14. 'Framework of possible thought' and alignment of frames

n the context of the US policy environment, Chomsky argued that US policies are shaped by and in turn shape a ‘framework of possible thought’. This framework consists of various tacit doctrines, such as the idea underpinning foreign policy that various countries pose a security threat to the US. These doctrines are all the more effective because they are not debatable. Certain terms, e.g. ‘peace’ and ‘security’, seem so persuasive and self-evident that opposition to them is unthinkable. Chomsky claims that dissident views are so easily relegated to the periphery in policy making precisely because these views are not judged to be credible within the framework of possible thought, and can therefore quickly be dismissed as ‘anti-peace’ or ‘anti-security’. This highlights the necessity of understanding the conceptual framework within which policy is formulated, if one is to challenge a policy consensus. Counter-evidence will not be taken seriously unless it manages to engage with policy makers within their framework of possible thought – or exerts sufficient pressure to change their conceptual framework. Beach puts forward a related argument from a psychological perspective. He suggests that people with a history of shared experiences or shared values tend to frame situations similarly, and are therefore more likely to be able to coordinate decision-making. When people use different frames they first have to invest time and effort in the process of aligning their frames, before they are able to view each other as credible information holders.

Click here to return to the index page
or click to return to the summary page.