What happens to its political agenda when a popular movement develops normative beliefs about text itself? This dissertation analyzes patterns in U.S. constitutional amendment activism to understand why cultural beliefs about the interpretive properties of words ("textual norms") arise, and then come to collide with movement visions for sociopolitical change. It first provides complete documentation of all proposed amendments to the United States Constitution that were introduced in Congress between 1900 and 2011. Second, it examines the ways in which perceptions of judicial decision-making in each of four historical periods drove amendment activism, primarily by prompting movements that took issue with judicial decisions to seek constitutional amendments while deterring judicial supporters from the same. Third, this dissertation documents how textual norms emerge in response to perceptions of judicial decision-making and their consequences for advocacy, focusing on how specific combinations of underlying ideology and textual norm have worked to advantage or impede groups seeking amendment. It concludes that movements favoring "literal" text cannot sustain advocacy for proposals that seek social innovation, but can effectively mobilize around socially traditional proposals. For different reasons, movements favoring "ambiguous" text face challenges when pushing for socially innovative amendments. By showing that cultural beliefs about text -- ostensibly a neutral communicative medium -- shape social movement advocacy in combination with underlying ideologies, it highlights an overlooked aspect of popular drives for sociopolitical change in constitutional polities.
展开▼
