Understanding Religious Conflicts through Framing: The Mormon Site in Jerusalem as a Case-study,

FRAMING SPATIAL-RELIGIOUS CONFLICTS:THE CASE OF MORMON DEVELOPMENTIN JERUSALEM

MICHAL BEN GAL, NOGA COLLINS-KREINER & DEBORAH F. SHMUELI

Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905 Israel. E-mails:[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Received: December 2013; accepted November 2014

ABSTRACTThe paper’s aims are twofold: first to present framing methodology as an approach which providesinsights into conflicts stemming from the construction of new religious sites. Second, to analysethe Brigham Young University Jerusalem Center, using framing in order to understand thespatial-religious conflicts involved in its establishment. The findings fall within three framecategories (‘super-frames’) identified in the research: ‘process’, ‘values’, and ‘issues’. The findingsreveal that the discord surrounding the BYU Center had to do primarily with process and thevalues, and not around the issues themselves. The methodology provides a typology for under-standing and analysing the different stories told by stakeholders involved in spatial-religiousconflicts where the decision adopted might be perceived as endangering identity and ‘sense ofplace’. The typology may be helpful in the analysis of similar disputes elsewhere, and shed light onways to reframe conflicts over sacred place

Key words: Spatial-religious conflicts, religious sites, framing, identity of place, mormons, theBrigham Young University Jerusalem Center

INTRODUCTION

Public debates over spatial decisions whichchallenge place identity are often accompa-nied, regardless of outcome, with significantsocial and political turmoil. The contestationmay challenge existing power relations andpolitical setups, causing changes at differentscales – local, urban, national and even interna-tional. This study offers a vocabulary of framesas a typology that provides insights into con-flicts stemming from the construction of reli-gious sites.

The actions of people, groups and commu-nities in conflict situations, are influenced byhow they perceive situations and outcomes, andthe ways in which they communicate these per-ceptions. One psychological factor forming

perception is ‘framing’: when used as a verb,framing describes how people place boundar-ies around a situation – focusing on a certainpicture within the boundaries set (frames as anoun) and leaving out all else. Through thisselective simplification, frames filter people’sperceptions and define their fields of vision.This can lead to sharply divergent interpreta-tions of an event, as demonstrated by reactionsto the restriction (or freedom) of Iran todevelop nuclear abilities in current negotia-tions, or the debate over the freedom (or obli-gation) of Muslim women to cover their faceswith hijab or burka in public places in France.Differences in framing also influence evolutionof conflict. Framing is an analytic tool, and mayalso be used strategically (frame as a verb),when stakeholders communicate their interests

Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie – 2015, DOI:10.1111/tesg.12140© 2015 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG

mailto:[email protected]



and positions in certain ways to promotedesired reactions from the others.

Framing has been used in a variety of socialscience disciplines including conflict manage-ment, but thus far little focus has been devotedto conflicts over religious sites in the geographi-cal arena. Framing analysis is a rigorous con-ceptual and analytic approach with bothinterpretive and strategic significance. Thepurpose of this paper is to introduce framingconcepts, and present a typology which canserve examination of disputes surroundingestablishment of religious sites.

A comprehensive typology, based on litera-ture and empirical data is developed and thenapplied to the analysis of the dispute whichsurrounded the construction of the BrighamYoung University Jerusalem Center, known col-loquially as the Mormon University or theMormon Center. The focus of this paper istwofold: to present the methodology of framingelicitation and its use for interpretation ofspatial-religious disputes, and to use framinganalysis retrospectively to understand the con-flict surrounding the establishment of theMormon Center in Jerusalem during the 1980s.

The paper begins with a short literaturereview focusing on the concepts of frames andframing, place and sense of place, and aboutthe connections between place, identity, andconflicts over religious sites. A presentation ofthe framing typology developed to analysespatial-religious disputes follows. Next thedispute surrounding the establishment of theMormon Center in Jerusalem is described.The framing typology is then applied to theMormon case in the findings and analysissection. The paper concludes with a focuseddiscussion of the case of the Mormon Center, aswell as a broader discussion and conclusionregarding the use of framing as a tool for deep-ening understanding of religious site conflicts.

FRAMES AND FRAMING ANALYSIS

Since its introduction by sociologist ErvingGoffman in 1974, the study of frames has beenused to understand how people perceive theirsocial world, and how interpretations, orframing of information affect beliefs andbehaviour. The concept of framing evolvedinto a useful research method that has trig-

gered considerable work across a range of dis-parate fields over the past decades. It has beenapplied in: psychology and sociology (Snowet al. 1986; Taylor 2000; Di Masso et al. 2011),economics (Kahneman & Tversky 1979), artifi-cial intelligence (Minsky 1975), negotiations(Neale & Bazerman 1985; Pinkley 1990), as wellas conflict management (Vaughan & Seifert1992; Kaufman & Gray 2003; Lewicki et al.2003). Similar concepts can be found in thefield of management (Goldratt 1990; Fairhurst& Saar, 1996; Creed et al. 2002), and Commu-nications (Scheufele 1999). While some of theabove scholars view frames and framing as asocial and personal psychological cognitiveprocess, others see it as a communicative anddeliberate strategic tool.

Cognitively frames are understood as ‘mentallenses’, ‘filters’, or points of view, throughwhich reality is perceived. Frames function ascognitive structures, used to screen the multi-tude of information people process on a dailybasis. People tend to use frames and framingboth consciously and unconsciously to makesense of their world, to make decisions, and todecide on courses of action. Data consistentwith a persons’ frame is accepted and pro-cessed, while inconsistent data is ignored asfalse or irrelevant. Such selective simplificationfilters people’s perceptions, defining – and tosome extent limiting – their fields of vision,leading at times to sharply divergent interpre-tations of an observed event.

The human cognitive system is sensitive tonegatively framed information (Fiske & Taylor1991; Ito & Cacioppo 2005), particularly infor-mation signaling danger (Curseu & Schruijer2008). Thus, perceived threats through theframing of information induce fear and nega-tive emotions (Jarymowicz & Bar-Tal 2006).Such emotions, shared by a group of people,are manifested in public conflicts. Frames areinfluenced by many factors: personal (i.e.beliefs, principals, personality), societal (i.e.culture or cultural structures, such as laws anddecision-making processes), or socio-personal(i.e. political orientation, organisational affilia-tion, needs, desires or experience).

Frames are also viewed as communicativestructures or devices. In this sense, ‘framing’ isa dynamic process used by negotiators and/ordisputants in conflict to negotiate their interac-

2 MICHAL BEN GAL, NOGA COLLINS-KREINER & DEBORAH F. SHMUELI

© 2015 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG

tions (Dewulf et al. 2009). Framing in this sensecan be used unintentionally, intentionally oreven manipulatively, in order to portray orcommunicate a certain view of the situation tothe other actors, and thus influence theirbehaviour or elicit desired reactions (Kaufman& Smith 1999).

In their well-known study on the framing ofdecisions, Tversky & Kahneman (1981) demon-strate how the framing of the problem changesthe decision made. For example, they showedhow framing a decision between two alternativeprograms to combat a disease, one in positiveterms (‘gain framing’ – number of lives saved)and the other in negative terms (‘loss framing’–number of lives lost), changes the decision:respondents presented with the positive frameoverwhelmingly chose the ‘sure’ option,whereas those presented with the negativeframe overwhelmingly chose the ‘risky’ option.Another use of strategic framing is when it isused to re-frame a situation to make changes inconflict situations (Shmueli et al. 2006) and toguide discussion (Drake & Donohue 1996).

