Sunday, March 16, 2014
Calvert (Omni Shoreham)
Despite increasing globalization of information dissemination
and social movements, the kinds of “expertise” political actors use
systematically varies across national contexts. For identical political
issues, claims-makers in different countries draw on locally produced
ideas, facts, and information even when exterior knowledge is available. To
explore this phenomenon, I ask: what “experts” participate in legislative
and judicial debates on marriage and kinship for same-sex couples in France
and the U.S.? How does the media portray such knowledge and what explains
national differences? To answer these questions, I analyze the coverage of
these issues in *Le Monde* and the *New York Times *from 1990 to today. I
identify people treated as “experts” in the debates, trace their
institutional and activist origins, examine their statements, and observe
evolutions over time. I map out the kinds of information journalists use to
explain the debates and their justifications presented in editorials.
Coverage is dominated by lawyers and psychologists in the U.S. and
psychoanalysts and anthropologists in France. Religious representatives are
important in both cases but are legitimated differently. Furthermore, in
the U.S., experts use information specific to their fields and empirical
claims have weight in editorials. In contrast, in France, experts use their
status to make claims but infrequently draw on facts related to their
domains. Instead, arguments in French debates rely primarily on ideas and
principles. I discuss broader implications of these findings for
understanding how “expertise” relates to theories of framing and how
national context can shape the content of political debates.
and social movements, the kinds of “expertise” political actors use
systematically varies across national contexts. For identical political
issues, claims-makers in different countries draw on locally produced
ideas, facts, and information even when exterior knowledge is available. To
explore this phenomenon, I ask: what “experts” participate in legislative
and judicial debates on marriage and kinship for same-sex couples in France
and the U.S.? How does the media portray such knowledge and what explains
national differences? To answer these questions, I analyze the coverage of
these issues in *Le Monde* and the *New York Times *from 1990 to today. I
identify people treated as “experts” in the debates, trace their
institutional and activist origins, examine their statements, and observe
evolutions over time. I map out the kinds of information journalists use to
explain the debates and their justifications presented in editorials.
Coverage is dominated by lawyers and psychologists in the U.S. and
psychoanalysts and anthropologists in France. Religious representatives are
important in both cases but are legitimated differently. Furthermore, in
the U.S., experts use information specific to their fields and empirical
claims have weight in editorials. In contrast, in France, experts use their
status to make claims but infrequently draw on facts related to their
domains. Instead, arguments in French debates rely primarily on ideas and
principles. I discuss broader implications of these findings for
understanding how “expertise” relates to theories of framing and how
national context can shape the content of political debates.
