Food Fight: A Debate over Food Sharing in Springfield MO

• In Event: Citizen Engagement in the Policy Process: Global & Local Dynamics

Abstract

In an era of post-truth politics, “degenerative” persuasion strategies abound, such as fabricating facts or portraying opponents in exaggeratedly negative terms. How can advocates confront such strategies in policy conflicts? This paper addresses this question by examining the persuasive strategies two coalitions used to contest a food sharing ordinance in Springfield, MO. The ordinance would restrict the activities of a homeless population and volunteers who served them in a downtown revitalization district. We demonstrate that the pro-ordinance coalition used two persuasion strategies – “target population” and “causal story” social constructions – that were degenerative. In addition to framing homeless people in negative terms, it framed homeless volunteers who are typically viewed positively as deviants causing disorder. Using Hajer’s assessment criteria for social constructions, we show how volunteers responded by debunking this degenerative narrative through two mechanisms: resistance to downgrading and resistance to overstep and offering an alternative “caring” narrative. This analysis adds to our understanding of policy conflict by showing how these mechanisms affected policy outcomes – not by changing coalition members’ policy positions but by shifting the conversational space, making it hostile to the degenerative narrative. In this context, coalition members may hold the same beliefs, but will no longer advocate for them. On a practical level, our analysis reveals potential weaknesses of degenerative strategies and the mechanisms by which they can be debunked.

Authors

• William Sisk, SUNY Albany

• Jennifer Dodge, SUNY, University at Albany