In public disputes, where individuals fre-quently represent interest groups, organi-sations, and government agencies, personalframes tend to coincide to a great extent withthose of the group they represent (Shmueli &Ben Gal 2005). In such disputes, stakeholdersmay not be acting as individuals. Instead, theirvalues often mirror those of the agencies,organisations, and groups with which they iden-tify (Bryan 2003). Frames shared by a group,function much as they do for individuals: thatis, by helping assign meaning to observedaspects of a decision-making process whilediscounting others that appear irrelevant ordissonant with group interests or with informa-tion already considered (Shmueli 2008). Theshared nature of frames is perhaps bestcaptured by Curseu (2011, p. 90), whoconceptualises groups as ‘information process-ing systems’ while ‘framing ultimately impactson intergroup behaviour through the group-level information processing mechanisms’.Therefore, framing knowledge can be usefulfor the practice of public decision-making incontexts with clear physical and spatial conse-quences. Framing insights can also be usedto contend with obstacles to negotiation(Kaufman & Shmueli 2011).

This paper presents the application of frameanalysis to spatial conflicts over religious siteswith significant social impacts, and aims toprovide a perspective for understanding con-flict analysis in social geographical research.

PLACE, IDENTITY AND CONFLICT

Identity of people and groups is influenced byboth religion and attachment to places theydeem a part of their lives. Identity conflicts, atthe root of many spatial-religious disputes,often arise with the establishment of new reli-gious sites.

The study of ‘place’ in the social sciencesis vast, multidisciplinary and complex, withdecades of research focusing on emotional atti-tudes towards place and its social construction.Based on the following review, people and com-munities attach meanings to places anddevelop ‘sense of place’. These meanings areperceived as either inherent to place, or associally constructed on political, historical orideological grounds. Moreover, the concep-tualisation of place is not stable over time,but repeatedly contested and changing (e.g.Massey 2004; Knott 2005, 2008).

Tuan’s (1974, 1977/2001, 1979) classic workwas among the first to examine the ways inwhich people attach meaning to place. Heargued that what begins as undifferentiated‘space’ evolves into ‘place’ as we come to knowplaces better and endow them with value. As abasic term in geographical discourse, ‘a place’is a centre of meanings, feelings, and experi-ences, which constitutes an important compo-nent of understanding people’s patterns ofexposure to reality and their construction ofidentity (Relph 1976, 1985). Tuan (1977) alsointroduced the concept of ‘sense of place’encompassing relationships between inhabit-ants and their surroundings, place-dependentidentities, sense of belonging, immanence, andloyalty to a common past, or a common vision.Datel and Dingemans (1984, p. 135) defined‘sense of place’ as ‘the complex bundle ofmeanings, symbols, and qualities that a personor group associates (consciously and uncon-sciously) with a particular locality or region’.According to Stedman (2003), sense of placeweaves together the physical environment,

FRAMING SPATIAL-RELIGIOUS CONFLICTS 3


human behaviours, and social and/or psycho-logical processes.

A variety of concepts have been developed tofurther explore people’s emotional connec-tions with place (e.g. Twigger-Ross & Uzzell1996; Casey 2001; Koons Trentelman 2009; DiMasso et al. 2011). ‘Place identity’ (Proshansky1978) consists of those dimensions of the selfthat develop in relation to the physical environ-ment by means of a pattern of beliefs, pre-ferences, feelings, values, and goals. AsFredrickson & Anderson (1999, p. 22) pointout, ‘it is through one’s interactions with theparticulars of a place that one creates their ownpersonal identity and deepest-held values’.Altman and Low (1992) and Low and Altman(1992) discuss concepts of ‘place identity’ aswell as ‘place attachment’. They, as well asManzo (2003, 2005) defined ‘place attach-ment’ as an affective bond between people andplaces. Notions of sense of place and placeattachment are not necessarily connected tolocal people and communities. Some placeshave deep meanings for people who live else-where. Jerusalem is a prime example of a placethat holds deep attachment for many peoplearound the world – Jews, Muslims, Christians,and, pivotal to our case, Mormons.

Studies of cultural landscapes also shedlight on ‘place attachment’, especially at thecommunity level, revealing the importanceof shared identity and place (Lynch 1960;Duncan & Lambert 2004; Massey 2005).Understanding these concepts is particularlyinsightful when pursuing community plan-ning and development efforts (Zelinsky 1997;Umemoto 2001).

People’s attachments to place are often inter-twined with their ‘sense of community’ (Prettyet al. 2003) which revolves around feelings ofbelonging to a group, including an emotionalconnection based on a shared history, as well asshared interests or concerns (Perkins & Long2002). ‘Place dependence’, ‘place identity’ and‘place traditions’ have reframed person-placebonds in terms of the creation of particular setsof shared meanings through which environ-ments become arenas of social belonging,group-expression, and historical connection tocollective values (e.g. Stokols & Shumaker1981; Devine-Wright & Lyons 1997; Loukaki1997).

People create a set of ideological beliefsabout a place and devise practices based onwhat they consider to be (or not to be) site-appropriate; by consistently adhering to thesepractices. The uncritical acceptance of theappropriateness and inappropriateness ofcertain actions in given locations often achievesthe status of ‘common sense’ (Cresswell 1996).

Place and identity of place are closely relatedto the concept of power in places as loci ofconflicts due to power structures, whichreceived much attention in the literature(Massey 2005). Massey (1995, 2004, 2005) haschallenged the attribution of deep meanings toplaces, saying that the construction of place isrelational, and the identity of a place is con-structed through engagements and practices ofinteractions and interrelations, not only withinthe locality, but rather with the global – the‘geographical beyond’. She argues that a placeis a site of negotiations, often conflictual, andthat attribution of meanings to places is both adynamic and political process. Chawla (1992)noted too, that place attachment is a dynamicand dialectic process. He adds that this processincludes both a positive and a ‘shadowy’ side, asattachments can also entrap or create territo-rial conflicts.

Conflict and competition over the rights toterritory can result in warfare, bringing aboutchanges in the territorial configurations andboundaries (Newman 1999). Indeed, geogra-phers’ discussions of conflict and territorialchange in the 1990s (Newman & Paasi 1998;Paasi 1996), focused on the role of territory asan important component in the formation ofsocial, spatial and national identities. This istrue not only on a national scale, but in localsettings as well. Seeing the city as a place inwhich social differences exist in close proxim-ity, scholars point to the complex entangle-ment between identity, power and place inurban arenas, and ways in which struggles overidentity, resources, citizenry and space areframed in and through differences that are vari-ously constituted and contextually determined(Jacobs & Fincher 1998).

If people’s identity and values are indeedinformed by places they deem significant, thenit follows that people’s bonds with those placesimpact their engagement to such places,whether it be to maintain or improve them,



respond to changes within them, or simply tostay put (Pretty et al. 2003). While place attach-ments can form the basis for co-operation andcommunity action, they may also lie at the rootof community conflict (Forester 1987).

In urban settings, public places are oftenarenas of spatial disputes. As noted by Billiget al. (1988) and Di Masso et al. (2011), themeanings attributed to public spaces involveideological dilemmas, which are centred on thereconciliation of competing values of freedomand control, social diversity and social exclu-sion. This dilemma must be worked through,for example, when attempting to distinguishacceptable from unacceptable uses of publicspace or while seeking to justify removingcertain types of people from public space.

