed to be present. In the 2008 elections every referendum concerning Gay marriage declared it illegal, including California. This is scary stuff.