Abstract

The March for Our Lives organization evoked national anger over gun violence and turned it into action as per Gould (2009), received extensive coverage as per Amenta, et al. (2009), was able to reframe the issue as a moral dilemma despite the dissonance from the right and the NRA as per Ryan & Gamson (2006), and was able to innovate in their tactics as per Morris (1984). However, the organization has its work cut out for them in achieving national gun reform. This critique will focus mainly on how the organization should act now in accordance with these theories.

Introduction

After the tragic Valentines’ Day mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, afflicted but highly motivated high school students organized to fight for stricter gun control laws not only in Florida but in the entire United States (Brezenski, 2018, p. 35). Humbly starting as the #NeverAgain Twitter page and organizing out of a student’s living room (The Founders of March for Our Lives, 2018, pp. 27; 37), they quickly developed into a fully-fledged social movement. Gun control reform has historically been squandered by 2nd Amendment supporters and the National Rifle Association (b.Maza & Lowndes, 2018), which will be discussed extensively in this paper, but the March for Our Lives (the organization, not the march itself) has already seen success in legislature and electorates (Brezenski, 2018; Herndon, 2018; Mazzei, 2018; Prothero & Ujifusa, 2018; Toussaint, 2018; Ujifusa, 2018) and mobilizing their membership (Beatty, 2018; Fleshler, et al., 2018; Shaper & Martin, 2018; Yee & Blinder, 2018).

The organization has utilized emotion (Gould, 2009), coverage by the media (e.g. CNN, Fox News, The New York Times, etcetera) (Amenta et al., 2009), gun reform framing (Ryan & Gamson, 2006), and innovation in their tactics (Morris, 1984) to make their gains in legislative and cultural change. While their goals do seem logistically and legislatively attainable (“Policy agenda,” 2018), the March for Our Lives’ success will hinge on their ability to mobilize and maintain relevance, battling with NRA-backed politicians and organizations, and their ability to adapt to new political conditions. Especially after Democrats flipped the House of Representatives and many state governments in the 2018 midterm elections (FiveThirtyEight, 2018; Green, 2018), it will be crucial to the advancement of gun control reform that the March for Our Lives continues to mobilize and commit to direct action, as well as work alongside politicians of every level to push for policy creation.

Analysis

Emotion Work (Gould, 2009)

The highly capable students at MSD High were some of the first to organize to demand that action be taken to prevent mass shootings and school shootings from happening (The Founders, 2018, p. 28). These students, victims and survivors of a school shooting, saw that these incidents had very quickly become a national epidemic. In the decades before the Columbine shooting in Jefferson, Colorado, school shootings were extremely rare. The 1990s saw a five-fold increase in school shootings than the two decades before, and in the nearly twenty years since Columbine, the Parkland shooting marked the 208th of its kind (Lebrun, 2009, pp. 172-185; Roberts, 2018).

The March for Our Lives organizers were able to turn desolation and mourning not into a sense of hopelessness and passive acceptance of this national shame, but into mass collective action. High-flying emotions and the inherent travesty of an event like this – events like these – created ideal circumstances for a large mobilization (but at an untenable cost). According to Gould (2009), “feelings... are ‘a vital social movement resource’” that members “produce, orchestrate, and strategically deploy” (p. 259) not only to mobilize but to achieve their, in this case, legislative and cultural goals. Consequently, the ability of the March for Our Lives to utilize emotions like anger and resentment garnered over one million people nationwide (Fleshler, et al., 2018; Schaper & Martin, 2018; Yee & Blinder, 2018).

In its namesake demonstration on March 24, 2018, the March for Our Lives (the event in Washington, D.C.) brought 800,000 people to the U.S. Capitol to protest for stricter gun laws (Fleshler, et al., 2018). The Million Women March the year prior was a big influence (The Founders, 2018, p. 29), and even hinged on the same emotional messaging. They both mirror the anger of the Act Up movement during the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s:

“If you feel grief, as we all do, then you should also feel anger toward those who have caused you to feel grief; and if you have anger, you should join us in confrontational activism to fight those who are responsible”

(Gould, 2009, p. 260).

Within days of the February shooting, these students began organizing. Their Twitter account sparked to life in garnering new and potential members by elevating the anger and fear, especially in students, nationwide (hear: “We call B.S.!”) (Brezenski, 2018, p. 36; Lucero II, 2018; Maza & Boone, 2018; The Founders, 2018, p. 29). Parkland and other Florida students protested at the State Capitol just one week after Valentines’ Day (Brezenski, 2018, p. 36). The MSD-student-led demonstrations were interceded by two national school walkouts organized by Connecticut students, one on March 14th and the other on April 20th (National School Walkout, 2018; Schaper & Martin, 2018; Yee & Blinder, 2018).

