Place-Framing'' As Place-Making: Constituting A Neighborhood For Organizing and Activism

‘‘Place-Framing’’ as Place-Making: Constituting
a Neighborhood for Organizing and Activism

Deborah G. Martin
Department of Geography, University of Georgia
This article uses social-movement theory to analyze how neighborhood organizations portray activism as grounded
in a particular place and scale. I apply the concept of collective-action frames to a case study of four organizations in a
single neighborhood in St. Paul, Minnesota. Using organizational documents such as annual reports, comprehensive
plans, and flyers, I present a discourse analysis of the ways that organizations describe their goals and agenda. In
particular, I assess the extent to which the organizations characterize the neighborhood in their justifications of
organizational goals and actions. In order to legitimate their own agendas and empower community activism,
neighborhood organizations foster a neighborhood identity that obscures social differences, such as ethnicity and
class, among residents. They do so by describing the physical condition of the neighborhood and the daily life
experiences of its residents. These ‘‘place-frames’’ constitute a motivating discourse for organizations seeking to
unite residents for a neighborhood-oriented agenda, despite very different substantive issues, from crime to land-use
planning. This perspective allows for a more effective understanding of how place informs activism at a variety of
spatial scales. Further, by inserting place into theories of collective-action framing, this research helps to introduce a
new research agenda that addresses the gap between geographical analyses of territorial identities and activism and
other scholarly literatures on contentious politics. Key Words: collective action, discourse, neighborhood organizing,
place-frames.
We’re dealing with the neighborhood. Community is culture, interests, and values (Tuan 1974, 1977; Pred 1984; Purcell
faith, etc. Neighborhood is geographic, and we all have [it] 1997, 1998; Jonas 1998). The question is not whether the
in common. Regardless of community. ( Johnny Howard, local context structures common interests and goals, but
Executive Director, Thomas-Dale Block Clubs, conversation how. In this article, I explore the connection between place
with author, St. Paul, MN, 10 July 1996). and organizing by arguing that, for neighborhood-based
organizations, place provides an important mobilizing
T
he neighborhood functions as a site of political discourse and identity for collective action, one that
activism. The statement above, made by a neigh- can obviate diverse facets of social identity in order to de-
borhood organizer who founded a block-club fine a neighborhood-based polity. Further, this analysis
organization in his neighborhood in St. Paul, Minnesota, introduces a framework for analyzing the ‘‘place-making’’
illustrates the importance of geographic location in his that occurs at a variety of spatial scales through collec-
organizing efforts, although it also implies additional tive action.
complexities in relations among residents. Indeed, it Scholars have convincingly demonstrated the persis-
highlights an important difference between community tence of local activism and local identities in the face of
and propinquity, one stressed by scholars as well (Cox globalizing economies, politics, and cultures (Massey
1982; Lyon 1989; Menahem and Spiro 1989; Johnston 1991, 1994, 1998; Keith and Pile 1997). Indeed, words
1994). ‘‘Community’’-based organizing is traditionally like ‘‘glocalization’’ (Swyngedouw 1992; Robertson 1995)1
thought to rely not on territory per se, but upon identifying highlight the dialectical relationship between the global
multiple issues of common interest—such as health or and local, in which both dynamics shape peoples’ daily
housing concerns, schools, or job conditions—among a lives and experiences. Neighborhood organizing occurs
group of people (Bailey 1974; Alinsky 1989; Davis 1991). across and within varied sets of contexts and relationships,
Proximity fosters common experiences of problems and ranging from the daily life experiences of residents and
thus common interests, but location does not, in itself, organizers to the local economic and political context and
make a community (Cox and Mair 1988; Alinsky 1989; broader national and global forces operating on and
Davis 1991). Yet many scholars have argued that place affecting the urban area in which the neighborhood is
fosters a common identity, based on common experiences, situated (Wilson 1993; Jonas 1998; Haughton and While
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(3), 2003, pp. 730–750
r 2003 by Association of American Geographers
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, U.K.
Place-Framing as Place-Making 731
1999; Wilson and Grammenos 2000). Its focus, none- are constructed and portrayed in discourses of neighbor-
theless, is on the local context (Alinsky 1989; Davis 1991). hood organizations operating in a ‘‘racially’’ and ethnically
Neighborhood-level activism in U.S. urban areas diverse urban area.2 These references to shared daily life in
increasingly operates in a political context dominated by the spaces of a neighborhood seek to legitimate commu-
an elite agenda of urban growth through civic boosterism nity organizing at the neighborhood scale.
and redevelopment projects (Logan and Molotch 1987; In the following sections, I define the terms ‘‘place’’
Jonas and Wilson 1999). Neighborhood- or community- and ‘‘neighborhood’’ as I use them here and develop a
based organizations are increasingly responsible for local framework for analysis of neighborhood-based activism
services in neoliberal governance schemes, while regional that draws upon and extends theories of social move-
and local states prioritize economic relations and the ments, which have been used to provide explanations for
‘‘business climate’’ (Raco 2000; Ward 2000). The concept the structure and actions of collective organizations. In
of local dependence (Cox and Mair 1988) articulates how particular, the concept of ‘‘collective-action frames’’
diverse urban political-economic interests can be united (Snow et al. 1986; Snow and Benford 1988, 1992)
in growth-oriented coalitions in which one urban econ- provides a basis for exploring how organizational dis-
omy competes against others. But local dependence courses situate and legitimate activism in a neighborhood.
addresses urban economies; it does not conceptualize I use the idea of ‘‘frames’’ (Goffman 1974) to examine
place-coalitions at scales within urban areas, differenti- the place-oriented discourses of four organizations in the
ated from the broader community. Within any particular Frogtown neighborhood of St. Paul, Minnesota.
urban economy, neighborhood-based or community I conclude this article by arguing that organizations
groups may challenge redevelopment schemes, demand- discursively relate the conditions of the place—the
ing greater attention to local, community-based identities common experiences of people in place—to their different
and concerns (Haughton and While 1999; Bûcek and agendas for collective action. In doing so, they construct
Smith 2000; Wilson and Grammenos 2000; Robinson the local scale of the neighborhood and its organizations as
2001). These community groups assert place concerns and the appropriate sphere for political activism, consolidating
identity at a more local scale than that of the entire urban the ‘‘neighborhood’’ as a salient political place. This
area. Robinson (2001), Wilson (1993), and Wilson and ‘‘place-framing’’ asserts a neighborhood identity, albeit
Grammenos (2000) argue that space—the setting, geog- one based on partial accounts of the neighborhood,
raphical location, and sociospatial context of a neighbor- emphasizing only some social characteristics of residents
hood—influences the formation of collective identities and portrayals of the physical landscape to support the
and activist agendas. Indeed, Wilson and Grammenos organizations’ different activities. These framings empow-
(2000, 367) suggest that political movements must appeal er a neighborhood-based political community while
to ideals about community, or ‘‘terrains of civility,’’ which rhetorically diminishing alternative axes of mobilization
refer to characteristics or spatial processes such as ‘‘the through social identities or at other territorial scales. The
gentrified aesthetic, ‘stable’ blue-collar orderliness, framings represent a powerful activist discourse, one that
the suburban ideal, and the city beautiful ethic’’ (see also may be deployed to constitute places and polities at a
Purcell 1997). number of spatial scales.
Asserting a spatial grounding or discourse in neighbor-
hood activism is but a first step in understanding the
dynamics of spatial processes and appeals in activism. Conceptual Framework: Background
Geographers recognize the importance of place to social and Definitions
life (Tuan 1974, 1977; Mitchell 1993; Purcell 1997), but
our theoretical tools for demonstrating where and how Neighborhoods
place is deployed in polities are still being developed.
Following Mitchell (1993), Boyle (1999), and Gilbert I employ the term‘‘neighborhood’’ in this article to refer
(1999), I argue that scholars need to ‘‘uncover’’ (Mitchell to an urban residential district—one codified in local
1993, 288) the meanings and representations of activism politics—but I simultaneously problematize the notion of
at the local level, particularly as they constitute place- neighborhood as a salient, given territory of experience, as
based activist communities. I do so here by examining how planning practice assumes. ‘‘Place’’ and ‘‘neighborhood’’
neighborhood organizations draw upon and represent connote two distinct yet related local-level social con-
experiences of daily life in the material spaces of a structions and processes. Place, as geographers have
neighborhood. I seek to uncover how common interests, argued, is socially constructed through several complex
imputed in the shared spaces of residential neighborhoods, and intertwined elements, including interactions among
732 Martin
people and groups, institutionalized land uses, political Neighborhood Organizations, Social Movements,
and economic decisions that favor some places and and Collective Action
neglect others, and the language of representation (Pred
1984, 1986; Massey 1991; Barnes and Duncan 1992a; Neighborhood organizations can be thought of as
Duncan and Ley 1993; McDowell 1999). Harvey (1989), groups of residents and organizers dedicated to addressing
Lefebvre (1991), and Merrifield (1993a, b) have suggested one or a range of issues, including social, political,
that place represents a ‘‘spatialized moment’’ of global economic, and quality-of-life concerns at the neighbor-
flows of labor, goods, and capital exchange. Place is both a hood level. It is useful to conceptualize neighborhood
setting for and situated in the operation of social and organizations as part of what can broadly be characterized
economic processes, and it also provides a ‘‘grounding’’ for as ‘‘contentious politics’’ (McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly
everyday life and experience. In this latter sense of daily 2001). Although they often work within an existing
life, place as a territorially bounded residential district political structure, neighborhood organizations are not
(physically, as by railroads or highways or waterways, or formally part of an appointed or elected body, and at times
mentally, as in a social imaginary) embodies the concept of they explicitly challenge governance structures. Neighbor-
neighborhood on which I draw here. hood organizations interact with and demand services from
‘‘Neighborhood’’ is a frustratingly vague term, as existing political institutions while they strive to define
exemplified by Johnston’s (1994, 409) definition in The collective polities at a scale different from that of local
Dictionary of Human Geography: ‘‘a district within an government. Although there is no nationwide or globally-
urban area.’’ Many cities base political decisions on some coordinated neighborhood movement, the presence of
notion of neighborhood units (Haeberle 1988, 618), neighborhood organizing in countless cities in North
including decisions that organize voters on the basis of America and around the world constitutes a form of ‘‘social
location. Although neighborhoods ‘‘are certainly not easy movement’’ that is helping to reshape local governance
to identify empirically’’ ( Johnston 1994, 409), they persist by demanding neighborhood-based decision-making. It
as an idea among many urban residents and as a reality in is useful conceptually, therefore, to draw upon social-
local politics, where neighborhood planning units—or movement scholarship in investigating the efforts of neigh-
‘‘citizen participation districts,’’ as in the case of St. Paul, borhood organizations to mobilize neighborhood action.4
Minnesota—are designated (often by city planners) to Social-movement scholars examine why and how
organize and categorize residents in various parts of collective action occurs. Some have argued that resour-
the city. ces—primarily money and leadership—have been a key to
At one time in urban history, neighborhoods comprised motivating action (McCarthy and Zald 1973, 1977;
relatively homogeneous cultural, ethnic, and income Jenkins 1983; Gamson 1990). Other scholars have
groups reliant upon one another for mutual aid (Cox focused on the political structure (Kitschelt 1986;
1982). These residential districts fostered territorially Klandermans, Kriesi, and Tarrow 1988) or quality of life
based communities of interest.3 Although neighborhood and the desire of identity groups such as gays or women to
and community are not synonymous, Logan and Molotch be recognized in the broader political culture (Habermas
(1987, 108) hint at an implicit connection between the 1981; Melucci 1988; Laraña, Johnston, and Gusfield
two in their definition of neighborhood as ‘‘a shared 1994). All of these perspectives point to a variety of
interest in overlapping use values (identity, security, and influences on collective action and to the need for
so on) in a single area.’’ Their definition highlights the grievances among a group to coexist with some definition
notion that neighborhoods become meaningful to inha- of a collective sense of agency or community to address
bitants because of the interactions among people in them the grievance.
or from shared values and interests. Thus, neighborhoods The question that remains for scholars is how and why
are the site of and encompass a variety of interactions and certain collective identities motivate activism at given
exchanges that form a complex set of social and economic times and places. Social movements can foster activism by
relations. The pernicious problem of how physically to drawing upon class, ethnicity, gender, race, sexuality, and
specify a neighborhood remains. The vagueness of the idea other identities as ‘‘positions’’ from which to unite coali-
of ‘‘neighborhood’’ seems to be inherent to its very nature; tions of citizens for common goals (Laclau and Mouffe
neighborhoods are socially constructed in particular times 1987; Staeheli and Lawson 1995). Neighborhood organi-
and places, and therefore they are not fixed and specific. zations seek to link social goals and activism at the scale of
As the setting for daily life, however, socially constructed a neighborhood, but basing community politics at that
neighborhoods have real, material consequences for scale is just one possible position for urban activism. In
people who live in them. St. Paul, however, neighborhood organizations have a
place-based mandate in the local polity. By using that domination (Clark 1994; Keith and Pile 1997). Place-
mandate to further define and demarcate neighborhoods frames conceptually identify this relationship between
as political communities, organizations prioritize place over place and activism by situating activism in place and
other social identities. Frame analysis exposes the ways defining a collective identity in terms of the common
that organizations highlight particular social positions and place that people—mostly neighborhood residents—share.
the inclusions and exclusions such choices entail. Place-frames describe common experiences among people
in a place, as well as imagining an ideal of how the
Collective-Action Framing neighborhood ought to be (Mitchell 1988; Anderson 1991;
Purcell 1997, 1998). Place-frames thus define the scope
Social movements draw upon social identities to foster and scale of the shared neighborhood of collective concern.
collective activism by framing their goals and activities in As discourses that reveal ideologies about activism and
order to appeal to the collective group (Snow et al. 1986; place, frames have material consequences both in shaping
Snow and Benford 1992; Benford 1993, 1997). Collective- people’s ideas about places and in fostering social action.
action frames denote how social movements articulate While some collective-action frames are aimed primarily
issues, values, and concerns in ways that foster collec- at motivating activism among members, frames affect
tive identity and activism (Snow et al. 1986; Snow external perspectives of a community as well. For example,
and Benford 1992; Benford 1993, 1997; Hunt, Benford, Martin (2000) demonstrates how media representations
and Snow 1994; Silver 1997). Broadly speaking, ‘‘frames’’ of a neighborhood shifted from mostly negative portrayals
—or ‘‘framing’’—is a term that refers to how individuals of crime to more positive acknowledgements of residents’
organize experiences or make sense of events (Goffman agency in tandem with organizational discourses about
