What happens when activists who usually oppose each other work to advance similar goals? This book re-conceptualizes models of social movements’ relationships with each other and develops a new framework for understanding relationships that are neither coalitions nor countermovements. Rich, empirically grounded case studies of opposition to pornography, child sexual abuse policy, and the Violence Against Women Act show how feminists and conservatives engaged with the issues and with each other, the differences between their approaches, and both their points of overlap and their power struggles. Each case illustrates a different type of relationship: an adversarial yet collaborative interaction around pornography; a narrow, issue-specific, and politically neutral opposition to child sexual abuse; and an ambivalent alliance confined to the policy arena for the Violence Against Women Act. Focusing on activism targeting the federal government from 1980 to 2013, the book draws on a unique, in-depth dataset, including transcripts of Congressional hearings and movement documents, to analyze interpretive processes within the state. Activists constructed frames that enabled cross-ideological support, dealt with the reputational risk of appearing to consort with the enemy, and sometimes compromised or de-emphasized controversial goals in favor of areas of commonality. In the end, feminists and conservatives influenced policy and culture to different degrees in the three case studies, depending on their relative power. Frenemies draws powerful lessons about both the benefits and risks of collaboration across ideological difference.
The Participation of Senior Citizens in Policy-Making: Patterning Initiatives in Europe