The anger stoked in students, specifically against the reluctance of elected officials to act to prevent these tragedies, as well as the financial influence of the NRA (Chavar, 2018), helped the organization to rally its base. Students from across the nation made themselves heard, especially thanks to Twitter, confronting local, state, and federal officials online (The Founders, 2018, p. 29), calling for immediate and swift action. Pressure from the concerted online and direct-action efforts of the March for Our Lives forced the hand of then-Governor of Florida Rick Scott to sign into law Senate Bill 7026, the “Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act,” raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm in the state (Mazzei, 2018; The Founders, 2018, pp. 67- 68). They have yet to have as much success in the rest of the country, making very little gains with the Republican-controlled federal government. However, come January 20th, a new class will be sworn into Congress: the Democrats will control the House of Representatives, and it will be the best opportunity to make federal gains.

The Media (Amenta, et al., 2009)

Days after the violent shooting at MSD High, Parkland students were operating with national and true intentions. As part of their highly-organized, board-style March for Our Lives organization, there are delegated media coordinators, including David Hogg (Maza & Lowndes, 2018; The Founders, 2018). Integral to the success of the movement, the organizers understood that they needed to get their cause covered. According to Amenta, et al. (2009), “gaining coverage is a measure of an organization’s cultural influence” and is crucial to achieving their goals (p. 302). Especially in a culture that consumes news as frequently and intensely as it does, it was vital for the March for Our Lives to make their mark to finally confront gun violence in the United States.

Mere days after the shooting, Parkland students were contacted by media outlets (i.e. CNN, The New York Times), including an invitation to confront the NRA in a nationally-televised CNN town hall (Astor, 2018; The Founders, 2018, pp. 20; 71). According to Amenta, et al. (2009) and the “resource mobilization theory,” “extensive resources... achieve extensive coverage” (p. 303). The Parkland students were able to partner with other national organizations, such as the aforementioned National School Walkout, as well as Change the Ref, also birthed from Parkland’s tragedy (The Founders, 2018, pp. 54, 165). The coverage, not only from national debates but from multiple occasions of national direct action and on-air interviews, helped to legitimize and bring national attention to the new movement. Even Fox News interviewed some Parkland students (albeit, immediately afterward, they had Rush Limbaugh on to criticize the movement and personally attack the students) (O’Connor, 2018). However, despite the criticisms of Fox News and other right-wing outlets, the March for Our Lives was able to mobilize over one million people for national direct action.

On the other hand, one march and two walkouts can hardly be seen as “mass turmoil” necessary to threaten the social order and to achieve political change (Amenta, et al., 2009, p. 303). Regardless of how many people the organization was able to originally mobilize, coverage today is contingent on maintaining relevance in culture. The organization started to tour nationally and help register young voters (Beatty, 2018; The Founders, 2018, p. 175; Toussaint, 2018), but with little television or print media coverage. The Parkland students are rarely featured anymore on any major television news networks and have not penned any op-eds since March. In accordance with the “classic view” of media coverage, disruptive action leads to mass turmoil - which leads to extensive coverage - which finally leads to political change (Amenta, et al., 2009, p. 303). The March for Our Lives needs to continue its direct action, not only at the local level, because coverage will be contingent on again nationally mobilizing or on a renewed level of alertness on gun violence and gun reform.

Come January 20th, however, the organization may have better luck in gun reform on the federal level. Amenta, et al. (2009) assert that movements are “shaped by the rhythms of state building and policy making, which alter politics and often work in a self-reinforcing way” (p. 304), and, in this, media coverage only aids the organization. Instead of relegating the tragedy to the realm of “thoughts and prayers,” as these events are so often dismissed, the March for Our Lives forced a debate on gun reform and gun violence into the national discourse.

A few weeks after the Valentines’ Day massacre, President Trump held a “listening session” with Parkland students, families, and other gun-control activists (b.Associated Press, 2018), and has even pledged to ban bump stocks, an attachment to a semi-automatic rifle in order to get it to fire faster (Rogers, 2018). Their federal influence will be made easier by the gun-control-friendly Congressional candidates elected on a platform of reform, of whom the organization garnered massive national attention (Farivar, 2018; Herndon, 2018; Ujifusa, 2018). With the incoming Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, the March for Our Lives organization must commit to ceaselessly pursuing politically-backed action.