RELIGIOUS PLACES AND CONFLICTS

Religious places have received considerableattention in literature on identity formation(Kong 1993, 2005; Friedland & Hecht 2000).Knott (2005, 2008) gives a thorough literaturesurvey of spatial theory and religion. FollowingLefebvre (1974/1991), and taking a multi-dimensional view of space where physical,mental and social space are brought together,she contends that space is produced and repro-duced through social struggle. Scholars havealso demonstrated how sacred venues serveas a nexus for identity formation, collectivememory, self-empowerment, and resistance. AsKong (2010, p. 757) notes, ‘despite the officialrhetoric of multiculturalism in many cities,sacred spaces are often at the heart of intensecontestation, with wider community resistancesto the establishment of “unfamiliar” religioussites or sacred sites of minority groups’. Indeed,geographers dealing with religious conflicthave pointed to the process of contestationinvolved in the production of sacred sites(Kong 1993, 2001; Gale and & Naylor 2002;Gale 2004; Luz 2008).

Conflicts that arise from religion are highlyemotive, as different groups struggle to definethe meaning of place and to negotiate chal-lenges to their own personal and spiritual iden-tities (Naylor & Ryan 2002). Kong (2001) sumsit up concisely by declaring that just as thesacred is a ‘contested category’ sacred space is‘contested space’.

The emotional attachment to territory ofcompeting groups transforming the land itselfinto a sacred place yields a desire by involvedparties to control, possess, and defend theirnatural and cultural surroundings. Thus, suchcontestations are often embedded in politics.Religion and politics are inextricably boundtogether (e.g. Park 1994; Collins-Kreiner 2008,2010). Locations where past events occurredmay be revered and sacralised even if no physi-cal relic remains (Tunbridge & Ashworth,1996). Luz (2008) for example, presented acase study of a conflict over the Hassan Bekmosque in Jaffa, Israel. This conflict was used bya minority group (Muslim Palestinians) to for-mulate resistance and politics of identity, trans-forming the place into a nexus of resistanceand collective memory formation.

The following section presents a framingmethodology, as a tool for analysis providinginsights regarding the formation of identitysurrounding religious sites and how theseidentities/sites are contested.

METHODOLOGY: FRAMING OFRELIGIOUS DISPUTES

To generate a comprehensive typology of theframes that influence perceptions of conflictsregarding the establishment of religious sites,we employed grounded theory (Glaser &Strauss 1967; Strauss & Corbin 1990), combin-ing attitudes documented in bodies of litera-ture with an empirical dataset gathered fromcase studies. In our analysis, we use the ‘cogni-tive approach’ to framing, considering ‘frames’as schemata stored in peoples’ minds, underly-ing their discourse surrounding the conflict.

The categorisation of frames began with atypology which was originally developed in2003 for environmental conflicts (Shmueli &Ben Gal 2003; Lewicki et al. 2003). Using this asa base, we identified frames from a closereading of the literature on religious sites andidentity of place, with additional frames derivedfrom empirical data. The adaptation to reli-gious sites began by establishing an initial setof frames gleaned from literature sourcesincluding: Sibley (1995); Shilhav (2001); Cesari(2005); Luz (2005, 2008); Watson (2005);Emmett (2009) and Hassner (2009).



The empirical data involved three in-depthcase studies on the establishment of signifi-cant religious sites in Israel. The datasetincluded 75 interviews with stakeholders whoeither had been or were still involved in eventssurrounding site construction. A case studymethodology was selected in which stakehold-ers from diverse organisations/sectors, of dif-ferent backgrounds and levels of knowledgewere interviewed. They varied in terms of theirinformation sources, motivations, interestsand familiarity with the project, and werewilling to participate in the research project.Interviews were carried out in Arabic, English,or Hebrew. A list of primary stakeholderswas suggested by an interested party in eachcase study and a perusal of media reportsand meeting protocols. A ‘snowball’ techniqueensued: at the close of each interview,interviewees were asked to identify otherstakeholders, and each name mentioned twicewas added to the list of interviewees. Nationaland local media articles, publications, proto-cols and archival material were also part of thedataset for each case. The dataset included2,788 coded text pieces and statements. Stake-holder statements, texts from the media andmeeting minutes were transcribed and codedusing qualitative data processing software(Atlas.ti, Scientific Software Development,Berlin), and recurring themes which seemedto influence stakeholder perception of con-flict were identified as frames. Thirty-sixframes (Table 1) were elicited that appearedrepeatedly in the discourse and seemed toinfluence perceptions of the disputes. State-ments from the interviews and other data werecoded and categorised according to theseframes. For example, in the case of theMormon Center in Jerusalem, a statementsuch as: ‘There was immense pressure on theMayor. He didn’t know what to do. They [theMormons] mobilised the entire world’ reflectsthe perception that site developers were influ-ential and powerful, and was coded under the‘Use of Power and Control’ frame. A state-ment such as: ‘It would have been muchsimpler if they would have built the Centersomewhere less noticeable’ reflects the per-ception that site location was important, andwas coded under both the ‘Location’ and ‘Vis-ibility’ frames.

In order to validate the findings, coding wasreviewed by the entire research team individu-ally (six all together). In order to create acomprehensive framework useful for portray-ing the various competing ‘stories’, the disag-gregated frames were categorised and grouped,first into six ‘frame-families’: (i) physical char-acteristics of the site; (ii) the site as a cause ofphysical planning problems, hazards, andnuisances;(iii) administrative characteristics ofthe decision-making process; (iv) characteris-tics of the parties involved; (v) the natureof the relationship between stakeholders; and(vi) the sites’ perceived value-based signifi-cance (community/social/cultural, political/ideological, religious; and economic).

Based on the data and drawing ideas fromthe various bodies of literature mentionedabove, these six families were further aggre-gated into three ‘super-frames’: issues, process,and values (Table 1). Underlying this aggrega-tion was the premise that religious sites areperceived as conflictual when their construc-tion is viewed as a threat, and a sense of threatarises when a site is deemed to deviate in one ormore of the following categories: (i) physicaland spatial issues – a site that does not blend inwith the landscape, causes a planning or aes-thetic disturbance, or is perceived as a nuisanceor hazard; (ii) flawed procedure or process – asite that was not built in accordance with pro-cedures considered legal, proper, fair, etc., orperceived to be built at an improper timeand/or as a result of inappropriate influences;and (iii) value-influenced functional disso-nance – a site that is ill-suited to the surround-ing community, its institutions, and is perceivedas a threat to its prevalent values, religion,culture, and dominant social structures ofcontrol, property ownership, or sovereignty; inother words, a site perceived of as a meaningfulchange to the status-quo. Table 1 presents therelationship between super frames, frames-families, and possible perceptions of deviationcaused or threat posed by the sites.

THE MORMON CENTER IN JERUSALEM

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,also known as LDS or the Mormon Church, is aunique religion founded in the United Statesin 1830 under the leadership of its prophet



Table 1. Relationship among frames and perceptions of deviation and threat.

Superframes

Frame-families Frames Framing: perceivedas wrong/right

due to . . .