1974). Collective-action framing makes sense of events in neighborhood activism.
ways that highlight a collective set of values, beliefs, and In this article, I examine whether the frames of four St.
goals for some sort of change. Paul neighborhood organizations advance a common
Frames are also discourses—‘‘frameworks that embrace place-identity, or characterization, even as they advocate
particular combinations of narratives, concepts, ideologies multiple (and different) agendas, by assessing how they
and signifying practices’’ (Barnes and Duncan 1992a, 8)— describe problems, characteristics, and activities that
oriented to collective action. Johnston (1995, 219) argues make a neighborhood a unique place.5 Studying place-
that there is ‘‘an inextricable link between discourse and frames provides the conceptual framework for under-
frames’’ in which collective-action frames articulate the standing how community organizations create a discursive
embedded, discursive relationship between shared values, place-identity to situate and legitimate their activism. I
cultural understandings, and activism. Frames are collec- focus on the internal, neighborhood-based ‘‘place-
tive organizational narratives negotiated from a combina- making’’ of the organizations, but their place-frames also
tion of cultural values within a movement and from some form part of the external rhetorical negotiations over the
degree of deliberate framing choices by social-movement meaning and status of the place (Martin 2000). This
leaders (Roy 1994; Benford 1997; Paige 1997). Collective- research reveals a reification of the local, neighborhood
action frames are not fixed and internally cohesive, but scale for community organizing. It demonstrates how
they may contain contradictions and they certainly organizations define the neighborhood community as a
change over time (Giddens 1976). universal, common interest among residents who might
Focusing on neighborhood organizations, I extend the otherwise see themselves as or be represented by alter-
conceptualization of framing to explore how neighbor- native identities based on race, ethnicity, religion, culture,
hood organizations advance or constitute a place identity or household type. In the sections that follow, I describe
as part of their articulating of reasons and goals for the research site and explore how place is discursively
activism. I have created the term ‘‘place-based collective- constituted by neighborhood organizations through col-
action frames,’’ or ‘‘place-frames,’’ to highlight the potential lective action place-frames.
relationship between activism based on an idea of
neighborhood and the material experiences of that place.
Scholars have suggested that real, tangible places can be a The Frogtown Neighborhood, the Local
basis for identity-based activism, in which groups of people State, and Neighborhood Organizing
draw upon distinct political and economic frameworks
that shape identity (Castells 1983; Routledge 1993), their This research examines the Frogtown, or Thomas-
shared ideals about residential places (Purcell 1997, 1998; Dale/District 7 (as it is officially called in city documents
Robinson 2001), and specific sites of resistance and and plans) neighborhood, just northwest of downtown
734 Martin
St. Paul, Minnesota. Frogtown is a mostly working-class participation and communication about land-use and
neighborhood, and in 1990 it had 50 percent minority planning among local government, residents, social-
residents (non-Hispanic), with 35.5 percent of residents service providers, and businesses. The organization has a
living below the poverty line. Frogtown has a reputation in small office and staff, which is funded in part by the city of
the Twin Cities (especially in the media; see Martin 2000) St. Paul.7 All residents of the officially designated district,
as a dangerous (crime-ridden) neighborhood. as well as property and business owners and employees of
The four neighborhood-based organizations in this Frogtown businesses, are considered ‘‘members’’ of the
study address four broad but overlapping themes. The council, with the right to vote for the board of directors.
oldest organization is the one that has a formal ‘‘contract’’ The organization sponsors social events and neighbor-
or relationship with the city of St. Paul, stemming from the hood clean-ups, but most of its activities are conducted in
mid-1970s, when the city mandated official urban meetings that address city and neighborhood land-use and
‘‘neighborhoods’’ for citizen participation in local spend- zoning policies.
ing and planning initiatives (Figure 1).6 The Thomas- In the late 1980s, the District Council developed
Dale District Seven Planning Council, or District Council, a program called the Sherburne Initiative to buy, reha-
acts as an official liaison to the city and its planning bilitate, and sell several properties on a particularly run-
agencies on issues such as long-range planning, zoning, down street. In 1995, the Greater Frogtown Community
and land-use policies. Its primary mission is to foster Development Corporation (GFCDC) was established as
a separate organization, with a mission to maintain and
develop the housing stock in Frogtown, continuing
and expanding the work of the Sherburne Initiative (Dawn
Goldschmitz, Director, GFCDC, interview, St. Paul, MN,
4 September 1996; Michael Samuelson, Director, District
Seven Planning Council, interview, St. Paul, MN, 23 July
1996). The GFCDC was initially financed by a national
nonprofit, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation,
which wanted to support low-income housing develop-
ment in St. Paul. The GFCDC identifies vacant lots for
housing construction and builds new homes that are
designed to fit into the scale and architecture of the
surrounding houses. It also targets abandoned homes for
rehabilitation and buys homes forfeited to the city for tax
arrears, rehabilitates them, and then sells them for single-
family residential use. In addition, the GFCDC acts as an
information clearinghouse for prospective homebuyers
in the neighborhood and for homeowners interested in
rehabilitation and maintenance. Because of the technical
nature of much of its work, the GFCDC does not set out to
formally organize residents. Its board of directors, how-
ever, is composed of neighborhood residents, who set the
mission and direct the activities of the organization, and
its staff spends a fair amount of time in the neighborhood
talking with residents about current or upcoming con-
struction and rehabilitation projects.
Another development-oriented agency was established
in the early 1990s with support from the Minnesota-based
McKnight Foundation.8 The primary goals of the Frog-
town Action Alliance (the FAA) are to address economic
development, jobs, and training in Frogtown. One of its
main activities in this regard is to provide resources
for residents to become more involved in the busi-
Figure 1. Frogtown/Thomas-Dale and the citizen planning districts ness community, primarily through entrepreneurship
in St. Paul, Minnesota. classes (which have been geared especially to African
Americans). The second area of emphasis has been to organizations (Homans, interview, 1996; Melton, inter-
improve the ‘‘business climate,’’ which has involved view 1996).
initiating and coordinating infrastructural improvements The basis for activism and organization within the city
to commercial districts and corridors, including working framework is its district-council system and boundaries,
with the city to repave a major corridor through Frogtown which assumes common interests and experiences among
and to help businesses in a shopping center to design and residents within districts like Frogtown, providing resour-
finance a new façade. ces and autonomy for neighborhood groups to act within
The final organization in this study, which was their communities. In Frogtown, the district-council
established in 1990 by two residents, addresses crime system had evolved by the mid-1990s into an amalgam
and public safety in the neighborhood. The Thomas-Dale of organizations addressing issues far beyond citizen input
Block Clubs organizes residents into block clubs and into planning and zoning. Although the district bound-
mobilizes them to build community and protest illegal aries were, at one time, created in part by neighborhood
activities in the neighborhood. Its funding comes from a organizations, the continuing salience of the neighbor-
combination of private foundations, member donations, hood ‘‘district’’ may rely in part upon fostering a sense of
and city contracts for specific projects. The Block Club identity and community among its diverse residents.
coordinates activities for youth and seniors and maintains Organizations working to improve the level of citizen
public and private property through agreements with the participation, physical infrastructure, economy, and safety
city and through programs—such as a ‘‘beautiful block’’ of the neighborhood, therefore, define a neighborhood-
contest—that encourage people to care for their yards and scale, place-based identity as part of their discourses
homes. In many ways, the Block Club is the most visible for activism.
of the four organizations, as it holds block meetings
and conducts street marches, complete with bullhorn and Research Approach
signs that call for residents to work for a better com-
munity. The primary goal of the group is to create pride in Examining the ways in which organizations use place to
the neighborhood. situate and structure neighborhood collective action
In the mid-1990s, at the time of this study, all of these requires attention to the discursive frames of neighbor-
organizations had various formal and informal relations hood-based organizations. Since discourses are narratives,
with city agencies, including annual payments to the conceptual frameworks, and ideologies (Barnes and
District Council for its citizen participation program, Duncan 1992b), they may be manifest in several ways in
planning coordination and initiatives among the District a given social enterprise. For the purpose of this research
Council, the FAA, and planning and economic develop- (conducted in 1996 and 1997), I sought representations of
ment units at the city, and contracts with the GFCDC and the neighborhood and organizational activism by acti-
the Block Club for housing development and mainte- vists—most of whom are residents—including group and
nance of publicly owned property in the neighborhood, individual portrayals, written and spoken accounts, in
respectively. Despite these many relationships with the public and in private. I focus here on a primarily internal
city and its agencies, however, each organization operated neighborhood dialogue: organizational discourses aimed
as an autonomous entity, responsible for its own planning at neighborhood residents and businesses.10 The sources
and agenda-setting for activism in the neighborhood, with for these accounts include announcements in a local
little city oversight other than required audits of financial neighborhood newspaper (the Frogtown Times11); organi-
records (Nancy Homans, planner with St. Paul Depart- zational documents such as annual reports, comprehen-
ment of Planning and Economic Development and liaison sive plans, meeting minutes, brochures, leaflets, and flyers;
to District Seven during the development of the Thomas- and my own notes of announcements and conversations
Dale Small Area Plan, interview, St. Paul, MN, 22 August during public, board, or committee meetings that I
1996; Hope Melton, former St. Paul city planner, inter- attended for each of the four organizations.12
view, St. Paul, MN, 11 September 1996).9 Formal city For each organization, I had a least one major doc-
efforts at planning and urban development were concen- ument that set out the purpose and scope of the
trated on improving the manufacturing-job base with organization, with supplementary literature that provided
industrial district redevelopments—including a site partly some insight into the activities and discourses of each
in Thomas-Dale—and downtown development. The organization in 1996–1997. I examined the documents
planning staff was cut in the mid-1990s as part of efforts and notes repeatedly, reading documents individually as
to reduce the size of government, leading to less interac- well as grouping them by topics and organizations. I looked
tion between individual planners and neighborhood for themes and words that explained the activities of the
736 Martin
organization or indicated representations of the neighbor- motives and goals of collective activism. One way to do so
hood and neighborhood issues. I used the discourses of the is to use a conceptual heuristic from Snow and Benford
organizations to identify their frames, specifically those (1988, 1992). They argued that collective-action frames
elements of the frames that referred to and described consist of three functions: a motivational element, which
the neighborhood and its characteristics. What I include defines the community that acts collectively; a diagnostic
here as my findings are the themes that described the element, specifying a problem and its cause; and a prognosis
neighborhood and organizational visions for its improve- of the solution that involves collective action. Thus,
ment—a discourse about place and collective action. collective-action frames articulate or define a community
Although I refer to the frames as ‘‘organizational of people who identify a particular problem and who else
discourses,’’ I recognize and stress that they were devel- might be affected by it, how the problem occurred, and
oped by people—especially organizational leaders, staff, actions to solve or remediate the problem.
and board members—through interaction and negotia- Using Snow and Benford’s (1988, 1992) heuristic of
tion with one another. As Benford (1997) has emphasized, motivational, diagnostic, and prognostic frames, I break
organizations do not act—people do. Once assembled into organizational discourses into three parts: characterizing
formal documents, presented at meetings and in the local and defining the community (motivation), describing
neighborhood newspaper as coherent messages, how- problems and assigning blame (diagnoses), and advocat-
ever, these discourses must be understood as organiza- ing for certain types of action to solve problems (prog-
tional. In this sense, therefore, it is useful to conceptualize noses). Examining neighborhood organizations as social
the frames as organizational, rather than individual, movements—with collective-action frames that articu-
discourses. late values and agenda for activism—posits such move-
Although Frogtown’s organizations have staff members ments as full actors in the local political arena, with
who are not neighborhood residents, the discourses strategies that construct the urban neighborhood as an
cannot be dismissed as outsiders’ views of Frogtown. important site of citizenship. Indeed, the framework of St.
Indeed, the participation in and direction of organiza- Paul’s district-council system also posits neighborhood
tional discourses by resident members makes these districts as a basis for citizen involvement in the local
discourses part of internal, neighborhood-based represen- polity. The collective-action frames identified here illus-
tations of residents’ daily life and perspectives. While not trate how organizations construct those neighborhood
all neighborhood residents are involved in organizing, the districts as places for collective community and political
residents who are active in these organizations help to identity. I start the frame analysis with definitions of the
shape their agendas and discourses. The majority of these activist community.
residents were homeowners, but many were not: my
interviews with residents active in organizational boards Motivation Frames
and events in 1996 included 33 percent current or one-
time renters in the neighborhood—compared with 56 Motivation frames define the community that acts
percent of all neighborhood households comprised of collectively (Snow and Benford 1988, 1992), describing
renters in the 1990 census (Wilder Research Center the group of actors and potential actors and exhorting
2002). Furthermore, all of the organizations seek resident people to act. Scholars also refer to motivational framing
participation and support of their missions, and as as ‘‘frame resonance’’ because motivational frames articu-
such, aim to appeal to residents on the basis of shared late community values (or ought to, to be successful)
concerns in the neighborhood. Consequently, I expect (Snow et al. 1986; Snow and Benford 1988; Marullo,
these organizational discourses to say something about Pagnucco, and Smith 1996). Motivation place-frames
the context or site—the neighborhood—of the activism, should refer to the daily-life experiences residents are
and I examine these discourses with the question in likely to have in the neighborhood (such as common sights
mind of how the organizations portray the context of or conditions in the neighborhood) in order to foster
their activism. recognition by residents of their location-based common-
alities. In the frames of Frogtown’s neighborhood organi-
zations, I identified several discursive characterizations of
Collective-Action Frames: the neighborhood, as well as its residents, that form the
Discourses of Place core of the motivation frames (Table 1).
The most explicit motivation frames are those that call
Analyzing collective-action frames involves examining upon residents to get involved in activism in the
both language and practices that describe or exemplify neighborhood. These frames do not all reference place
Table 1. Motivational Framing by Organization

