"Guided by Ghosts of the Post-Civil War Era": Felon Disenfranchisement and the Limits of Race Liberal Advocacy

IF 0.6 Q3 COMMUNICATION Rhetoric & Public Affairs Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.14321/rhetpublaffa.25.1.0001
Christopher Earle
{"title":"\"Guided by Ghosts of the Post-Civil War Era\": Felon Disenfranchisement and the Limits of Race Liberal Advocacy","authors":"Christopher Earle","doi":"10.14321/rhetpublaffa.25.1.0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This essay analyzes arguments regarding race and U.S. felon disenfranchisement laws. In response to the denial of the vote to 6.1 million Americans in 2016, voting rights advocacy has helped spur a range of liberalizing reforms in states across the country. The essay attributes such policy victories to activists' success in redefining felon disenfranchisement as a racial justice rather than criminal justice issue. It argues, however, that U.S. public discourse still does not reflect a clear or coherent understanding of how and why race matters in the context of felon disenfranchisement. Through a rhetorical frame analysis of media coverage in four newspapers over a twenty-year period, the essay identifies and evaluates the three most common racial frames, arguing that each adheres to prevailing logics of racial liberalism. While this adherence lends the frames some degree of persuasive power, this essay argues that it also causes dominant publics to misunderstand the racial character of felon disenfranchisement. The essay concludes that more substantial reform hinges on the ability of activists to transform public meanings to reflect their preferred understanding of the causes and consequences of racial inequality.","PeriodicalId":45013,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric & Public Affairs","volume":"25 1","pages":"1 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rhetoric & Public Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.25.1.0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:This essay analyzes arguments regarding race and U.S. felon disenfranchisement laws. In response to the denial of the vote to 6.1 million Americans in 2016, voting rights advocacy has helped spur a range of liberalizing reforms in states across the country. The essay attributes such policy victories to activists' success in redefining felon disenfranchisement as a racial justice rather than criminal justice issue. It argues, however, that U.S. public discourse still does not reflect a clear or coherent understanding of how and why race matters in the context of felon disenfranchisement. Through a rhetorical frame analysis of media coverage in four newspapers over a twenty-year period, the essay identifies and evaluates the three most common racial frames, arguing that each adheres to prevailing logics of racial liberalism. While this adherence lends the frames some degree of persuasive power, this essay argues that it also causes dominant publics to misunderstand the racial character of felon disenfranchisement. The essay concludes that more substantial reform hinges on the ability of activists to transform public meanings to reflect their preferred understanding of the causes and consequences of racial inequality.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《由后内战时代的幽灵指引》:剥夺重罪犯公民权和种族自由主义倡导的局限
摘要:本文分析了有关种族和美国重罪犯剥夺公民权法的争论。作为对2016年610万美国人被剥夺投票权的回应,投票权倡导帮助刺激了全国各州的一系列自由化改革。这篇文章将这些政策上的胜利归功于活动人士成功地将剥夺重罪犯的公民权重新定义为种族正义问题,而不是刑事司法问题。然而,它认为,美国公共话语仍然没有反映出对种族在重罪犯被剥夺公民权的背景下如何以及为什么重要的清晰或连贯的理解。通过对四家报纸20年来媒体报道的修辞框架分析,本文确定并评估了三种最常见的种族框架,认为每种框架都遵循种族自由主义的主流逻辑。虽然这种坚持使框架具有一定程度的说服力,但本文认为,这也导致主流公众误解了重罪犯被剥夺公民权的种族特征。这篇文章的结论是,更实质性的改革取决于积极分子改变公众意义的能力,以反映他们对种族不平等的原因和后果的首选理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Rhetoric & Public Affairs
Rhetoric & Public Affairs COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Satire as the Comic Public Sphere: Postmodern "Truthiness" and Civic Engagement by James E. Caron (review) Designing "The People": Constitutive Fractures in Contemporary Collectives Replacing Notorious: Barret, Ginsburg, and Postfeminist Positioning Informing a Nation: The Newspaper Presidency of Thomas Jefferson by Mel Laracey (review) Market Affect and the Rhetoric of Political Economic Debates by Catherine Chaput (review)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1