The National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws and civil society

¶ … Civil Society Through "Legalize Marijuana" Organizations

As microcosms of civil society, collective action groups operate with processes used by civil society but with uniquely tailored processes and results. The National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) is one example of a collective action group that has used these processes to establish itself, grow, survive and currently flourish. Through intelligent framing, effective resource mobilization and wise use of political opportunity, NORML's 40+year history has resulted in growth from an idea supported by a few people to a well-funded and assertive national movement. This work will attempt to show NORML'S accurate reflection of successful civil society by reviewing research on civil society and collective action groups, reviewing NORML's history, and applying the research to NORML.

Analysis:

Collective Action Group as a Microcosm of Civil Society

Framing processes are a central dynamic, along with resource mobilization and political opportunity processes, for understanding civil society and social movements as a microcosm of civil society (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 612). "Frames help to render events or occurrences meaningful and thereby function to organize experience and guide action" (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 614). Flowing from that definition, "collective action frames are action-oriented sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of a social movement organization (SMO)" (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 614). In studying frames, experts have found that collective action frames are the result of: action, because "something is being done"; process, because it is a "dynamic, evolving process"; agency, because the work of movement organizations or activists is evolving; contentious, because the process creates frames that are different from and may challenge existing frames (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 614). Collective action frames have two characteristics: core framing tasks and discursive processes. Core framing tasks have three components: diagnostic framing, consisting of identifying and attributing problems; prognostic framing, consisting of predicting outcomes and essentially refuting opponents' solutions while supporting the group's solutions; motivational framing, consisting of "rationale for engaging in ameliorative collective action" (Benford & Snow, 2000, pp. 615-617). Discursive processes consist of the members' communications about their activities (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 623), and their specific components are: frame articulation and frame amplification or punctuation (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 623). Frame articulation involves connecting events and experience so they are unified and compelling; the uniqueness of a collective action frame's articulation is that it gives a new vision, viewpoint and interpretation of events and experience (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 623). Frame amplification/punctuation consists of the emphasis of issues, events or beliefs, often by slogans (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 623).

Experts have also found that "frames are developed, generated, and elaborated on & #8230;also by way of three sets of overlapping processes that can be conceptualized as discursive, strategic, and contested" (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 623). As mentioned above, discursive processes are communications by members about their activities by frame articulation and frame punctuation. Strategic processes are utilitarian processes directed at achieving specific purposes, such as gaining new members or funding (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 624), by "frame alignment processes" that link the group's interests and frames with the interests and frames of the target groups, such as prospective members and/or prospective benefactors (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 624). There are four basic frame alignment processes: frame bridging, which connects the two groups' frames; frame amplification, which involves the "idealization, embellishment, clarification or invigoration" of the group's beliefs; frame extension, which consists of presenting the group's interests and frames as though they include issues and concerns of the target group; and frame transformation, which consists of changing old meanings and creating new ones (Benford & Snow, 2000, pp. 624-625). Contested processes are the "development, generation and elaboration" of a collective action group's frames. The group must face a number of challenges, which are usually presented by: "counterframing" by outsiders, such as opponents, observers and media, who publicly challenge the group's frame; frame disputes within the group when there are internal disagreements about diagnoses and/or prognoses; conflict between the group's frames and events which may contradict and/or undercut those frames (Benford & Snow, 2000, pp. 625-626). Frame diffusion, or the spread of one movement's ideas, frames and practices to another movement or culture, occurs through: strategic selection, in which the receiving movement or culture acts as an agent for the diffusion and selects and adapts an element of the first movement's ideas, frames and/or practices; strategic fitting, in which the transferor acts as an agent for the diffusion by selecting and adapting an element of its ideas, frames and/or practices into the new movement (Benford & Snow, 2000, p. 627).

Frames for a viable group, including a viable collective action group, are constantly undergoing changes. This dynamic process is attributed to 3 forces: political opportunity, which is based on the structure/restructure and "informal relations" of a political system and can facilitate or constrain the collective action group; cultural opportunities and constraints, which are based on a cultural "tool kit" of "meanings, beliefs, ideologies, practices, values, myths, narratives and the like" from which the collective action group draws meaning and creates new meaning as the culture and the collective action group's frames continually interact and alter each other; audience effects, in which the collective action group alters its action frames to communicate effectively with a target audience, which can facilitate or constrain the collective action group's frame. (Benford & Snow, 2000, pp. 629-630). A collective action group's framing activity also affects its other processes and outcomes in three aspects: political opportunities, in that collective action framing suggests that there are opportunities for change, that the individual has power to change his/her history, and that pro-opportunity framing can actually create political opportunity in a "self-fulfilling prophecy"; individual and collective identity, in that the participant's personal identity can be enlarged and fulfilled by participation in the collective identity and framing; specific-movement outcomes, in that "that for some movements, framing processes are critical to the attainment of desired outcomes" (Benford & Snow, 2000, pp. 631-632).

Resource mobilization, which is also a central dynamic of civil society and of collective action groups as a microcosm of civil society. Resource mobilization involves the "dynamics and tactics of social movement growth, decline, and change" (McCarthy & Zald, May 1977, p. 1213). Emphasizing both society's support and constraint of social movements, resource mobilization focuses on the resources that must be mobilized, connections among social movements and groups, the group's dependence on external support, and authorities' tactics to manage or absorb the group (McCarthy & Zald, May 1977, p. 1213). The support base for such groups are not necessarily based on the hardship of the supposed beneficiaries and at times the providers of resources such as money, facilities and labor do not necessarily share the group's values. (McCarthy & Zald, May 1977, p. 1216). The tactics used by groups for mobilizing resources may include encouraging cooperating within the group, energizing its supporters, neutralizing opposition, transforming the public into sympathizers and measurable achievement of goals (McCarthy & Zald, May 1977, p. 1217). In relation to larger society, the group uses the society's infrastructures -- such as media and social networks -- to mobilize resources (McCarthy & Zald, May 1977, p. 1223).