Greater Frogtown Community
Thomas-Dale District Seven Development Corporation Frogtown Action Alliance Thomas-Dale Block Clubs
Planning Council (TDD7PC) (GFCDC) (FAA) (TDBC)
Wake up—our children need Learn how to buy a home Make it a reality (1996a, 16) It’s your home—it should do
us (1996a, 7) (1996b, 15) Many . . . problems . . . can you proud (Reporter 1995,
There’s power in numbers We need your help! be resolved with a high level 14)
(1996b, 10) Frogtown housing will only of neighborhood You are either part of the
Only with your involvement get better if residents are participation (1994, 20) problem OR part of the
can . . . Thomas-Dale . . . be involved . . . so everyone has Problems affecting the solution (1996b, 4)
a great place to live, work, a decent home (1996c, 14) neighborhood . . . are You can stand for something.
and raise our families! –––––––––––––––––– common to Frogtown’s Or you can get stepped on
(1996h) The area contains . . . homes residents without regard to (Reporter 1997, 20)
Join our . . . planning efforts having architectural and racial or ethnic distinctions Take ownership of the
(1996e, 12–13) historic significance . . . (1994, 4) space you occupy (Reporter
A community is stronger [T]hese modest-priced ––––––––––––––––– 1996a, 10)
when its residents are linked homes represent an Frogtown . . . sustains about Together we really can decide
together around shared opportunity to create pride $850 million in economic how we’re going to live in
concerns and a common and a cohesive sense of place activity per year (Meter Frogtown (Howard 1994, 7)
purpose (PED 1996, 20) among area residents 1994, 1) Win great prizes in TDBC’s
Don’t miss Clean-up Day (1995, 2) first bright and beautiful
(1996c, 16) Many houses have been block contest (Reporter
–––––––––––––––––– insensitively altered, 1996b, 13)
Welcome . . . We appreciate resulting in eyesore houses Frogtown or Pigtown? . . .
[our community] for its (1995, 2) [S]tart cleaning or start
strength [from] . . . oinking (Reporter 1996c, 7)
diversity—racial, cultural, ––––––––––––––––––
and economic (1996g) Our community is diversely
Thomas-Dale . . . an rich in the creeds, cultures,
attractive residential option and colors of its people
. . . across the . . . racial, (1996b, 13)
cultural, and socioeconomic Youth . . . are less than 27%
spectrums (PED 1996, 10) of our population but 100%
You will notice . . . working- of our future (1996b, 6;
class Victorian cottages and Howard 1996b)
quaint, brick railroad houses The future is in our children
(1996i) (Paulson 1995, 5)
Note: The excerpts in this table are quotations from the organizations. They were chosen as representative of the words or themes used repeatedly in organizational
documents for each group. Sources cited here are fully listed in the references section under the name of the organization in the column heading unless otherwise
specified. The dotted line in each column indicates a break between frames that mostly exhort people to act (above the line) and those that describe the physical/
economic conditions or social characteristics, of the neighborhood (below the line).
explicitly. Instead, they address individual residents and neighborhood commitment in their motivation frames.
suggest that residents ought to think of themselves as part The references to place are subtle (deciding how to live in
of a community and as responsible to that community. In Frogtown, making the neighborhood great), but the
particular, Table 1 shows that the Block Club and the implicit message is that Frogtown is a territorially defined
District Council evoked community and personal respon- community.
sibility in their calls to action. A key theme of this Some motivation frames addressed and made explicit a
discourse was that all individuals in the neighborhood relationship between people and place. The GFCDC and
share the responsibility for being active in the community. the District Council called for residents to ensure that
The Block Club was the most blatant in calling for everyone has a ‘‘decent home’’ (GFCDC 1996c, 14) and
individual responsibility: ‘‘You are either part of the referred to the neighborhood as a place to raise families.
problem OR part of the solution’’ (TDBC 1996b, 4), but The Block Club admonished residents to maintain the
both it and the District Council used the theme of landscape: ‘‘[T]ake ownership of the space you occupy’’
738 Martin
(Reporter 1996a, 10). They announced contests for ‘‘most Minnesota as refugees, or of African-American residents
beautiful’’ block, linking residents’ lifestyles with the who face racialized experiences in the housing market,
physical landscape. These exhortations implied that schools, and everyday social interaction.
homeowners and renters ought to have common interests References to children and families constituted an-
in maintaining the area (see Davis 1991). A call to other means of universalizing individual residents into a
residents to ‘‘take ownership’’ of space is important in an generic neighborhood population who share a place.
area with 56 percent of housing units occupied by renters. Evocations of children sought to define a broad respon-
It recognizes that residents have varying economic sibility among neighbors for one another, but they also
relationships to their homes. At the same time, however, defined the neighborhood as a family-oriented place. The
the Block Club did not use this tenure differential to call Block Club described the high percentage of children
for sweeping social change. It sought to unify residents living in the neighborhood and, like the District Council’s
around landscape maintenance, rather than to constitute announcement that children ‘‘need us,’’ argued that
identities around tenure status. children were the ‘‘future’’ of Frogtown. People who do not
In describing why he became active in his neighbor- have children still have some responsibility to them as
hood by founding the Block Club, the executive director of adults, the organizations implicitly suggested—ignoring
the organization, Johnny Howard, said, ‘‘Five years ago I the potential sense of exclusion adults without children
looked out my window and realized that there was a drug might feel upon hearing a ‘‘family’’ discourse. Asserting
house on my block’’ (Howard 1994, 7). By invoking drug- generic ‘‘neighborhood-ness’’ (people sharing a common
dealing on his street, Howard illustrated the very real location, common experiences, raising families and with
connection between individual daily life and the local some responsibility to each other) is one way to situate and
environment. He suggested, therefore, that residents, by mobilize residents for place-based organizing. It illustrates,
virtue of their common location, also share concerns and however, the inherent exclusions of the frames in
problems, and can work together to address them. attempting to define a territorially inclusive community.
While one aspect of motivational frames—illustrated Motivational frames did not focus only on residents,
in the top sections of each column in Table 1—comprises however. In fact, the GFCDC and FAA made few
exhortations to residents to act, giving self- or community- references to residents in their motivation frames (Table
interested individuals reasons for doing so, another 1). Instead, these organizations focused on the economic
element of motivation frames defines or characterizes and physical characteristics of the neighborhood—two
the community itself. In Frogtown, these references— elements of place that related directly to their own
illustrated in the bottom sections of each column in agendas. The FAA characterized the neighborhood
Table 1—described characteristics of neighborhood re- through statistical analyses of economic activity in the
sidents and the look of the physical landscape. neighborhood. In doing so, it constituted its primary
The organizations that characterized the neighborhood activism issue—the economy—as coherent with its
most frequently in terms of its people were those two that territorial scope of Frogtown. Yet this construction
also had strong responsibility-oriented motivation frames: belies—or, at a minimum, ignores—the broader context
the District Council and the Block Club. Both of these of the neighborhood. Frogtown is but one neighborhood in
groups referred to the ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity the larger city of St. Paul, which itself is situated as part of a
of the neighborhood in a celebratory tone (see Table 1). metropolitan regional economy, within a broader mid-
The references to diversity, though, were generic; they western, national, and international economy. Thus, it is
did not specify particular groups or cultures. Thus, they did almost peculiar to view or describe Frogtown as a separate
not problematize relations among diverse residents or entity in what the FAA surely recognized as an integrated
question the ability of people to identify and share global economy. By situating Frogtown as an economic
common needs or interests in the neighborhood. The region, the FAA supported or perhaps even sought to
FAA took a different approach. They hinted that diversity legitimate its own mission of economic development in
could be a basis for fragmentation in the neighborhood, Frogtown. Clearly, describing Frogtown as a distinct
but they argued that everyone in the neighborhood faces economic place was an important frame for the organiza-
the same problems. The implication, of course, was that tion, as part of establishing the importance of its work for
propinquity does foster common problems, a foundational the neighborhood. In doing so, the frames could foster
notion in neighborhood-based organizing (Alinsky 1989). activism as well as legitimating the existence and focus of
All of these references to a diverse neighborhood popula- the organization.
tion, therefore, ignored potentially pressing concerns, for Perhaps the most obvious place-oriented motivational
example, of Asian immigrants, some of whom came to frames are those that addressed the physical condition of
the neighborhood. All four of Frogtown’s organizations the GFCDC board was one of the most diverse of the four
characterized the neighborhood by describing its land- organizations in the neighborhood in the mid-1990s (40
scape or physical infrastructure, but these frames were percent of its members were Asian or African American),
most evident with the GFCDC. These physical descrip- its references to a working-class history ironically evoked a
tions blurred the line somewhat between mobilizing time when the neighborhood was primarily white,
discourses that define the community and diagnostic populated mostly by European immigrants. The focus on
discourses that describe problems needing action. None- the material, built landscape of the neighborhood ob-
theless, they clearly defined the neighborhood as a place scured the flexible, shifting character of the place as its
with certain landscape features that were distinctively residents change over time.
‘‘Frogtown.’’ The District Council and the GFCDC, for The motivation frames that described the physical
example, described the housing as ‘‘Victorian’’ and features or general socioeconomic conditions of the
‘‘cottages.’’ These and other references highlighted the neighborhood made a discursive connection between
neighborhood as a residential community with a particular the goals and missions of the neighborhood organizations
history. and the daily life experiences of residents. In doing so, they
As I indicated earlier, Frogtown was settled by working- generated a universalizing discourse that simplified the
class immigrants, and although the District Council and characteristics of place as ‘‘diversity,’’ ‘‘children,’’ and a
the GFCDC have undertaken historic rehabilitation and generic working-class identity. These frames may be the
renovation, little if any private-market gentrification has most important element of organizational portrayals of
occurred there. In contrast, the district directly to the their place- or neighborhood-based missions, because
south of Frogtown—also a neighborhood with high levels they attempted to link individuals to the experience of
of people in poverty and of minority residents—has neighborhood and to activism. The motivation frames
experienced considerable gentrification since the mid- sought to draw upon residents’ experiences in place and
1980s, in Victorian-style homes that were once part of use them dialectically, both to articulate and to create
a solidly middle- and upper-income neighborhood. In a place identity based on organizations’ activities. But
suggesting that Frogtown’s smaller ‘‘railroad houses’’ or collective-action frames do not only characterize actors
‘‘workers’ cottages’’ that date from the Victorian era have and places; they also define problems and propose
‘‘architectural significance’’ in their own right, the solutions (Snow and Benford 1988, 1992). To analyze
GFCDC and the District Council were highlighting neighborhood organizational place-frames fully, therefore,
‘‘workers’’ as a neighborhood class identity of which it is also necessary to examine how they diagnose and
residents could be proud. These organizations claimed assign blame for problems and recommend action in the
working-class residences as a strength of the neighbor- neighborhood.
hood, distinguishing it from gentrifying areas while also
asserting an economic value for its smaller houses. In Diagnostic Frames
doing so, the organizations challenged economic valuing
of larger, ‘‘historic’’ houses and distinguished the Frogtown According to Snow and Benford (1988, 1992), when
housing market as different from other areas in St. Paul. collective-action organizations describe problems that
At the same time, however, the organizations did not they purport to address and assign blame or causes for the
challenge the functions or logic of the housing market problems, they are framing diagnostically. We might
overall, nor did they criticize gentrification as a pro- expect the diagnostic frames of these neighborhood-based
cess. Perhaps because of their own territorial limits, the groups to locate the problems in the place. Diagnostic
organizations inscribed Frogtown’s working-class housing frames should also provide a notion of what organizations
as valuable for and valued in the neighborhood, rather believe the neighborhood should be like if it had no
than questioning the forces that devalued it. problems. By describing problems, organizations identified
The organizations that drew attention to the physical those activities or elements in the neighborhood that they
infrastructure in their mobilizing frames did not simply conceived as ‘‘out of place,’’ not belonging in Frogtown or
discursively celebrate the housing stock. The GFCDC, in in a residential place more generally (Cresswell 1996). As
particular, wrote positively of a neighborhood ‘‘look’’ but in the mobilization frames, a crucial way for organizations
also indicated negative features of the physical landscape, to describe problems was to evoke the physical landscape.
suggesting that many houses had been ‘‘insensitively The District Council lamented a lack of public space, the
altered’’ (GFCDC 1995, 2). The GFCDC frame described Block Club cited problems with dirty or unkempt public
the neighborhood in a way that suggested a need for and private spaces, and the GFCDC, as in its motivation
residents to restore a previous history and pride. Although frames, referred to degraded housing (Table 2).
740 Martin
Table 2. Diagnostic Place-Framing by Organization