Framing (Ryan & Gamson, 2006)

The success of the March for Our Lives and the entire gun control movement is entirely contingent on how they frame the issue. Guns, in general, are an extremely polarizing topic in the United States. At the same time as mass and school shootings, there is strong pushback against reform from 2nd Amendment activists and the NRA. The framing on both sides of the debate has created massive disdain for gun reform and gun rights activists alike, and progress is stalled by infighting. The March for Our Lives has blamed unfettered access to guns and non-intervention by the government as causes of mass and school shootings (“Policy agenda,” 2018), while the NRA and other dissenting gun rights activists appeal to the 2nd Amendment. [See Conover (2018) to discover how the NRA became the organization they are today.] Framing is integral to changing the hearts and minds of the general public, and is compulsory to mobilize their base.

The March for Our Lives has tied their cause inextricably to safety. As survivors of a school shooting, this is their raison d’être. Safety as their main concern is in accordance with Ryan & Gamson (2009), who state, “all frames contain implicit or explicit appeals to moral principles” (p. 138). At the listening session, to which David Hogg, one of the faces of the movement, refused to attend (Agerholm, 2018), afflicted students and families appealed to empathy and sympathy, while also criticizing the reluctance of the government to act (b.Associated Press, 2018).

As discussed in section one, emotional framing is extremely effective in garnering support. But Ryan & Gamson (2009) also assert that “successful reframing involves the ability to enter into the worldview of our adversaries” (p. 138). Appealing to safety just is not as effective in persuading Republicans and conservatives as it is in Democrats and liberals. According to Feinberg & Willer’s (2015) “morality foundations theory,” liberals are more convinced by arguments framed around “protection from harm” and “maintenance of fairness and reciprocity,” while conservatives respond to “ingroup-loyalty,” “respect for authority,” and “protection of purity and sanctity” (p. 1666). Therefore, it is vital to the full success of the March for Our Lives organization to reframe its message and intentions to convince President Trump and the Republican-controlled federal government.

Likewise, the NRA is notoriously ineffective in persuading liberals. Their appeals solely to the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment, despite their insistence that the Constitution is meant to protect us from a tyrannical U.S. government (which would thus fly in the face of the “respect for authority” component), has not done much to bolster new membership. Especially in the wake of the Parkland shooting and subsequent movement, the NRA seems to be struggling (Spies & Cook, 2018; Wieder, 2018). In fact, gun control reform groups outspent the NRA in the 2018 midterm elections (Hakim & Shorey, 2018; Wieder, 2018), and multiple NRA “A” rated officials were ousted (Herndon, 2018; Prothero & Ujifusa, 2018). Especially after the 2018 midterm elections, it seems as if the NRA’s mobilizing power is fading.

Despite the national recognition of the NRA and its historic influence to stall gun reform, they are not the true adversary the March for Our Lives must defeat to gain legislative action. It is, in fact, Fox News and the peddling of conspiracy theories. The Parkland survivors have been accused of being “crisis actors,” Nazis, and of being paid off by George Soros (Maza & Lowndes, 2018). The increasing radicalization of Fox News, especially in hosts like Sean Hannity, has caused the most viewed and one of the most trusted networks (Katz, 2018; Concha, 2018) to push conspiracy theories, echoed from and around the Internet (c.Maza & Lowndes, 2017). Although Fox News viewers were found to be the most uninformed (Kelley, 2012), this does not affect their viewership. As long as the March for Our Lives organization continues its commitment “to a mission of social change” (Ryan & Gamson, 2006, p. 140), not even the most ludicrous conspiracies coming from the deepest, darkest rabbit holes of the Internet will be able to derail the movement from achieving their goals.

Tactical Innovation (Morris, 1984)

Aside from the massive namesake demonstration in Washington, D.C., the March for Our Lives organization’s ingenuity and innovation have been pivotal to advancing its goals. Success in tactics, according to Morris (1984), is contingent on being “connected rather than isolated,” must be “initiated through organizations and personal ties,” “rationally planned and led by established leaders,” and “supported by indigenous resources” (p. 223). The organizers have taken to Twitter to lead the movement nationwide (The Founders, 2018, pp. 29, 51-54), but their near-million-person march was hardly innovative.