A threat to . . .potential for

perceiving thesite’s construction

as a threat thatresults in a conflict

Issues Physicalcharacteristicsof site;Physicalplanningissues

Size, heightVisibilityDesign, shape, aestheticsAccess, exclusion, Clear defined

boundaries, Planning problems,nuisances, and hazards, Locationas issue

Physical andspatial issues:Incompatibility/compatibilitywith physicalenvironment

Physical quality oflife andwell-beingand/or controlover theseaspects by(relevant)communityProcess Administrative

characteristicsof theprocess

Land use and ownership(whetherpublic or private)

Timing/pace of development,Decision-making processes

Administrativeorder: properprocedure,due process

Characterisationof partiesinvolved &

Nature ofrelationshipsamong them

Stereotypes of partiesWho were the parties to the

conflict?Use of power, hostility, violenceAttitude of trust/distrustInequality

Values Site hascommunity/social/culturalsignificance

Identity and strength of identity of‘absorbing’ community

Sphere of influence (of religioussite)

Scale of conflictCenter of toleranceForeign identity perceived

positivelyContribution to broader

(‘absorbing’) communityStruggle among groups over

identity of siteDifferent identity – foreign

‘invading’ entityChange for the worse (damage,

harm) in ‘absorbing’ community

FunctionalSocial Order:Incompatibility/compatibilitywithfunctionalsocial order

Threat toworldview;Threat toidentity; Threatto hegemony,sovereignty,and/orterritorialcontrol

Site haspolitical,ideological,value-relatedsignificance

Struggle among groups overidentity of site

Source of power/controlPolitical conflict in guise of

religious conflictSite has

religioussignificance

‘Truly’ or NOT a religious siteCenter of missionary activity (or

not)Gives religion a presence

Site haseconomicvalue

Serves to attract religious pilgrimsServes to attract tourists Increases

real estate valuesNo economic contribution



Joseph Smith Jr. Mormons are Christians, whoalso believe in new scriptures such as the Bookof Mormon. The main body of the LDS Churchhas, since 1847, been headquartered in SaltLake City, Utah. The LDS Church is extremelyactive in global missionary work, and althoughsmall compared to older Christian denomina-tions, it is one of the fastest growing religions inthe world today.

Many unique doctrines distinguish Latter-day Saints from Christian denominations. Likemany Christian denominations, the LDSChurch considers the ‘Holy Land’ to be asacred space. (Jackson & Henrie 1983). Theinterest of the LDS Church in the Holy Land,however, is more than just revering the lands ofthe Bible. Mormons believe that the return ofthe Diaspora Jews to Israel is a sign of the returnof Jesus and that Jews will convert to theMormon faith as the millennium appears. Inaddition, as cited in The Book of Mormon andother Latter-day Saint scriptures, baptism intothe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintsmeans that converts are ‘literally adopted intoIsrael and are thereupon brought into the cov-enant by virtue of their membership in thetribes of Israel’ (Shipps 1985, p. 75). In this way,the LDS Church expands the New Testamentmodel of the expansion of the Abrahamic cov-enant to include both gentiles and Jews. Thus,Jews, as the house of ‘Judah,’ and Mormons, asadopted members of the House of Israel,equally must play a role in bringing about thesecond coming of Jesus (Olsen & Guelke 2004).

Because Mormons believe in the Old Testa-ment, Jerusalem is an important symbol for theLDS Church. The Mormon presence in Jerusa-lem is not an ancient one when comparedto other Christian denominations. The firstMormon to enter Jerusalem was Orson Hyde inOctober of 1841. As an apostle, or leading elderof the church, his purpose in travelling to Jeru-salem was to dedicate the land of Palestine forthe gathering of Israel, the establishment of aJewish state, and the construction of a temple(Olsen & Guelke 2004).

Since 1968, Brigham Young University(BYU), a Mormon university located in theUnited States, has operated a student overseasstudy programme in Jerusalem. In 1979, theLDS Church entered into negotiations onbuilding a Center upon a site on Mt. Scopus in

Jerusalem. The negotiations lasted from 1980to 1984 and construction of the Center beganin August of that year. The Center is located inEast Jerusalem, on expropriated land, thatoriginally belonged to a Palestinian family fromJordan. Members of the City’s ultra-orthodoxJewish community held demonstrations toprotest its construction, and the media alsoprovided a mouthpiece for opposition. Lettersarticulating anti-Mormon rhetoric were sent tothe editors of Jewish newspapers, as the ultra-orthodox protested against non-Jewish mission-ary activity and attempted to instil fear of theMormons among the Jewish community. Theseconcerns were based on the Mormons’ historyof missionary activity and proselytising.

Opposition to the Center took many forms,such as statements and letters in the media,public demonstrations, marches, and threatsagainst Jewish and Mormon officials anddecision-makers. Eventually the dispute wassettled through negotiations among Orthodoxand Secular decision-makers on the local andnational levels and the LDS Church. As a result,the Church committed to refraining fromusing the Center as a base for proselytisationand reframed the site’s functions by expandingits operations to include a cultural – touristiccentre for secular activities in Jerusalem such asconcerts, tours and visits. The new Centeropened its doors to students in 1987 and thebuilding was officially dedicated in 1989. Sincethen, BYU’s Jerusalem site has served both as acentre of study and a cultural centre, as well asa domestic and international tourist attraction.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: APPLICATIONOF THE FRAMING TYPOLOGY TO THEMORMON CASE

The dataset for this case included 22 interviews,54 newspaper articles from daily mainstreamnewspapers (associated with both the politicalleft-wing and right-wing), and minutes of com-mittee meetings, including relevant letters anddocuments presented to planning committees.The interviews were conducted between 2010and 2012. At that time the conflict had beenresolved for over 20 years, a fact that enabledthe interviewees who had been actively involvedto speak freely. That said, time also altersthe memory and intensity of the dispute. All



newspaper articles found on the dispute inarchives were analysed as were hundreds pagesof protocols and letters retrieved from thearchives of the committees that discussed theissue over the years.

Coding and analysis of the texts from thedatabase in accordance with the methodologydescribed above produced three perspectivesof the Mormon site, each consistent with one ofthe three super-frames: issues (physical andspatial characteristics of the site), process andvalues (site function and meaning). The totalnumber of citations (quotes from interviewees,texts from media articles, protocols andminutes) coded in this case was 1,024. For eachsuper-frame and frame-family, a differentnumber of citations were coded, thus revealingsalience of some frames over others. This analy-sis was helpful in understanding the differentperspectives on the construction of the site andtheir relative importance in the discourse aboutthe site.

For analysis and anonymity, intervieweeswere divided into stakeholder categories,reflecting different interests as they emergedfrom the data. Interviewees exhibiting similarinterests were grouped together. In theMormon case, the groups were: (i) decision-makers at the regional and national levels (gov-ernment ministry officials and professionals);(ii) decision-makers at the local level (officialsand professionals of the Jerusalem Municipal-ity); (iii) the Mormons (developers of the site);

(iv) ultra-orthodox Jews (opponents of thesite); and (v) secular (Jewish) decision-makers(local, regional and national). The Palestinianneighbours were interviewed but did not con-sider themselves stakeholders as they viewedthe site as a vacant lot pre-Mormon Center andhad no objections or relation to the sitingdispute at the time.

Looking at the content of citations in eachsuper-frame enables portrayal of the discoursesurrounding the site from all perspectives. Inaddition to anonymity, the grouping of stake-holders highlights the differences in discourseamong the groups.