Planning Council (TDD7PC) (CDC) (FAA) (TDBC)
Gathering places play an Vacant lots: expensive !Action to meet problems is [Residents] shouldn’t have
important role in the life of eyesores (1996d, 7) frequently fractured along to live with garbage, disrepair
any community . . . Many houses have been racial and ethnic lines (Reporter 1996c, 18)
[A]mong the challenges . . . insensitively altered, (1994, 4) There has been blowing trash
is the acute lack of . . . space resulting in . . . loss of Frogtown residents pay . . . and broken glass in this area
(PED 1996, 23) neighborhood character and $8 million of income taxes, that needs to be cleaned
Thomas-Dale has among the value . . . [T]he good points which more than covers the (1996a)
smallest amount of green of the area’s housing are $7 million of public It’s not the economics. It’s
space per resident of any obscured . . . [by] the media assistance collected by all attitude (Howard, interview,
neighborhood in the city (1995, 2) households (Meter 1994, 1) 1996; Howard 1996a,
(PED 1996, 35) Some of the infrastructure None of [St. Paul’s economic 1996b)
Thomas-Dale . . . [is] in has been altered or destroyed development] programs have There are drug dealers in
danger of being caught in a (1995, 2) been implemented in the some of your homes . . . [L]et
continuing cycle of This big old house has been Frogtown neighborhood in the [the police] take care of them
disinvestments and isolation vacant . . . [I]t’s still a solid last two years (1994, 11) (Howard 1996b)
(PED 1996, 10) building (1996e, 13) [Perceptual issues in Neighbors are tired of all
Metropolitan decisions . . . Frogtown has an increasing Frogtown include] lack of types of disrespectful
have a profound impact on the number of vacant lots due to clear, action-oriented behavior (1996c)
health and vitality of . . . the aggressive efforts of the priorities . . . negative image
Thomas-Dale (PED 1996, 24) City’s Environmental Health of the neighborhood . . .
Access to quality, affordable Division . . . Frogtown’s tax undeveloped leadership . . .
health care is a national issue base is declining, and gives shallow capacity . . . poor
. . . with particular concern the perception that there are coordination . . . poorly
for Thomas-Dale (PED not many good reasons to defined sense of geographic
1996, 32) invest . . . in the neighborhood identity (1994, 4–5)
(1996a, 2)
[The CDC] expects to gain
. . . insight into . . . the
financial impediments [to]
. . . improving . . . housing
(Biko Associates 1997, 4)
specified.
The District Council’s 1996 Small Area Plan contained The plan highlighted a series of issues and problems
many diagnoses of neighborhood problems (see PED 1996 facing the neighborhood. Those problems that directly
references in Table 2, column 1). The Small Area Plan referred to the neighborhood landscape involved con-
(PED 1996) was a planning document for Frogtown in cerns about the need for public space to foster the informal
which the District Council described a broad range of social interactions that help to create or support a
problems in the neighborhood and solutions for improving neighborhood community. The plan—and therefore the
the community. It was developed with the assistance of St. District Council—cited an ‘‘acute lack of . . . space’’ in
Paul’s Planning and Economic Development (PED) staff, the neighborhood (PED 1996, 23), and pointed out that
with a committee of neighborhood residents to direct Thomas-Dale had much less public green space per
the project. Such area plans were a regular part of city resident than other neighborhoods in the city. This
business, managed through the planning department, up attention to a lack of public space indicated an ideal of how
until the mid-1990s, when budget cutbacks reduced such a neighborhood—specifically Frogtown—should look and
activities (Homans, interview, 1996). The Thomas-Dale function (Purcell 1997, 1998).
Small Area Plan represents one of the last such plans A different approach to the problems of the physical
created by a St. Paul neighborhood, funded and shep- landscape was to highlight the decay or deterioration of
herded through PED. the neighborhood and the need for people to maintain
the streets and yards of Frogtown. The Block Club was the policies for abandoned and decaying housing in Frogtown.
most strident in calling for individual and collective They argued that the ‘‘aggressive efforts of the City’s
responsibility for the existing (public and private) space, Environmental Health Division’’ led to the razing of
saying that there was too much garbage littering the housing in the neighborhood, which increased vacant lots
neighborhood: ‘‘[Residents] shouldn’t have to live with and decreased the tax base in the neighborhood (GFCDC
garbage, disrepair’’ (Reporter 1996d, 18). The Block Club’s 1996a, 2, excerpted in Table 2). Both the GFCDC and the
place-frame diagnoses, like the District Council’s, had a FAA situated problems in the structural relationship
normative element in referring to the landscape. Quite between the neighborhood and the local state. Thus, they
simply, according to the Club, a degraded landscape fostered an image of the neighborhood as a coherent
‘‘should not’’ exist. The Block Club assigned blame for territory maligned by outside government forces. As we
the problem simply by noting that garbage was in the will see in the section on prognosis frames, the solution is
streets and spaces of the neighborhood and, in its to take government functions of planning and develop-
motivation frames, calling for every resident to help clean ment and conduct them in/have them conducted by the
up the neighborhood. By leaving the culprit for garbage neighborhood.
unspecified, the Block Club suggested a universal respon- In contrast to these two more structural causes of
sibility among all residents for the problem. The solu- neighborhood decay, the Block Club identified the causal
tion—or prognosis, which will be explored in greater detail forces at the level of neighborhood residency and citizens’
shortly—was quite simple: individual and collective actions and responsibilities to a local community: ‘‘It’s not
action, coordinated by the Block Club. The collective- the economics. It’s attitude’’ ( Johnny Howard, Executive
action frame located problems in the physical condition of Director, Thomas-Dale Block Clubs, interview, St. Paul,
the neighborhood, and blamed it on a lack of action on the MN, 25 June 1996; Howard 1996). Yet it addressed
part of residents. In a flyer, the Block Club also specifically problems of degradation and crime that could also be
cited ‘‘disrespectful behavior’’ for problems in the neigh- construed as having structural causes, such as poverty,
borhood. It did not define such behavior, but problems lack of job opportunities, or investments in local infra-
of drugs, trash, and dilapidated property were also men- structure.
tioned (TDBC 1996c). In this vague reference to beha- These divergent attributions of blame highlight how
vior, every neighborhood resident was potentially the differently the organizations framed their actions and the
source of the problem or responsible for the solution. Only situation of the neighborhood. The FAA, like the GFCDC
the Block Club explicitly blamed individuals for problems. and the District Council’s Small Area Plan, blamed state
Indeed, the assigning of blame in these diagnostic policies for at least some of the physical and socioeconomic
frames reflects important differences between the Block problems in the neighborhood. These organizations
Club and the other three Frogtown organizations. I implied that the neighborhood ought to assert its needs
identify two main sources or causes of neighbor- to the state, demanding greater financial assistance from
hood problems: those that focused on structural forces the city or decision-making at higher levels of government
(mostly political-economic) that shaped the neighbor- that attended to their impacts at the neighborhood level.
hood, evident in frames of the FAA, the GFCDC, and But these frames had another, more important effect: they
District Council; and those that cited individual behavior conceptually and discursively broadened the scope and
as a dominant force for both problems and solutions scale of the neighborhood’s problems beyond its own
in the neighborhood, most common with the Block residents and territory to the local and national economy.
Club. The neighborhood in these portrayals was not a separate,
These differing views indicate contrasting perspectives isolated and ideal place, but one grounded in a broader
on the scope and scale of neighborhood problems. The reality of actors and political and economic forces that
FAA, for example, stressed Frogtown’s connections to were outside of, and acting upon, the neighborhood itself.
broader economic forces, including the state, in situating Nonetheless, these organizations worked to constitute a
the neighborhood as a site of poverty and underdevelop- neighborhood-scale community in order to assert their
ment. It blamed a lack of funding by the city for econo- demands and claims to the local state.
mic development programs in the neighborhood. The The Block Club focused much more on the very local
GFCDC, meanwhile, attributed causes of neighborhood and immediate scale of the neighborhood in characteriz-
decay to homeowners or (often absentee) landlords who ing the sources of problems, commenting on the ‘‘atti-
failed to maintain their houses, reconstructed houses tudes’’ and ‘‘behavior’’ of neighborhood residents. In
without regard to architectural style, or abandoned homes doing so, the Block Club represented neighborhood
entirely. Even more so, however, the GFCDC blamed city residents—and neighborhood organizations—as the only
742 Martin
actors who could truly make a difference in the neighbor- solve the problems that they have identified. Like their
hood. Outside actors or influences seemed, in their diagnoses, the prognoses of the four Frogtown organiza-
absence, irrelevant to the Block Club’s imaginings and tions highlighted the differences among the organizations
portrayals of struggles in the neighborhood. in their approaches to problem-solving in the neighbor-
Given these very different descriptions of neighborhood, because they focused on the actions of each group
hood problems and, especially, causes for the problems, the (Table 3).
organizations proposed very different solutions. One theme that resonated throughout all the phases of
the collective-action frames was that of the physical
Prognostic Frames condition of the neighborhood. The specific solutions that
the organizations undertook and advocated, therefore,
According to Snow and Benford’s (1988, 1992) frame- included attention to the physical landscape. There were
work, prognostic frames identify the actions that collec- two elements to this discourse. One, used by the District
tive organizations take, the solutions that they propose to Council and Block Club, cited the importance of residents
Table 3. Prognostic Framing by Organization