What has been more effective is their (sometimes national) ‘die-in’ protests (in concert with national walkouts) to highlight the travesty of mass gun violence, as recently as September 23rd (Associated Press, 2018; Reid, 2018; Zezima, 2018). Demonstrations in this style have been adopted by Black Lives Matter, staging a die-in to protest Emantic Bradford, Jr.’s death in Hoover, Wisconsin (Koplowitz, 2018). Morris (1984) calls this the “dissemination of nonviolent tactics and strategies” (p. 223), and they have extended outside the March for Our Lives’ members into other collective action organizations.

The most influential campaign that the March for Our Lives organization initiated was its boycott of companies with links to the NRA. Enterprise, Delta and United Airlines, and MetLife insurance all ended NRA membership benefits due to pressure from gun control activists (Barbash & Bever, 2018; Fortin, 2018). As well, companies like Hulu and TripAdvisor pulled their ads from Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle with Laura Ingraham after she mocked survivor David Hogg for being denied from four colleges, while he responded with a call to not only boycott her show but also the companies who advertise on her show (Mark, 2018). He rejected her apology (Morton, 2018). By attacking the finances of their adversaries, the March for Our Lives was able to force action to be taken and strides to be made in combatting narrative derailment.

What the organization seems to be lacking, however, are continuous “forums,” and they are lacking in support from outside organizations (Morris, 1984, p. 223). As now they also have trouble garnering media coverage (e.g. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News), renewed action post-2018 midterm elections will be critical in maintaining relevance with the new, cause-friendly House of Representatives. Although Republicans still control the Senate and the Presidency, Democrats will be able to constantly bring gun reform up for debate and up for a vote. The opportunistic organization recognized that the 2018 midterm elections would be critical to the advancement of comprehensive gun control reform, and they acted accordingly (Beatty, 2018; Toussaint, 2018). It will be just as imperative for the organization to continue to pressure incumbent and newly elected politicians to enact change at the local, state, and federal levels.

Outside organizations will definitely help with maintaining relevance. Not only will they provide funding, resources, and influence, they will also help to galvanize a multiplicity of people, acting in a “mass-based orientation” (Morris, 1984, p. 223). The March for Our Lives organization has no shortage of people – students especially – who support their group and their cause (Chavar, 2018), and much of their organizing and dissemination of plans to their membership has been relegated to the massive audience on Twitter (The Founders, 2018, p. 53).

Local partners can not only work to attract more members on the grassroots level but can commit their own forms of direct action and upheave social order on a collectivized, connected but individualistic level. The ability for the March for Our Lives organization to maintain relevance and achieve its goals will hinge on its openness to partnering with a multitude of organizations. And that begs the critique that they are still unaffiliated with STOMP Out Bullying, a global organization determined to end the alienating culture that can lead to school violence (STOMP Out Bullying, 2018). Despite whether or not it is a matter of accessibility to guns that makes this type of violence so rampant (Soellner, 2018), Kimmel & Mahler (2003) find that homophobic emasculation (pp. 1446-1452) is the common factor, and if the March for Our Lives truly wants to address the culture of school and gun violence, they need to accept all organizations with that goal.

Conclusion

Whether or not the March for Our Lives will achieve its policy agenda (“Policy agenda,” 2018) will depend solely on their continued push to advance legislation. It is easy to think that a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives will do something – anything – to debate gun reform legislation, but it will be even easier to imagine them faltering at Senate filibustering. Only with renewed pressure from the March for Our Lives organization will Democrats continue to push for legislation, conjunct with the cultural and economic power that the organization wields. President Trump is easily persuaded, and it is feasible to assume that he can push further than just a ban on bump stocks. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is not the same. Only in garnering support from President Trump will Congressional Republicans consider flipping.

The organization must also continue to mobilize. It would be too easy of a criticism to say that the March for Our Lives has been inactive or less influential because they have had sparse collective direct action. They have merely changed their tactics. From protests and demonstrations to boycotts to registering people to vote, the organization has been extremely active. The struggle next is to act in a way that receives extensive media coverage (e.g. cable and print news) again. It piques the question of whether another tragedy must happen (and it is statistically likely to) in order for there to be a renewed national outrage and push for change. Especially in this culture of short-run and sensationalist news, a tragedy would immediately re-galvanize coverage and action of the national movement. Aside from another tragedy where innocent people needlessly lose their lives, success for the March for Our Lives in achieving their goals and garnering coverage hinges on the continual mobilization and intense pressure they commit to for creating meaningful change, and finally solving this national epidemic.