| Summary/Abstract |
The papers of the special issue analyse intra-state conflict escalation and armed rebellion from a framing perspective. Following Robert Benford and David Snow, framing is understood as strategic communication to mobilise a constituency for political action through persuasive ‘collective action frames’.1 Such collective action frames comprise the identification of common grievances and responsible actors (diagnostic frame), possible solutions to the identified problems (prognostic frame) and sufficiently strong reasons to push a constituency into political action (motivational frame). In our understanding, ‘collective action frames’ can mobilise people for various forms of contentious behaviour (including armed rebellion), but they can also fail to resonate with the audience. Thus, we expect political violence to occur only if framers make a convincing and resonant ‘call to arms’. In order to show that collective action frames indeed matter for various forms of political violence and most importantly civil war, the special issue investigates two aspects in detail: First, the contributions trace the selection and development of collective action frames (in particular those that propagate violence) and analyse the framing strategies deployed by movement leaders. Second, the authors of this special issue seek to explain why some ‘calls to arms’ resonate and make a constituency support an armed group, whereas others fail to ‘sweep the audience’.
|