Planning Council (TDD7PC) (CDC) (FAA) (TDBC)
[D7’s goals are] to stimulate The mission of the [CDC The mission of the FAA is to Neighbors helping neighbors
greater interest . . . in includes] promoting the bring together diverse (1995, 1996b)
planning [and] . . . area’s advantages as an individuals and organizations [Development of pocket
improving the physical, affordable, diverse, safe, in Frogtown (1996b, 6) parks] has turned space
economic, and social quality and congenial place to live Key elements of the FAA used for illegal activity into
of life (1995, 3) (1995, 1) structure [include] building places of peace and beauty
The council strives to GFCDC would like to . . . a sense of geographic identity (1996b, 8)
conserve, foster, and restore [build] single family homes (1996b, 6) [Giving away flowers] not
the well-being of our [to achieve] . . . land . . . The Frogtown community only changes the perception
neighborhood (1996h) back on the tax roles . . . needs to be revitalized in a others have of our
We . . . work . . . to market interest . . . in way that is responsive to community, it changes our
strengthen families; Frogtown . . . residents can resident needs, leads to perspective (1996b, 7)
[support] decent, affordable take pride (1996a, 2) greater community control, Events have been a staple
. . . homes; provide and develops local capacity . . . [T]hey bring neighbors
opportunities for (1994, 5) together . . . to share in the
employment; create . . . [FAA] achieves its goals and struggle for a clean, safe, and
productive businesses; make objectives by working . . . in comfortable community
Thomas-Dale a safe, clean collaboration with other (1996b, 5)
place to live (PED 1996, 1) organizations (1995a, 16) [TDBC works to] close down
Spring Clean-up Day . . . Shop Frogtown (1995b, 16) drug houses, clean up our
resulted in . . . tons of trash Our business is building blocks and hold neglectful
. . . being cleaned from our business for the Frogtown property owners accountable
alleys, garages, and back neighborhood (1997) (Lammers 1994, 3)
yards (1996f, 17) [Street protests] increase
Here’s our people’s plan for neighborhood visibility,
Thomas-Dale! (1996e: disrupt disrespectful and
12-13) illegal behavior, and . . .
Join our Dale Street/Maxson encourage pride (1995, 16)
Steel Industrial Park When neighbors know who
planning efforts (1996d, 17) is REPSONSIBLE . . . and
. . . hold themselves and
others ACCOUNTABLE
the POSSIBLITY of a better
neighborhood becomes
reality (1996a)
specified.
coming together to clean and maintain various spaces in efforts. Residents could—and should—attend meetings,
the neighborhood. The second, used by the GFCDC, listen to presentations about land-use planning, and help
referred to the physical infrastructure of housing stock decide future redevelopment schemes, including types of
(Table 3). businesses to attract and neighborhood amenities to
The Block Club and District Council referred to actions include in the construction. The FAA also suggested that
that they had taken and were continuing to take to keep business development in Frogtown relied in part on
the neighborhood looking clean and pleasant. In parti- individual consumer actions. A solution, therefore, was
cular, the Block Club explained its organizational belief for residents of the neighborhood to ‘‘Shop Frogtown’’
that the physical look of the neighborhood affects (FAA 1995b, 16). This was a very simple, direct, and
perceptions of the neighborhood: ‘‘[Giving away flowers] explicit prognosis frame on the part of the FAA. It
. . . changes our perspective’’ (TDBC 1996b, 7). Images of continued a discursive theme for the organization of
the neighborhood clearly mattered to these organizations, referring to Frogtown as an economic entity, a focus of the
which sought to change the way the place was both organization’s own business development and support
perceived and experienced. Actions to clean and maintain for neighborhood entrepreneurs. This role of individual
the neighborhood, therefore, were essential for fostering a consumers on the local economy contrasted with the
positive place-image. The solutions that the Block Club FAA’s main activities, which focused on: coordinating
advocated included marches against drug dealing and citizen and business input in industrial redevelopment,
prostitution, protests of police inaction, pickets of property particularly for physical infrastructure; entrepreneurial
owned by landlords identified by the organization as skills and opportunities, including a business incubator;
irresponsible, building pocket parks, maintaining empty business coalition development in two commercial corri-
neighborhood lots, and citizen watch programs. dor areas; and other long-range planning and develop-
While the District Council and Block Club emphasized ment for economic growth in the neighborhood.
cleaning the neighborhood as one way to enhance its The GFCDC’s main development strategy, of course,
image, the GFCDC, FAA, and District Council also all focused on the housing stock. Its prognosis discourse
participated in and advocated for various long-term linked housing to the broader economic and physical
planning and development strategies, each focused on a health of the neighborhood by describing the need to build
different area or component of development. The Council houses for families, adding to the tax value of neighbor-
and the FAA collaborated on planning for an abandoned hood property and, according to the GFCDC (1996a, 2),
industrial site, with the FAA doing so as part of its broader developing greater neighborhood pride among residents.
business development and the District Council partici- The GFCDC’s representation of its activities in buy-
pating as part of a comprehensive look at land use in the ing abandoned houses and fixing them or building new
neighborhood. Each organization stressed planning and houses on vacant lots suggested impacts far beyond any
local, community involvement—‘‘community control,’’ single house or homeowner. The GFCDC connected its
according to the FAA (FAA 1994, 5). housing-development efforts to financial investments in
In the case of the industrial redevelopment, both the the neighborhood and to the overall character and the
FAA and the District Council referred to the redevelop- perception of the neighborhood by residents and outsiders
ment of the site as being about jobs and economic growth (potential investors and residents, and even the tax
in Frogtown; their discourses ignored the broader St. Paul assessors). For the GFCDC, individual and group deci-
economy. Although the site itself crossed Frogtown’s sions to invest in housing through ownership or rehabi-
district boundary into another neighborhood and was part litation provided tangible evidence of support for the
of the city’s economic development strategy, the FAA and neighborhood as a community.
the District Council referred to the site as ‘‘Dale Street The prognoses by the FAA, the GFCDC, and the
Shops’’ or ‘‘Maxson Steel,’’ names of two entities that had District Council for physical development and community
existed on the Frogtown side of the industrial site. For planning reflected a broader theme of community develop-
these organizations, the site was a neighborhood one, and ment. For example, the Block Club was quite explicit about
their actions were situated in and addressed at the the role of organizational gatherings in fostering a sense of
neighborhood level. In its diagnostic frames, the FAA community. It used events to ‘‘bring neighbors together’’
explicitly blamed the local state for some of Frogtown’s (TDBC 1996b, 5); the FAA talked about developing
woes; prognostically, however, it situated solutions for ‘‘local capacity’’ (FAA 1994, 5); the District Council
economic growth in planning at the neighborhood scale. spoke of the need for space for neighbors to gather and get
To constitute neighborhood-based solutions, the orga- to know one another; and the GFCDC presented the
nizations called for residents to help direct planning neighborhood as a ‘‘congenial’’ place to live (GFCDC
744 Martin
1995, 1) (Table 3). These many references to community physical improvements to the neighborhood (such as
reflected the goal of connecting residents and organiza- through an annual clean-up). The GFCDC highlighted its
tions together in the place called Frogtown. In other role as a developer of housing but linked its actions to the
words, these organizations worked discursively to consti- overall quality of life in the neighborhood; in this respect,
tute the place as a ‘‘neighborhood,’’ with the connotations it remained quite focused on the neighborhood environ-
that word carried of community or shared residential ment—and perceptions thereof—as the locus of its
experiences. The actions of these organizations ranged problem-solving activity. The FAA sought solutions
from block parties and street protests against crime and oriented around business development, primarily plan-
inadequate policing to meetings about zoning ordinances, ning-related ones as well as some fostering local invest-
development of business associations, arranging for new ments in businesses. Finally, the Block Club helped
businesses, and building new houses. Their discourses residents to get to know one another through block parties
and actions strove to foster a sense of place, one that and anticrime rallies and cleaned up the neighborhood
emphasized the local dependence of residents, in which through planting flowers and creating small parks on
positive events and investments were good for everyone vacant lots.
(Cox and Mair 1988). But the local dependence of In the next section, I discuss how the analytic
Frogtown, its organizations asserted discursively, was not separation of collective-action frames into the three-part
based in St. Paul or the metropolitan area: it was a heuristic of mobilization, diagnoses, and prognoses is
dependence situated at the neighborhood scale of daily life useful for understanding how territorially based action is
interactions in and near people’s residences. discursively sited.
The unifying theme of community and shared neigh-
borhood commitments was also apparent in a prognosis of
collaboration. The FAA was most blatant in advocating Place-Framing as Place-Making
for cooperation among the four Frogtown organizations,
arguing that ‘‘[A]n organization with the word alliance in Ultimately, the four organizations in Frogtown in 1996
its name achieves its goals and objectives by working and 1997 were all trying to solve—or at least address—
with others’’ (FAA 1995a, 16, emphasis in original). In problems in and of a place. Thus, by all logic, the ways that
different ways in their discourses and actions, each of they presented themselves and their agendas should have
the Frogtown neighborhood organizations recognized the referred to the neighborhood in which they were located.
actions of the others and the importance of working Yet it is too simple to say that a concept of place was
together to achieve certain ends. It was in this shared evident in the discourses of the organizations. Rather, it
concern and collaboration among organizations that a is more important to examine how place appeared in the
neighborhood dependence was most apparent. The FAA discourses of the organizations, and why. Unraveling
and the District Council collaborated to solicit input and the elements of place in neighborhood-based community
plan with city officials for the redevelopment of an organizing illustrates how local dependence is constituted
industrial corridor along the northern part—and bound- at multiple scales within urban areas. Through local
ary—of the neighborhood. The GFCDC and the Block governance structures, the neighborhood organizations in
Club cooperated in efforts to notify residents and seek Frogtown were locally dependent at multiple scales, those
their input on housing rehabilitation and construction of the urban area and of the neighborhood in which they
projects through door-to-door visits and public meetings. operate. They used place-framing to legitimate and
The GFCDC also met regularly with the physical planning circumscribe their neighborhood sphere of activism by
committee of the District Council in order to discuss drawing upon presumed daily experiences of life in the
particular sites for housing rehabilitation or construction. neighborhood to locate both problems and potential
In addition, the organizations’ leaders cooperated in their solutions at the scale of the residential place. In doing so,
interactions with the city, such as when they demanded the organizations constituted themselves and their resi-
resident input on a street-paving plan for which city dent-members as citizens, not just of a broader city, but of a
officials had failed to consider street design and traffic- particular location within the city, with needs and
calming, replacing lead pipes, and funds for housing demands that were directed at the local state and its
improvements in conjunction with the paving project. officials, even as they cast the neighborhood as the most
Like a city with competing interests among its boosters, salient sphere of community.
however, Frogtown organizations’ prognosis discourses The framework of collective-action frames facilitates
evidenced competing agendas as well. The District an analytical separation of motivational, diagnostic, and
Council encouraged and coordinated planning and prognostic elements. Although it is somewhat artificial to
separate dynamic, integrated organizational discourses racially and ethnically, having high numbers of children,
about the neighborhood and activism into such fine- and being mixed by housing tenure (renters and home-
grained parts, theoretically it permits an examination of owners). These characterizations of the neighborhood
the construction of place-based agendas for activism. represented the place and its residents in a universali-
Separating the components of framing discourses reveals zing manner, identifying them as having shared character-
that place was invoked by the organizations primarily in istics, rather than divided by differences. Frogtown’s
motivational and diagnostic frames (Table 4). diversity was reduced to a set of general elements with
Motivation frames included descriptions of the neigh- which residents presumably could identity. In acknowl-
borhood in terms of its population—as being diverse edging difference among residents, the organizations’
Table 4. Themes in Organizational Frames by Type (Summary of Tables 1–3)