Issues super frame – Encompassing percep-tions of the physical characteristics of the sites,was the least salient of all three super frames.Thus, in spite of the conspicuous attributes ofthe Mormon site (see Figure 1), its physicalimage as reflected in the discourse surroundingits construction was found to contribute onlyminimally to the dispute, or perception ofthreat. Both ‘physical planning issues’ (8%of all citations) and ‘physical characteristics’(5%) were found to play less of a role in thedevelopment of the conflict. ‘Location as anissue’ was the dominant frame within thissuper-frame, referenced by 8 per cent of allcitations (Figure 2). The site appears to havebeen aesthetically pleasing to all, perceived asblending well with its surrounding landscapeand causing no nuisances.

Figure 1. The Mormon Center in Jerusalem.



Nevertheless, the physical aspects of the sitewere conceptualised as an integral, inseparableaspect of the site’s social meanings. In this way,the conspicuousness of the site became mean-ingful only when considered in the context ofits occupants and their social significance:

I don’t think there was any opposition untilthey [the opponents] all of a sudden lookedup and saw the size of it. And then the oppo-sition came, and I guess they really did thinkthat the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-daySaints was a missionary church. That’s partof who we are. They thought that we woulduse this is as a centre for proselytising.(Mormon interviewee)

Location, in contrast, was relatively salient inthe discourse within this super frame andwas perceived of as being appropriate/inappropriate, but only in the context of itssocial surroundings – not the physical land-scape. It was not merely a question of whetherthe location was appropriate, but ‘appropriatefor whom?’ and ‘in whose eyes?’

Site location, in conjunction with visibilityand size, appears to have been the central axisaround which the site’s social spatial image wasconstructed. However, these physical featureswere less important than its social significance:that is, whether or not the site was appropriatefor its social and cultural surroundings, asmanifested in process and values describedbelow.

Process super frame – This was discussed byinterviewees with the greatest frequency. The‘characteristics of the parties and the nature ofthe relationship between them’ was the salientframe-family within this super frame, with 33per cent of citations from all data sourcescasting these issues as being the most influen-tial factors (Figure 3). Administrative charac-teristics were mentioned in 16 per cent of thecitations.

Overall, three main approaches to theprocess were apparent. The first approach wasto view the process as administrative or bureau-cratic. This approach, prominent primarilyamong professionals on the regional andnational levels and the Mormons themselves,focused on administrative procedures as theconventional and proper way to implementsuch projects. The guiding principle of thisapproach was that people should follow pre-scribed procedures and appreciate and acceptthose who strictly adhere to the rules. Accord-ing to one regional/national professional:

All the decisions were very organised andorderly. I am convinced that we exercisedthe utmost caution, and that the claim of theorthodox that there was no transparency wasunfounded. There could have been no suchthing as no transparency. These things arepublicised. All the discussions of the com-mittee are published. The local committeeplenary is open to the public and the process

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE

Size, height

Visibility

Design, shape, aesthe�cs

PHYSICAL PLANNING ISSUES

Access, exclusion

Clear/defined boundary

Planning problems, nuisances, hazards

Loca�on as issue

Note : Block letters and full bars represent frame families; empty bars represent disaggregated frames undereach family.

Figure 2. The issues super frame.



in the regional committee is also a publicprocess. The claims of lack of transparencyare typical of the ultra-orthodox sector,which sought to oppose the process after thefact.

The second approach was to view the estab-lishment of the site as a political process involv-ing the use of power. This perspective wasdominant among official local stakeholdersand the media:

There were all sorts of discussions, but,as I said, public institutions in Israel some-times act according to pressures, not accord-ing to logic (Representative, Jerusalemmunicipality).

The third approach was conspiratorial, criti-cal, and perhaps even destructive in character.According to this approach, more dominantamong the media and the ultra-orthodox asquoted by the media, every action and event wasdrivenbyahiddenagenda.Forexample,accord-ing to one newspaper article, the absence ofobjections to the plans before the beginning ofconstruction was the result of deceit:

The building plan was submitted in camou-flage. The religious representatives did notrealize what was being done and did notimmediately lodge a forceful objectionwhen the local building committee dis-cussed the plans (Lior 1985, pp. 24–25).

The findings also revealed characterisationin the form of stereotyping of stakeholder

groups: the ultra-orthodox Jews, the Mormons,and the secular Jews. The ultra-orthodox weregenerally perceived as the ‘bullies in the story’,the Mormons as honourable, cultured andpolite, and the secular Jews as ‘semi-indifferent’, or lacking values and subject toinfluence. Nevertheless, it is interesting to notethat the two opposing parties in the conflict –the Mormons and the ultra-orthodox – wereperceived as possessing many similar character-istics. Both were seen as united, disciplined,stringent, fanatical, influential, and politicallyand economically powerful. Another sharedperceived trait was strong (extreme) religiousfaith. This may reflect a tendency to view anygroup attempting to acquire a place by which toimpose their religious and cultural identity, insuch stereotypical terms, whether they areMormons trying to gain a foothold in JewishJerusalem, or ultra-orthodox Jews trying toexpand their place within secular Jewishsociety.

Values super frame – Dealing with the mean-ings and significance of the site to stakeholders,was second in importance after process(Figure 4). The perceived values of the sitewere found to be more important than itsphysical attributes. The most frequently recur-ring frame family in this category was the‘community/social/cultural meanings’ (23%).For example, those who supported the site’sconstruction regarded its contribution as beingrelated partly to tolerance among religions and

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

ADMINISTRATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF PROCESSLand use and ownership

Timing/pace of developmentDecision-making processes

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED & NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPSStereotyps of the par�es

Who were the par�es to the conflict?Use of power, hos�lity, violence

A�tude of trust/distrustInequality


Figure 3. The process super frame.



partly to values unrelated to religion, such asaesthetics, culture, economics, tourism, andnational politics (boosting the internationalstatus of Israel and its capital city of Jerusalem).The opponents were concerned with the influ-ence of building a missionary centre inJerusalem.

As reflected in the discourse surrounding siteestablishment, findings regarding the ‘religioussignificance’ frame-family indicated that theMormon site was not portrayed as a religiousplace in the sense of a ‘holy site’. Indeed, prob-lems relating to the conversion of public landto private hands, and concern regarding pos-sible religious implications of the site, may helpexplain why the Mormons and the Israeliauthorities who authorised construction notonly framed it as an academic university fromthe outset, but subsequently reframed it as acultural institution and as a tourism site to servethe greater Jerusalem community, domestictourists and as an international tourism attrac-

tion. This reframing, it appears, is what ulti-mately placated the opposition and helpedresolve the conflict.

In the discourse surrounding the construc-tion of the Mormon site, worldviews commonin both Israeli and Western society in generalwere identified: an (ultra-orthodox in this case)religious worldview, and a secular, pluralisticliberal worldview. A third worldview regardeddemocracy and proper administration as essen-tial values. A small group of stakeholders heldmixed worldviews. Nonetheless, the perceptionof the dichotomy between the first two – reli-gious and secular – was consistent with themore extreme approaches to site establish-ment, which ultimately determined the con-flict’s eruption, as well as its resolution.