Application of Research to NORML

This work applies concepts of civil society and of a collective action group as a microcosm of civil society to NORML, an organization dedicated to the legalization of Marijuana in the United States. Applying civil society collective action group concepts to a specific organization "from the outside looking in" is difficult because groups are not necessarily transparent enough for complete review by a nonmember. Nevertheless, at least some of the concepts of civil society and collection action group dynamics can be applied to the "Legalize Marijuana" movement and NORML. Applying sociological group concepts to NORML, the group is clearly on the rise at this point in its history, has significantly contributed to social capital through its successful association with medical marijuana groups, for example, and accurately reflects accepted research on collective action frames. Though neither of California's Prop 19's passed, NORML has effectively "worked" the community and garnered millions of supporters who will form a basis for NORM's inevitable third California Prop 19.

NORML's history and current status dovetail with collective action framing and frames, one of the three central group dynamics, because it uses: action, by educating, funding, lobbying and legally promoting; process, because it has evolved from essentially one or more attorney's based in Washington, D.C. To a nationwide movement with chapters and attorneys in every State; agency, because its work as evolved from a conservative "decriminalization" organization to a nationwide movement that has supported the use of medical marijuana and recreational marijuana; contentious because it has consistently challenged the existing frame that marijuana use is abnormal and harmful. NORML's frames are action-oriented meanings and beliefs in the benefits of legalized marijuana, which have legitimized its efforts to legalize marijuana in every State. In supporting marijuana's legalization through its frame articulation, NORML has given new vision, viewpoint and interpretation of the marijuana and the legalization movement. Furthermore, NORML's frame amplification has emphasized the issues, events or beliefs regarding marijuana while generating, elaborating and diffusing its frames by: discursive processes, in that its members widely communicate through the website and publications, about its history and efforts to legalize marijuana; strategic processes by continually seeking through its website and publications to gain new members and funding; contested processes, by facing conflicts internally (for example, with the cocaine scandal involving its founder and devastating its power for 2 decades), and externally against "No-to-19" groups that opposed both of California's Proposition 19's. NORML has also engaged in frame diffusion throughout its history, both by strategic selection in teaming with Amorphia for California's first Proposition 19, and by strategic fitting in the multi-state balloting initiatives it sponsors.

NORML has also successfully negotiated political opportunity processes, the 2nd central group dynamic. Working within the socio-cultural contextual factors that facilitate and constrain its framing processes, NORML has both benefitted and been constrained. It has both benefited from political opportunity, for example, in its connection with the Carter Administration, and been constrained by political forces that have opposed its Prop 19 work and also widely disseminated and criticized its founder's cocaine abuse.. NORML has both benefitted and been constrained by cultural opportunities and constraints by drawing meaning from, for example, values in championing medical marijuana users, and from values that militate against the use of recreational marijuana as a "gateway" drug to harder substances. NORML has also benefitted and been constrained by audience effects in that NORML tailored its message to California voters but has been constrained by criticism of its founder's cocaine use in the face of its message that marijuana use is normal and does not lead to harder drugs. NORML's framing also has implications and consequences for its processes and outcomes in that NORML has identified political opportunities for change of the marijuana laws, that its collective identity and individual members' identities have been "enlarged" by its nationwide work, and that it has framed and reframed the outcomes of its California Prop 19 work by aiming for passage of the Proposition, then calling the voting percentages in losing initiatives successful due to the number of people voting for the propositions.

Resource mobilization, the 3rd central group dynamic, may well be NORML's greatest achievement. The organization has successfully engaged in extensive resource mobilization, assessing societal support and constraints, and mustering grass roots, legal, medical, lobbying and private funds and manpower to promote pro-marijuana propositions in all states. In addition, when necessary, NORML joined forces with Amorphia, the Medical Marijuana movement and the Prop-19 movements to promote their common agendas. In addition, NORML has used the media and preexisting networks of Washington attorneys, for example, to foster its growth and structure. Yet another reason for NORML's success in resource mobilization is the fact that the group has not relied on isolated constituents or funding; rather, NORML reaches out across the nation to every economic strata for resources, which has allowed the group to flourish nationally. Furthermore, while there are other pro-marijuana movements, NORML is an older, established organization with a large income flow and large groups of staff members who are professionals, such as doctors and lawyers.

Conclusion

Collective action groups have garnered considerable interest by social researchers due to the groups' reflection of processes in civil society and unique use of those processes. Researchers have found that a group's framing processes, resource mobilization and political opportunities processes are essential dynamics of the group. Through complex, ideally adaptable and sometimes overlapping processes, these groups are born, flourish, and sometimes necessarily survive internal and external challenges by framing and reframing themselves, mobilizing resources for their survival and their work, and benefitting/suffering from political processes. NORML, the national association devoted to the legalization of marijuana, has successfully followed the necessary steps for effective collective action groups and has consequently adapted, expanded and survived difficulties to achieve some goals and redefine others. As a result of NORML's successful group processes, it is currently a nationally powerful and effective force.