Motivational Frames
Exhort action and define/ Diagnostic Frames
describe the community Describe problems and Prognostic Frames
Organization (who, what) assign cause/blame Solutions (specific actions)
Thomas-Dale District Seven Exhortations: Lack of green, public space Plan for future development:
Planning Council (TDD7PC) Plan for future Cycle of disinvestment *
Industrial
Clean up neighborhood Broader processes/decisions * Social
Support/protect children affect local conditions * Economic
Create community * Infrastructure
Descriptions: * Long-range
Racial, cultural, economic comprehensive plan

diversity Clean-up days
Historic homes (railroad,
working-class)
Greater Frogtown Community Exhortations: Degraded, run-down houses Promote neighborhood as a

Development Corporation Buy a home City policies increase residential location
(CDC) Families need homes number of vacant lots Build and rehabilitate houses
Descriptions: Lack of investment
Architectural and Financial barriers to
historically significant homeownership
housing: Negative images of
Modest prices neighborhood
Run-down
Frogtown Action Alliance (FAA) Exhortations: Fracturing by race, ethnicity Unite individuals and
Everyone faces the same More money leaves organizations:
problems and should help neighborhood than is * Create geographic
solve them invested identity
Descriptions: Frogtown is neglected by the * Foster community control
Economic activity in city Entrepreneurship classes

neighborhood Negative perceptions, Business development and
undefined geographic support
identity
Thomas-Dale Block Clubs Exhortations: Garbage in streets, yards Foster residential

(TDBC) Keep neighborhood and Poor attitudes, behavior, and interactions and
homes clean lack of responsibility by neighborhood pride
Individuals responsible for residents Clean up area, plant flowers,
community and build pocket parks
Win prizes Protest criminal behavior:
Descriptions: *
Work with police
Cultural, religious, racial * Hold property owners
diversity accountable for tenants,