These worldviews were prevalent among allstakeholder categories, affecting both the per-ception of the process of site construction, andimplications of its being built (or not). Forexample, perception of location differed

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

COMMUNITY/SOCIAL/CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCEIden�ty and strength of iden�ty of “absorbing” community

Sphere of influence (of religious site)Scale of conflict

Centre of toleranceForeign-posi�ve iden�ty

Contribu�on to absorbing communityDifferent iden�ty – foreign en�ty

Change for the worse of exis�ng communityPOLITICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, VALUE-RELATED SIGNIFICANCE

Struggle among groups over the iden�ty of the siteSource of power/control

Source of strong emo�onal conflictPoli�cal conflict in the guise of religious conflict

RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCENOT a religious site

Missionary centerGives religion a presence

ECONOMIC/TURIST/ESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE Serves to a�ract religious pilgrims

Serves to a�ract touristsIncreases real estate values

No economic contribu�on


Figure 4. The values super frame.



among stakeholders in accordance with the cul-tural and religious character of the City. Forultra-orthodox Jews, the location of a sitebelonging to a Christian group known for itsmissionary tendencies ‘in the Holy City of theJews, who suffered religious persecution andthe threat of assimilation – especially oppositethe Temple Mount’, was wholly inappropriate.

However, for secular Jews who advocated plu-ralism and freedom of religion, the location ofthe Mormon site reinforced the pluralist imageof ‘their’ Jerusalem, as a city open to all reli-gions and as a symbol of tolerance, and, as such,a contribution not only to Israeli sovereigntyover Jerusalem but to the religious freedom ofJews in the Diaspora. From their point of view,Israel had made a commitment to the world touphold religious freedom in Jerusalem, and if itdid not do so, it would lose its legitimacy togovern the city, and might compromise therights of Diaspora Jews to religious freedom intheir countries.

Jerusalem is sacred to the Mormons and oneof the interviewees related a story attributingthe decision to locate the Mormon Center inJerusalem to the president of the church, con-sidered by the Mormons’ to be a prophet.However, most of the Mormon intervieweesstressed the location as being a contested placebetween Jews and Arabs, rather than as a sacredplace for them. This contributed to theirframing of themselves as a ‘bridge’ and a modi-fying factor in this fragile neighbourhood.

DISCUSSION: UNDERSTANDINGTHE CONFLICT

The discord surrounding the Mormon Centerhad to do primarily with process and values, notphysical issues. Perceptions of deception andconcealment, aggressive use of power, and aloss of control and sovereignty were at the heartof the dispute. The Mormon Center posed athreat not to the physical quality of life or well-being of any individual/group but rather to theworldview of ultra-orthodox Jews in Jerusalem.Exacerbating the conflict was the threat posedby the ultra-orthodox Jews to the identity andsocial control of secular Jews.

The site’s value-based significance was per-ceived very differently by the various stakehold-ers, who had decidedly differing ‘stories’ to tell.

Project supporters (secular decision-makersand Mormons) portrayed the site as a cultural-tourism centre and a contribution to the imageof a secular heterogeneous society in Jerusalemand Israel. For opponents of the project, pri-marily ultra-orthodox Jews and orthodoxJewish decision-makers, the site was framed as‘a great extermination machine on top of theHoly City of Jerusalem’ (Druckman 1986, p. 8)and a grave danger to Judaism in Israel and theworld over. In this context, the site’s locationoverlooking the Temple Mount (see Figure 5and Figure 6) played an important role in exac-erbating the conflict.

The discord that erupted was effectivelymanaged by the Mormons, who, in an effort todiffuse the clash, repeatedly assured that therewould be no missionary activities – a commit-ment that was anchored in a contract with theIsrael Lands Administration, supported bytheir characterisation as ‘honorable people’.This helped to reframe the site’s value-basedsignificance as non-religious and allay the fearsof most opponents. The Mormons also‘framed’ the site as a cultural-touristic centrethat would serve not only the needs of theMormon community but contribute to thebroader Jerusalem community and populationof Israel as a whole, thereby further reframingits value-based meaning.

Understanding the three super-frames yieldsa comprehensive picture reflecting the percep-tions of site-compatibility and site-deviationheld by the different parties involved. Table 2maps the conflict surrounding the establish-ment of the Mormon Center.

Geographical concepts such as ‘sense ofplace’ (Relph 1976, 1985; Tuan 1977), ‘placeidentity’ (Proshansky 1978) and ‘place attach-ment’ (Altman & Low 1992) indeed providebackground concepts to this case study. As wasposited by Tunbridge and Ashworth in 1996,the built environment reflects social order;and, as Knott (2005) pointed, this social orderof space is produced and reproduced throughsocial struggle. The suitability of the newly builtsite to the existing social order and ‘sense ofplace’ proved to be one of the fundamentalelements in the conflict over the Mormon sitein Jerusalem. A key to understanding processesof place-based identity formation and the socialconstruction of space lies in the analysis of



socio-cultural boundaries as suggested byNewman and Paasi (1998), Massey (2004,2005), Wood (2011), and others.

Spatial separation facilitates the mainte-nance of social boundaries, since it reifies per-ceived social differences between same andother. As claimed by Wilton (1998), proximityto someone or something different often pro-duces anxiety and sometimes violent reactions.But spatial separation alone does not explainthe diversity and complex social and psycho-logical landscapes that underlie disputes overreligious sites. It raises questions of power,control and ownership.

The current research demonstrates threeaspects of challenges to social boundaries: chal-lenges to physical boundaries (location, nui-sances, environment, landscape), contests overvalues, and particularly the importance ofcrossing boundaries of appropriate process. Inthe case of the Mormon site, its location (physi-cal boundary) challenged the boundaries ofvalues and meanings from the point of view ofthe ultra-orthodox, not from the perspectiveof secular decision-makers. Religious aspectsmotivated the ultra-orthodox struggle toprotect the meaning of ‘their’ holy Jerusalem aspart of their personal and spiritual identities.Conflict was heightened by perceptions of theprocess as threatening social control of the

various groups involved. Here too, stakeholdersheld different perceptions: where nationaldecision-makers saw the proper bureaucraticprocess as pivotal, the ultra-orthodox saw exces-sive use of political power from the Mormonstakeholders, and secular local decision-makerssaw excessive use of power by the ultra-orthodox. The media added notions of decep-tion and concealment, all of which contestedthe site’s construction.

Spaces may be read not only as sacred orprofane, but also as the reflections and repro-ductions of religious and social desires andanxieties, as was manifested in the Mormoncase. The relationship between identity andsense of place, and the deviance of the siteagainst the background of the former two, shedlight on why and under what circumstances theconstruction or expansion of a religious sitemay generate a conflict. When the image of thereligious site is perceived as compatible withthe identity of the neighbouring community,the site is not perceived as conflictual, but assupplemental. Such was the perception ofsecular decision-makers towards the Mormonsite. However, when the image of the site isperceived as inappropriate to the perceivedidentity of place, its construction or expansionwill arouse conflict, as with orthodox Jewstowards the same site.

Figure 5. Temple Mount as seen from the Mormon Center.



CONCLUSIONS: FRAMING AS A TOOLFOR UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT

An underlying premise of the study is thatthreats to identity trigger conflict. Anotherpremise is that cognitive perceptions, orframes, play a formative role in shaping thebehaviour of individuals and groups. The typol-ogy used in this research (retrospectively in theMormon case) aims at identifying the foci ofconflict over religious sites, and potentiallyassist disputants in finding common ground, inefforts to resolve disputes by generating betterunderstanding of their dynamics. By under-standing the value-based frames involved in adispute, stakeholders may be able to couchtheir interests and arguments in language (orframes) understandable to other stakeholders,

addressing them on their terms in order toimprove communication and increase the like-lihood of a mutually beneficial outcome(Kaufman & Shmueli 2011).

