Localizing Anti-Corruption Norms in Social Movements: Competing Individual Frames and the Role of Social Science for Consensus-Making

Based on an ethnographic case study into the emergence of the anti-corruption movement in Portugal, this paper shows how social mobilisations can be successfully created and maintained despite divergent and sometimes outright contradictory framings of the addressed social problem (i.e. corruption) among its members and supporters. Social movement research has singled out the existence of a basic ideational consensus as an important prerequisite for the emergence and, a fortiori, the successful maintenance of social mobilisations (Benford/Snow 2000). Frame analysis, then, helps understand why social movements against corruption are notoriously difficult to maintain: While everyone agrees corruption is “bad”, consensus about the essential frames of this universal social problem (e.g. What exactly is the problem? Who is responsible? What should be done?) is hard to reach (cf. Snow 1986, Everett/Neu/Rahaman 2006). Moreover, discrepancies between universal moral claims underlying international anti-corruption norms (Wang/Rosenau 2001) and relational, diverse local contexts (Harrison 2006) makes it very difficult to “localize” anti-corruption norms in a way that can both mobilise potential activists and appeal to a larger public (Briquet 2009). An in-depth case study of Portugal, which has been described as “an example of unfinished modernization” (Sousa 2012), demonstrates the role of “scholarly activism” and trans-European advocacy coalitions in surmounting some of these problems. Action-oriented social research fulfils the double function of providing funds for an “independent” non-governmental and non-business organization and, maybe more importantly, creating common reference points for members and supporters (frame alignment) despite the persistence of divergent individual frames. At the same time, the elitist nature of the self-identified “grassroots movement” and the strong emphasis on academic 'objectivity' and 'rationality' also prevents larger advocacy coalition-building with more dispersed, non-hierarchical social movements which address similar causes albeit with a very different repository of action. Indicative Bibliography Benford, R.D., Snow, D.A., 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26, 611–639. Briquet, J.-L., 2009. Les conditions de félicité d'une croisade morale: Lutte anticorruption et conflits politiques dans l'Italie des années 1990. Droit et Société 72 (2), 285–301. Everett, J., Neu, D., Rahaman, A.S., 2006. The Global Fight against Corruption: A Foucaultian, Virtues-Ethics Framing. Journal of Business Ethics 65 (1), 1–12. Harrison, E., 2006. Unpacking the Anti-corruption Agenda: Dilemmas for Anthropologists. Oxford Development Studies 34 (1), 15–29. Johnston, M., 2012. Building a Social Movement Against Corruption. Brown Journal of World Affairs 18 (2), 57–74. Snow, D.A., Rochford, E., Worden, S., Benford, R.D., 1986. Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review 51 (4), 464-481. Sousa, L. de, 2012. 'Above the Law, Below Ethics': Some Findings on Portuguese Attitudes Towards Corruption, in: Tänzler, D., Maras, K., Giannakopoulos, A. (Eds.), The Social Construction of Corruption in Europe. Ashgate, Farnham, pp. 245–263. Wang, H., Rosenau, J.N., 2001. Transparency International and Corruption as an Issue of Global Governance. Global Governance 7 (1), 25–49.