Children clean up
746 Martin
motivational frames aimed to portray difference as merely sphere of action, as having particular features and
another descriptive feature of a single, place-oriented problems that residents could understand and identify
community. This strategy reveals a place-based identity with because of their common, shared location. Of course,
construction, one that sought to subsume other social the ‘‘neighborhood’’ was created and maintained in a
identities under a territorial identity in order to establish public imaginary—or, at least as illustrated here, in
and maintain place-based collective-action agendas. organizational discourses—based on a series of ideals
The organizations also highlighted the physical features and ideas about a residential ‘‘place.’’ Thus, in referring to
of the neighborhood in their motivation frames, either by Frogtown as a ‘‘place,’’ the organizations asserted that it
celebrating historic housing stock or by deploring run- was a coherent ‘‘district within an urban area’’ ( Johnston
down and unkempt landscapes. The organizations argued 1994, 409). Their descriptions of physical infrastructure,
that residents had a responsibility to the physical land- such as housing or the presence of garbage in streets,
scape and to each other. In all of these discourses, the evoked common sights that most residents would likely
neighborhood was taken for granted as a place, an entity in notice on a daily basis, thereby connecting problems to
which people experienced life in a particular way. The experiences of everyday life. The organizations evoked ‘‘a
FAA even sought to establish it as an economic region by shared interest in overlapping use values’’ by asserting that
citing government taxing and spending statistics at the problems in the neighborhood were common to all
level of the neighborhood. residents and that everyone in the neighborhood had
The organizations continued to describe the physical some responsibility to try and solve those problems (Logan
and economic conditions of the neighborhood in their and Molotch 1987, 108). Yet the organizations did not
diagnostic frames, thereby locating the problems that assert that the neighborhood is unique. Indeed, while they
organizations addressed in the material realities of cited important, distinctive features—such as the historic,
the place (Table 4). They cited the degradation of the working-class housing, the problems of the economy, or
neighborhood in terms of a lack of cleanliness and the diversity of residents—none of the organizations
decaying buildings, as well as the lack of green space. argued that Frogtown had characteristics or faced prob-
The causes of problems cited in the organizational lems unlike those of any other place. Instead, they
diagnostic frames, however, represented a difference in discursively situated the particular configuration of
how the organizations located Frogtown in relation to history, architecture, people, economy, and problems at
other places, especially to the state. Thus, the Block Club the scale of the residential neighborhood, one that
identified the causes of problems as mostly in the behavior corresponded to the ‘‘citizen participation’’ district of
of its own residents, which also implied that the solutions Frogtown in the St. Paul polity.
were locally rooted. The GFCDC and the FAA, by
contrast, were quite explicit that actors and forces working
outside of the neighborhood were at fault for the Conclusion
abandonment of houses and the economic struggles of
the businesses and residents. Nonetheless, their focus for This research expands social-movement theories to
activism was at the neighborhood level, both in identifying understand more adequately microscale dynamics of place
problems and in recommending solutions. constitution through the collective-action frames of
The differences among the organizations in assigning neighborhood organizations. It examines a framework in
causes to the problems certainly reflect their differing urban politics in which neighborhood or community
agendas, which were most evident in the prognostic groups operate in a relatively small and delineated
frames. The District Council stressed planning, the geographic location, organizing residents to participate
GFCDC housing development, the FAA business devel- in the local polity. These groups then use their territorially
opment, and the Block Club the physical maintenance of bounded political identities to constitute a justification for
the neighborhood and the protesting of crime (Table 4). place-based action and to foster concern and community
Yet Table 4 illustrates that even in the prognostic frames, at the scale of the neighborhood. They do so through
the organizations conceptualized Frogtown as a particular place-frames, which legitimate neighborhood-based ac-
and specific place, a neighborhood where these four tion and define the neighborhood community organiza-
organizations worked to improve the perception, the sense tion as the best actor both to represent neighborhood
of pride, the community, and the collaborative efforts of residents and to respond to neighborhood needs. Place-
people in the neighborhood. frames discursively legitimate the sphere of the neighbor-
In all of these collective-action frames, therefore, hood, siting blame at the local and regional level, but
the neighborhood was repeatedly invoked or cited as the action within the neighborhood. They thus reveal the
creation of urban spaces at scales below the broader urban tive-action frames that situated calls for activism across a
fabric of city- or metropolis-wide local dependency and broader political and social sphere than that of a single
growth coalitions (Cox and Mair 1988; Gilbert 1999). neighborhood. Indeed, international local-global coali-
Place frames do not simply reveal the ways that place tions fighting the impacts of globalization may provide
provides important grounding for neighborhood activism examples of how spatialities of daily life are being
and community development. They provide a conceptual discursively drawn upon to articulate calls for activism at
framework for analyzing collective action more generally, a variety of scales. A place-frame analysis would elaborate
in multiple places and at scales beyond the local. Place- on how these coalitions are being deployed by many types
frame analysis investigates the concrete references to of collective organizations.
place, people, and events in organizational discourses and This research demonstrates an important theoretical
the ways that they are linked to recommended actions. As and practical insight: that place-based collective action
such, it goes beyond asserting an importance of place in involves definitions of problems, goals, and strategies with
activism by illustrating how the conditions of daily life— explicit reference and attention to the site and subject of
inherently spatial and geographically located—inform the activism through place-frames. It continues the
and underlie activist discourses. The place-frames in the ‘‘geographical project’’ (Herod 1991, 398) of specifying
case of Frogtown, for example, discursively represent Cox how place informs social action, and provides a conceptual
and Mair’s (1988) local dependence at a neighborhood tool for imagining and understanding alternative scales
scale, nested within the urban political economy. and forms of place-based organizing. Place-framing illus-
This analysis demonstrates how local communities trates the meaning-making that groups of people under-
constitute their territorial sphere as a legitimate and take in their social and political lives.
meaningful site for activism. As Harvey (1989, 1996)
cautions, locally based approaches to problems that have Acknowledgments
origins in national and international social, political, and
economic processes may undermine global activist agen- Several people deserve thanks for their valuable
das. Place-frames, however, offer a conceptual framework feedback and support as I developed this article: Sarah
for analyzing global and regional activist-claims, as well as Elwood, Steve Holloway, J. P. Jones, Audrey Kobayashi,
those of locally situated groups. With the conceptualiza- Helga Leitner, Doug McAdam, Eric Sheppard, and the
tion of motivation, diagnostic, and prognosis frames as anonymous reviewers for the Annals. Remaining errors
they relate to place in mind, geographers can assess the and omissions are my own.
degree to which various types of activist frames draw upon
and constitute place-based identities or offer alternative
Notes
geographies grounded in the spatialities of social life. As
Jonas (1998) suggests, locally based discourses rhetorically 1. Swyngedouw (1992, 40) credited conversations with Andrew
organize and make sense of the daily experiences of life in a Mair for his coining the term ‘‘glocalization,’’ although
particular place, helping to link local-level events and Robertson (1995, 28) indicated that the term was popular in
business in the 1980s and suggested that the initial use of the
problems with broader processes. Place-frames at a multi- word came from Japan. I do not think that there is necessarily
tude of scales can make sense of daily experiences and one origin; the many uses of ‘‘glocalization’’ indicate that it
connect them to particular types of social or community articulates an idea that many people find salient.
action. 2. I put the terms ‘‘race’’ and ‘‘racial’’ (‘‘racially’’) in quotes to
The Frogtown organizations situated their activism in a emphasize their social constitution.
3. They were also the basis for Alinsky-style political activism,
single place and context, one that the local political which seeks to identify and build upon common interests
structure assigned them. As manifested in Frogtown in the among a group of people, be it based upon race or ethnicity,
1990s, their place-frames represented an assertion of work status, or, most commonly, residential location (Bailey
community at the neighborhood scale and did not address 1974, 106; Alinsky 1989; Fisher 1994).
4. I do not wish to argue that all neighborhood organizations are
alliances with other neighborhoods in St. Paul. Yet social movements, merely that, as collective organizations
alternative frames certainly would be possible. Even outside of formal governments, they act like social move-
the discursive grounding of specific experiences of the ments.
neighborhood could reconfigure the meaning and salience 5. I focus here on the frames of the organizations and what they
of the local by focusing on common experiences—of say about place, not on the reception of the place identity and
discourse among residents.
physical decay or drugs, for example—across a variety 6. The boundaries of each district were determined primarily by
of locales. Focusing on these common experiences in community groups in existence at the time, in consultation
different locales could form a set of place-based, collec- with city planning officials.
748 Martin
7. The city of St. Paul provides funds for a district council in Cox, Kevin R., and Andrew Mair. 1988. Locality and community
each of the seventeen planning districts of the city, of which in the politics of local economic development. Annals of the
Frogtown/Thomas-Dale is one. Association of American Geographers 78:307–25.
8. The McKnight Foundation primarily supports community Davis, John Emmeus. 1991. Contested ground. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
and family development programs. University Press.
9. In fact, organizations were not all audited regularly by the city Department of Planning and Economic Development (PED),
or the nonprofit foundations that supported them. In 2000, City of Saint Paul 1996. Thomas Dale Small Area Plan and
the Alliance declared bankruptcy after financial mismanage- forty-acre study, Planning Commission review draft. Recom-
ment (Balaji 2001). mended by the Thomas Dale Small Area Plan Task Force 29
10. Martin (2000) examined organizational discourses aimed at July; recommended by the District Seven Planning Council
external audiences: nonresidents and the media in St. Paul. 26 September. St. Paul, MN: PED.
11. For more about the Frogtown Times as a neighborhood Duncan, James, and David Ley, eds. 1993. Place/culture/represen-
discourse in its own right and in juxtaposition to major media tation. New York: Routledge.
portrayals of the neighborhood, see Martin (2000). Fisher, Robert. 1994. Let the people decide: Neighborhood
12. I collected and analyzed over one hundred documents for all organizing in America. Updated ed. New York: Twayne
four organizations. I also attended a total of twenty-nine Publishers.
organizational or neighborhood meetings from June 1996 Frogtown Action Alliance (FAA) 1994. Comprehensive neighbor-
through January 1997, although most of my observations of hood action plan: Summary. December. St. Paul, MN: FAA.
meetings were conducted in July, August, and September FFF. 1995a. November advertisement. The Frogtown Times
1996. 1 (5): 16.
FFF. 1995b. December advertisement. The Frogtown Times
1 (6): 16.
References FFF. 1996a. January advertisement. The Frogtown Times
1 (7): 16.
Alinsky, Saul. 1989. Rules for radicals. New York: Vintage Books. FFF. 1996b. ‘‘Frogtown Action Alliance History and Struc-
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined communities: Reflections on ture.’’ Document handed out in an Economic Development
the origins and spread of nationalism. Rev. ed. New York: Verso. Task Force meeting, St. Paul, MN, 28 August. Excerpted
Bailey, Robert Jr. 1974. Radicals in urban politics: The Alinsky from the Neighborhood Plan, 6–8.
approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. FFF. 1997. November advertisement: Our business is build-
Balaji, Murali. 2001. Frogtown community marks end of group. ing business for the Frogtown neighborhood. The Frogtown
Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 4 May:5B. Times 3 (5): 12.
Barnes, Trevor J., and James S. Duncan. 1992a. Introduction: Gamson, William A. 1990. The strategy of social protest. 2nd ed.
Writing worlds. In Writing worlds: Discourse, text, and Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
metaphor in the representation of landscape, ed. Trevor J. Giddens, Anthony. 1976. New rules of sociological method. London:
Barnes and James S. Duncan, 1–17. New York: Routledge. Hutchinson.
FFF. 1992b. Writing worlds: Discourse, text, and metaphor in the Gilbert, Melissa R. 1999. Place, politics, and the production of
representation of landscape. New York: Routledge. urban space: A feminist critique of the growth machine
Benford, Robert D. 1993. Frame disputes within the nuclear thesis. In The urban growth machine: Critical perspectives, two
disarmament movement. Social Forces 71 (3): 677–701. decades later, ed. Andrew E. G. Jonas and David Wilson,
FFF. 1997. An insider’s critique of the social movement 95–108. Albany: State University of New York.
framing perspective. Sociological Inquiry 67 (4): 409–30. Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the
Biko Associates. 1997. Greater Frogtown Community Development organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
Corporation: Strategic plan, 1997–1998. Minneapolis: Biko versity Press.
Associates. Greater Frogtown Community Development Corporation
Boyle, Mark. 1999. Growth machines and propaganda projects: A (GFCDC). 1995. Greater Frogtown Community Development
review of readings of the role of civic boosterism in the Corporation plans for 1995–1997, 30 January. St. Paul, MN:
politics of local economic development. In The urban growth GFCDC.
machine: Critical perspectives, two decades later, ed. Andrew E. FFF. 1996a. 462 Thomas Avenue, St. Paul. Information
G. Jonas and David Wilson, 55–70. Albany: State University delivered at a meeting to residents affected by new home
of New York Press. construction. St. Paul, MN.
Bûcek, Jan, and Brian Smith. 2000. New approaches to local FFF. 1996b. January advertisement: Learn how to buy a
democracy: Direct democracy, participation, and the ‘‘third home. The Frogtown Times 1 (7): 15.
sector.’’ Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy FFF. 1996c. June advertisement: We need your help! The
18:3–16. Frogtown Times 1 (12): 14.
Castells, Manuel. 1983. The city and the grassroots. Berkeley: FFF. 1996d. July advertisement: Vacant lots: expensive
University of California Press. eyesores. The Frogtown Times 2 (1): 7.
Clark, Helene. 1994. Taking up space: Redefining political FFF. 1996e. August advertisement: Five top reasons to rehab.
legitimacy in New York City. Environment and Planning A The Frogtown Times 2 (2): 13.
26 (6): 937–55. Habermas, Jurgen. 1981. New social movements. Telos 49:
Cresswell, Tim. 1996. In place/out of place: Geography, ideology, and 33–37.
transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Haeberle, Steven H. 1988. People or place: Variations in
Cox, Kevin R. 1982. Housing tenure and neighborhood activism. community leaders’ subjective definitions of neighborhood.
Urban Affairs Quarterly 18:107–29. Urban Affairs Quarterly 23 (4): 616–34.
Harvey, David. 1989. The urban experience. Baltimore, MD: The Lyon, Larry. 1989. The community in urban society. Toronto:
Johns Hopkins University Press. Lexington Books.
FFF. 1996. Justice, nature, and the geography of difference. Martin, Deborah G. 2000. Constructing place: Cultural hege-
Cambridge MA: Blackwell. monies and media images of an inner-city neighborhood.
Haughton, Graham, and Aidan While. 1999. From corporate city Urban Geography 21 (5): 380–405.
to citizens’ city? Urban Affairs Review 35 (1): 3–24. Marullo, Sam, Ron Pagnucco, and Jackie Smith. 1996. Frame
Herod, Andrew. 1991. Local political practice in response to a changes and social movement contraction: U.S. peace
manufacturing plant closure: How geography complicates movement framing after the Cold War. Sociological Inquiry
class analysis. Antipode 23 (4): 385–402. 66 (1): 1–28.
Howard, Johnny. 1994. How my life got changed: Executive Massey, Doreen. 1991. A global sense of place. Marxism Today 35
Director Johnny Howard looks back on TDBC’s history. In (6): 24–29.
Annual Report 1994, Thomas-Dale Block Clubs, 7. St. Paul, FFF. 1994. Space, place, and gender. Oxford: Polity Press.
MN: TDBC. FFF. 1998. Identity: Some parallels between feminist
FFF. 1996. Executive Director’s letter. In Annual Report 1996, debate and the identity of place. Berichte zur Deutschen
Thomas-Dale Block Clubs, 5. St. Paul, MN: TDBC. Landeskunde, (Reports on German Regional Studies) 72 (1):
Hunt, Scott A., Robert D. Benford, and David A. Snow. 1994. 53–59.
Identity fields: framing processes and the social construction McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2001.
of movement identities. In New social movements: From Dynamics of contention. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Uni-
ideology to identity, ed. Enrique Laraña, Hank Johnston, and versity Press.
Joseph R. Gusfield. Philadelphia: Temple University Press McCarthy, John D., and Mayer N. Zald. 1973. The trend of social
185–208. movements. Morristown, NJ: General Learning.
Jenkins, J. Craig. 1983. Resource mobilization theory and the FFF. 1977. Resource mobilization and social movements.
study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology 9: American Journal of Sociology 82:1212–1241.
527–53. McDowell, Linda. 1999. Gender, identity, and place. Minneapolis:
Johnston, Hank. 1995. A methodology for frame analysis: From University of Minnesota Press.
discourse to cognitive schemata. In Social movements Melucci, Alberto. 1988. Getting involved: Identity and mobiliza-
and culture, ed. Hank Johnston and Bert. Klandermans, tion in social movements. In International social movement
217–46. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. research. vol. 1, From structure to action: Comparing social
Johnston, R. J. 1994. Neighborhood. In The dictionary of human movement research across cultures, ed. Bert Klandermans,
geography, 3rd ed., ed. R. J. Johnston, Derek Gregory, and Hanspeter Kriesi, and Sidney Tarrow, 329–48. Greenwich,
David M. Smith, 409. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. CT: JAI Press.
Jonas, Andrew E. G. 1998. Investigating the local-global Menahem, Gila, and Shimon Spiro. 1989. Urban neighbor-
paradox: Corporate strategy, union local autonomy, and hoods and the quest for community: Implications for
community action in Chicago. In Organizing the landscape: policy and practice. Community Development Journal 24 (1):
Geographical perspectives on labor unionism, ed. Andrew. 29–39.
Herod, 325–50. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Merrifield, Andrew. 1993a. Place and space: A Lefebvrian
Press. reconciliation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geogra-
Jonas, Andrew E. G., and David Wilson, eds. 1999. The urban pher 18:516–31.
growth machine: Critical perspectives, two decades later. Albany: FFF. 1993b. The struggle over place: Redeveloping American
State University of New York. Can in Southeast Baltimore. Transactions of the Institute of
Keith, Michael, and Steve Pile, eds. 1997. Geographies of British Geographers N.S. 18:102–21.
resistance. London: Routledge. Meter, Ken. 1994. Frogtown neighborhood income statement and
Kitschelt, Herbert. 1986. Political opportunity structures and balance sheet: Executive summary. In Comprehensive neigh-
political protest: Antinuclear movements in four democra- borhood action plan: Summary. FAA. St. Paul, MN: FAA.
cies. British Journal of Political Science 16:57–85. Mitchell, Katharyne. 1993. Multiculturalism, or the united colors
Klandermans, Bert, Hanspeter Kriesi, and Sidney Tarrow, eds. of capitalism? Antipode 25 (4): 263–94.
1988. International social movement research. Vol. 1, From Mitchell, Timothy. 1988. Colonising Egypt. Cambridge U.K.:
structure to action: Comparing social movement research across Cambridge University Press.
cultures. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Paige, Jeffery M. 1997. Coffee and power: Revolution and the rise of
Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 1987. Post-Marxism with- democracy in Central America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
out apologies. New Left Review 166 (November/December): University Press.
79–106. Paulson, Sharon. 1995. From the TDBC Board President: The
Lammers, Barb. 1994. You can start in your backyard: A message future of Frogtown. In Annual report 1995, by Thomas-Dale
from TDBC Chair Barb Lammers. In Annual Report 1994, ed. Block Clubs, 5 St. Paul, MN: TDBC.
Thomas-Dale Block Clubs, 3. St. Paul, MN: TDBC. Pred, Allan. 1984. Place as historically contingent process:
Laraña, Enrique, Hank Johnston, and Joseph R. Gusfield. 1994. Structuration and the time-geography of becoming places.
New social movements: From ideology to identity. Philadelphia, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 74 (2):
PA: Temple University Press. 279–97.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The production of space, Translated by FFF. 1986. Place, practice, and structure. Totowa, NJ: Barnes
Donald Nicholson-Smith. Cambridge MA: Blackwell. and Noble Books.
Logan, John R., and Harvey L. Molotch. 1987. Urban fortunes: Purcell, Mark. 1997. Ruling Los Angeles: Neighborhood move-
The political economy of place. Berkeley: University of ments, urban regimes, and the production of space in
California Press. southern California. Urban Geography 18 (8): 684–704.
750 Martin
FFF. 1998. Power in Los Angeles: Neighborhood movements, Thomas-Dale Block Clubs Reporter (Reporter) 1995. October
urban politics, and the production of urban space. Ph.D. diss., advertisement: It’s your home. The Frogtown Times 1 (4): 14.
Department of Geography, University of California, Los FFF. 1996a. January advertisement: Time to dream. The
Angeles. Frogtown Times 1 (7): 10.
Raco, Mike. 2000. Assessing community participation in local FFF. 1996b. June advertisement: Win great prizes in TDBCs
economic development: Lessons for the new urban policy. first bright and beautiful block contest. The Frogtown Times 1
Political Geography 19:573–99. (12): 13.
Relph, Edward. 1976. Place and placelessness. London: Pion FFF. 1996c. August advertisement: Start cleaning or start
Limited. oinking. The Frogtown Times 2 (2): 7.
Robertson, Roland. 1995. Glocalization: Time-space and homo- FFF. 1996d. December advertisement: A question for the
geneity-heterogeneity. In Global modernities, ed. Mike Feath- year’s end. The Frogtown Times 2 (6): 11.
erstone, Scott Lash, and Roland Robertson, 25–44. FFF. 1997. May advertisement: 31 days of hope! The Frogtown
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Times 2 (11): 20.
Robinson, Andy. 2001. Framing Corkerhill: Identity agency and Thomas-Dale/District Seven Planning Council (TDD7PC).
injustice. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 1995. Bylaws. Adopted 10 April, 1976; amended
19:81–101. 24 April 1986, 27 April 1987, 23 February 1995. St. Paul,
Routledge, Paul. 1993. Terrains of resistance: Nonviolent social MN.
movements and the contestation of place in India. Westport CT: FFF. 1996a. January advertisement. The Frogtown Times 1 (7): 7.
Praeger. FFF. 1996b. February advertisement. The Frogtown Times
Roy, Beth. 1994. Some trouble with cows: Making sense of social 1 (8): 10.
conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press. FFF. 1996c. May advertisement. The Frogtown Times 1 (11): 16.
Silver, Ira. 1997. Constructing ‘‘social change’’ through philan- FFF. 1996d. July advertisement. The Frogtown Times 2 (1): 17.
thropy: Boundary framing and the articulation of vocabul- FFF. 1996e. September advertisement: Here’s our
aries of motives for social movement participation. people’s plan for Thomas Dale! The Frogtown Times 2 (3):
Sociological Inquiry 67 (4): 488–503. 12–13.
Snow, David A., and Robert D. Benford. 1988. Ideology, frame FFF. 1996f. November advertisement. The Frogtown Times
resonance, and participant mobilization. In International 2 (5): 17.
social movement research. vol. 1, From structure to action: FFF. 1996g. Agenda and notes for board meeting. 21
Comparing social movement research across cultures, ed. Bert November. St. Paul, MN.
Klandermans, Hanspeter Kriesi, and Sidney Tarrow, 197– FFF. 1996h. This is the Thomas Dale District 7 Community
217. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Council. Flyer handed out at meetings sponsored or
FFF. 1992. Master frames and cycles of protest. In Frontiers cosponsored by District Seven. Available in the D7 office,
in social movement theory, ed. Aldon Morris and Carol St. Paul, MN.
McClurg Mueller, 133–55. New Haven, CT: Yale University FFF. 1996i. Welcome to the Thomas-Dale Neighborhood!
Press. Flyer handed out at meetings sponsored or cosponsored by
Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Jr. Steven K. Worden, and District Seven. Available in the D7 office, St. Paul, MN.
Robert D. Benford. 1986. Frame alignment processes, Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1974. Topophilia. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
micromobilization, and movement participation. American FFF. 1977. Space and place. Minneapolis: University of
Sociological Review 51 (4): 464–81. Minnesota Press.
Staeheli, Lynn A., and Victoria A. Lawson. 1995. Feminism praxis Ward, Kevin G. 2000. A critique in search of a corpus: Revisiting
and human geography. Geographical Analysis 27 (4): 321–38. governance and reinterpreting urban politics. Transactions of
Swyngedouw, Erik A. 1992. The Mammon quest, ‘‘glocalization,’’ the Institute of British Geographers 25:169–85.
interspatial competition, and the monetary order: The Wilder Research Center. 2002. Summary: Thomas-Dale Neighbor-
construction of new scales. In Cities and regions in the New hood. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research Center, Wilder
Europe, ed. Mick Dunford and Grigoris Kafkalas, 39–67. Foundation http://www.communitydataworks.org/data/stpaul/
London: Belhaven Press. nhood/dist7/7-Thomasdale.pdf (last accessed 13 May 2003).
Thomas-Dale Block Clubs (TDBC), Inc. 1995. Annual report. Wilson, David. 1993. Everyday life, spatiality, and inner-city
St. Paul, MN: TDBC. disinvestment in a U.S. city. International Journal of Urban and
FFF. 1996a. Flyer announcing 24 July neighbors’ meeting. Regional Research 17 (4): 578–94.
St. Paul, MN. Wilson, David, and Dennis Grammenos. 2000. Spatiality and
FFF. 1996b. TDBC member neighborhood manual, 1996–97. urban redevelopment movements. Urban Geography 21 (4):
St. Paul, MN: TDBC. 361–70.
FFF. 1996c. No more . . . Flyer announcing 25 June meeting. Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the politics of difference.
St. Paul, MN. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Correspondence: Department of Geography, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602; e-mail: [email protected].