By employing a model of frame analysis weidentified three prevailing super frames: issues,process, and values. This typology suggests amodel for analysing and understanding the dif-ferent stories told by stakeholders involvedin religious-spatial decision-making processes,where the decision adopted might be perceivedas endangering the identity and sense of placeof some. Each super frame encompasses com-ponents which can serve as either sources ofconflict or bases for acceptance, understand-ing, and conciliation. Consideration of thecontent of the issues, process, and values superframes illuminates differences in perceptions

Figure 6. Map of Jerusalem with location of the Mormon Center relative to other Jerusalem landmarks.



towards construction of religious sites and, insome cases may be used to mitigate the foci ofconflict.

The study contributes to the current litera-ture by investigating the relationship betweenconflicts, perceptions, religion, and space/place. The construction of religious sites hasphysical, social, value-laden, and politicalmeaning, all of which are interconnected. Theproposed frame typology enables separation ofthe various meanings and understanding ofrelationships in an effective and well-organisedmanner. The result is a mapping of the percep-tions and insights and their relative importanceto the various stakeholders with regard tofactors perceived as threats and invoking (ornot) conflict.

While the planning literature is rich in strat-egies for conflict management and consensusbuilding, it usually does not explicitly analyse

the underlying place attachments of differentfactions in community conflict and examinehow this understanding might help fosterconflict-mitigation actions. This work demon-strates frame analysis as a tool to describe,analyse, and explain social religious processeswith both conceptual and practical signifi-cance. Conceptually, it is the first application offrame analysis to the understanding of religiousconflict and their interaction with social andspatial meanings.

On a practical level, the framing typologydeveloped may help make processes of frameelicitation more practical when consideringfuture contexts of conflict. Frame elicitation islabour-intensive, a down-side if the process is tobe useful not only to researchers but to stake-holders and interveners. Having a framingtypology appropriate for this specific type ofdispute makes it a bit more accessible, and

Table 2. Mapping the conflict in the Mormon Case-study (The shaded areas represent perceptions of deviation, threat, andconflict. White areas represent perceptions of compatibility).

Image Perceptions of deviation Threats and fears(resulting in conflict)

Issues Physical imageinseparable from socialand religious meanings

No perceived deviationfrom physicalenvironment

No threat/nuisance tolocal community

Process Three Perspectives:Bureaucratic No apparent deviationConspiratorial Deception and concealment Orthodox Jews’ fear of a

strong missionary group.Secular Jews’ fear of a strong

orthodox Jewish group.

Political Use of power/aggressive-nessParties and Relationships Power and control structures

Values andmeanings

Religious significance of site Loss of Jewish control andsovereignty withinJerusalem.

Damage to Jewishcommunity in Jerusalem,in Israel, and worldwide.

Secular cultural, touristic,aesthetic significance(university)

No deviation fromheterogeneous society.Reinforces legitimacyof Israeli sovereignty inJerusalem.

Contribution to (secular)pluralistic Jerusalemand Israel, also frominternationalperspective.

Narrative andtiming

Since 1968, the Brigham Young University Jerusalem Center wished to expand. Afterreceiving all necessary authorizations to do so, the project was halted by extremistsseeking to gain political power.

A new missionary center overlooking the Temple Mount was approved through a quick,non-transparent process that concealed the project’s religious and potentially missionarysignificance.

Note : The text in italic represents perceptions of deviation, threat, and conflict. Normal text representsperceptions of compatibility.



instead of going through the process of elicit-ing frames in each case, the model presentedsuggests where to begin.

REFERENCES

Altman, I. & S.M. Low (1992), Place Attachment. NewYork: Plenum Press.

Billig, M., S. Condor, D. Edwards, M. Gane, D.Middleton & A. Radley (1988), Ideological Dilem-mas. A Social Psychology of Everyday Thinking.London: Sage.

Bryan, T. (2003), Context in Environmental Con-flict: Where You Stand Depends on Where You Sit.Environmental Practice 5, pp. 256–264.

Casey, E.S. (2001), Between Geography and Philoso-phy: What Does it Mean to be in the Place-world?Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91,pp. 683–693.

Cesari, J. (2005), Mosque Conflicts in EuropeanCities: Introduction. Journal of Ethics and MigrationStudies 31, pp. 1015–1024.

Chawla, L. (1992), Childhood Place Attachments.In: I. Altman & S. Low, eds., Place Attachment, pp.63–86. New York: Plenum Press.

Collins-Kreiner, N. (2008), Religion and Politics:New Religious Sites and Spatial Transgression inIsrael. The Geographical Review 98, pp. 197–213.

Collins-Kreiner, N. (2010), Geographers and Pil-grimages. Tijdschrift voor Economische en SocialeGeografie 101, pp. 437–448.

Creed, W.E., J.A. Langstraat & M.A. Scully(2002), A Picture of the Frame: Frame Analysis asTechnique and as Politics. Organizational ResearchMethods 5, pp. 34–55.

Cresswell, T. (1996), In Place/Out of Place: Geogra-phy, Ideology, and Transgression. Minneapolis. MN:University of Minnesota Press.

Curseu, P.L. (2011), Framing Effects in Small-groupand Intergroup Negotiation: A Cognitive Perspec-tive. In: W.A. Donohue, R.G. Rogan & S.Kaufman, eds., Framing Matters, Perspectives on Nego-tiation Research and Practice in Communication, pp.71–94. New York: Peter Lang.

Curseu, P.L. & S. Schruijer (2008), The Effects ofFraming on Inter-group Negotiation. Group Deci-sion and Negotiation 17, pp. 347–362.

Datel, R. & D. Dingemans (1984), EnvironmentalPerception, Historic Preservation, and Sense ofPlace. In: T.F. Saarinen, D. Seamon & J.L. Sell,eds., Environmental Perception and Behaviour: An

Inventory and Prospect, pp. 131–144. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago.

Devine-Wright, P. & E. Lyons (1997), Remember-ing Pasts and Representing Places: The Construc-tion of National Identities in Ireland. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 17, pp. 33–45.

Dewulf, A., B. Gray, L. Putnam, R. Lewicki, R.Bouwen & C. van Woerkum (2009), Disentan-gling Approaches to Framing in Conflict andNegotiation Research: A Meta-paradigmatic Per-spective. Human Relations 62, pp. 155–193.

Di Masso, A., J. Dixon & E. Pol (2011), On theContested Nature of Place: ‘Figuera’s Well’, ‘TheHole of Shame’ and the Ideological Struggle overPublic Space in Barcelona. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology 31, pp. 231–244.

Drake, L.E. & W.A. Donohue (1996), Communica-tive Framing Theory in Conflict Resolution. Com-munication Research 23, pp. 297–322.

Druckman, H. (1986), The Mormon Problem –National Problem, Hatsofe, 3 January (in Hebrew).

Duncan, J.S. & D. Lambert (2004), Landscapes ofHome. In: J. Duncan, N.C. Johnson & R.H.Schein, eds., A Companion to Cultural Geography,pp. 382–403. Oxford: Blackwell.

Emmett, C.F. (2009), The Siting of Churches andMosques as an Indicator of Christian–Muslim Rela-tions. Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 20, pp.451–476.

Fairhurst, G.T. & R.A. Saar (1996), The Art ofFraming: Managing the Language of Leadership. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fiske, S.T. & S.E. Taylor (1991), Social Cognition.2nd edition. New York: McGraw–Hill.

Forester, J. (1987), Planning in the Face of Conflict.Journal of the American Planning Association 53, pp.303–314.