Place-Framing'' As Place-Making: Constituting A Neighborhood For Organizing and Activism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Place-Framing'' As Place-Making: Constituting A Neighborhood For Organizing and Activism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

‘‘Place-Framing’’ as Place-Making: Constituting

a Neighborhood for Organizing and Activism

Table 1. Motivational Framing by Organization

Table 2. Diagnostic Place-Framing by Organization

Table 3. Prognostic Framing by Organization

Table 4. Themes in Organizational Frames by Type (Summary of Tables 1–3)

Create community * Infrastructure

Racial, cultural, economic comprehensive plan

Greater Frogtown Community Exhortations: Degraded, run-down houses Promote neighborhood as a

Economic activity in city Entrepreneurship classes

Thomas-Dale Block Clubs Exhortations: Garbage in streets, yards Foster residential

diversity accountable for tenants,

Correspondence: Department of Geography, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602; e-mail: [email protected].

You might also like

Place-Framing'' As Place-Making: Constituting A Neighborhood For Organizing and Activism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Place-Framing'' As Place-Making: Constituting A Neighborhood For Organizing and Activism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

‘‘Place-Framing’’ as Place-Making: Constituting

a Neighborhood for Organizing and Activism

Table 1. Motivational Framing by Organization

Table 2. Diagnostic Place-Framing by Organization

Table 3. Prognostic Framing by Organization

Table 4. Themes in Organizational Frames by Type (Summary of Tables 1–3)

 Create community * Infrastructure

 Racial, cultural, economic comprehensive plan

Greater Frogtown Community Exhortations:  Degraded, run-down houses  Promote neighborhood as a

 Economic activity in city  Entrepreneurship classes

Thomas-Dale Block Clubs Exhortations:  Garbage in streets, yards  Foster residential

diversity accountable for tenants,

Correspondence: Department of Geography, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602; e-mail: [email protected].

You might also like

Create community * Infrastructure

Racial, cultural, economic comprehensive plan

Greater Frogtown Community Exhortations: Degraded, run-down houses Promote neighborhood as a

Economic activity in city Entrepreneurship classes

Thomas-Dale Block Clubs Exhortations: Garbage in streets, yards Foster residential