Fredrickson, L.M. & D.H. Anderson (1999),A Qualitative Exploration of the WildernessExperience as a Source of Spiritual Inspiration.Journal of Environmental Psychology 19, pp. 21–39.

Friedland, R. & R. Hecht (2000), To Role Jerusalem.Santa Barbara, CA: University of California Press.

Gale, R. (2004), The Multicultural City and the Poli-tics of Religious Architecture: Urban Planning,Mosques and Meaning-making in Birmingham,UK. Built Environment 30, pp. 30–44.

Gale, R. & S. Naylor (2002), Religion, Planningand the City: The Spatial Politics of Ethnic Minor-ity Expression in British Cities and Towns.Ethnicities 2, pp. 387–409.



Glaser, B.G. & A. Strauss (1967), The Discovery ofGrounded Theory: Strategies of Qualitative Research.New York: Aldine.

Goffman, E. (1974), Frame Analysis: An Essay on theOrganization of Experience. New York: Harper &Row.

Goldratt, E.M. (1990), What is This Thing CalledTheory ofConstraints andHowShould It be Implemented?Croton-on-Hudson, NY: North River Press.

Hassner, R.E. (2009), War on Sacred Grounds. Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press.

Ito, T.A. & J.T. Cacioppo (2005), Variations on aHuman Universal: Individual Differences in Posi-tivity Offset and Negativity bias. Cognition andEmotion 19, pp. 1–26.

Jacobs, J.M. & R. Fincher (1998) Introduction. In:J.M. Jacobs & R. Fincher, eds., Cities of Difference,pp. 1–25. New York: Guilford Press.

Jackson, R.H. & R. Henrie (1983), Perception ofSacred Space. Journal of Cultural Geography 3, pp.94–107.

Jarymowicz, M. & D. Bar-Tal (2006), The Domi-nance of Fear over Hope in the Life of Individualsand Collectives. European Journal of Social Psychology36, pp. 367–392.

Kahneman, D. & A. Tversky (1979), ProspectTheory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.Econometrica 47, pp. 263–289.

Kaufman, S. & B. Gray (2003), Using Retrospectiveand Prospective Frame Elicitation to Evaluate Envi-ronmental Disputes. In: L. Bingham & R.O’Leary, eds., The Promise and Performance of Envi-ronmental Conflict Resolution, pp. 1–15. Washington,DC: Resources For the Future.

Kaufman, S. & J. Smith (1999), Framing andReframing in Land Use Change Conflicts. Journalof Architecture, Planning and Research 16, pp. 164–180.

Kaufman, S. & D. Shmueli (2011), Framing inPublic Decision Interactions: Transferring Theoryto Practice. In: W. Donohue, R. Rogan & S.Kaufman, eds., Framing Matters: Perspectives on Nego-tiation Research and Practice in Communication, pp.167–190. Cresskill, NY: Peter Lang.

Knott, K. (2005), Spatial Theory and Method forthe Study of Religion. Temenos 41, pp. 153–184.

Knott, K. (2008), Spatial Theory and the Study ofReligion. Religion Compass 2, pp. 1102–1116.

Kong, L. (1993), Ideological Hegemony and thePolitical Symbolism of Religious Buildings in Sin-gapore. Environment and Planning D: Society andSpace 11, pp. 23–45.

Kong, L. (2001), Mapping ‘New’ Geographies ofReligion, Politics and Poetics in Modernity. Progressin Human Geography 25, pp. 211–233.

Kong, L. (2005), Religious Processions: Urban Poli-tics and Poetics. Temenos 41, pp. 225–249.

Kong, L. (2010), Global Shifts, Theoretical shifts:Changing Geographies of Religion. Progress inHuman Geography 34, pp. 755–776.

Koons Trentelman, C. (2009), Place Attachmentand Community Attachment: A Primer Groundedin the Lived Experience of a Community Sociolo-gist. Society & Natural Resources 22, pp. 191–210.

Lefebvre, H, (1974/1991), The Production of Space.Oxford: Blackwell.

Lewicki, R., B. Gray & M. Elliott, eds. (2003),Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts:Concepts and Cases. Washington DC: Island Press.

Lior, G. (1985), 170 Students per Year: Israelisnot Accepted, Yediot Aharonot, 25 December (inHebrew).

Loukaki, A. (1997), Whose Genius Loci? Contrast-ing Interpretations of the ‘Sacred Rock of theAthenian Acropolis’. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 87, pp. 306–329.

Low, S.M. & I. Altman (1992), Place Attachment: AConceptual Inquiry. In: I. Altman & S. Low, eds.,Place Attachment, Human Behaviour and Environ-ment, Advances in Theory and Research, pp. 1–12. NewYork: Plenum Press.

Luz, N. (2005), The Arab Community of Jaffa and theHassan Bek Mosque: Collective Identity and Empower-ment of the Arabs in Israel Via Holy Places. Jerusalem:Floersheimer Institute for Policy Study, AchvaPress. (in Hebrew).

Luz, N. (2008), The Politics of Sacred Places: Pales-tinian Identity, Collective Memory, and Resistancein the Hassan Bek Mosque Conflict. Environmentand Planning D: Society and Space 26, pp. 1036–1052.

Lynch, K. (1960), The Image of the City. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Manzo, L.C. (2003), Beyond House and Haven:Toward a Revisioning of Emotional Relationshipswith Places. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23,pp. 47–61.

Manzo, L.C. (2005), For Better or Worse: ExploringMultiple Dimensions of Place Meaning. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 25, pp. 67–86.

Massey, D. (1995), The Conceptualization of Place.In: D. Massey & P. Jess, eds., A Place in the World?Places, Cultures and Globalization, pp. 45–77.Oxford: Open University/Oxford University Press.



Massey, D. (2004), Geographies of Responsibility.Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 86,pp. 5–18.

Massey, D. (2005), For Space. London: Sage.Minsky, M. (1975), A Framework for Representing

Knowledge. In: P.H. Winston, ed., The Psychology ofComputer Vision, pp. 177–211. New York: McGrawHill.

Naylor, S. & M. Ryan (2002), The Mosque in theSuburbs: Negotiating Religion and Ethnicity inSouth London. Social and Cultural Geography 3, pp.39–59.

Neale, M.A. & M.H. Bazerman (1985), The Effectsof Framing and Negotiator Overconfidence onBargaining Behaviours and Outcomes. Academy ofManagement Journal 28, pp. 34–49.

Newman, D. (1999), Real Spaces, Symbolic Spaces:Interrelated Notions of Territory in the Arab-IsraeliConflict. In: F. Diehl, ed., A Road Map to War: Terri-torial Dimensions of International Conflict, pp. 3–36.Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Newman, D. & A. Paasi (1998), Fences and Neigh-bors in the Postmodern World: Boundary Narra-tives in Political Geography. Progress in HumanGeography 22, pp. 186–207.

Olsen, D. & J. Guelke (2004), Spatial Transgressionand the BYU Jerusalem Center Controversy. Profes-sional Geographer 56, pp. 503–515.

Paasi, A. (1996), Territories, Boundaries and Conscious-ness: The Changing Geographies of the Finnish-RussianBorder. New York: John Wiley.

Park, C.C., ed. (1994), Sacred Worlds: An Introductionto Geography and Religion. London: Routledge.

Perkins, D.D. & D.A. Long (2002), NeighborhoodSense of Community and Social Capital: A multi-level Analysis. In: A. Fisher, C. Sonn & B. Bishop,eds., Psychological Sense of Community: Research,Applications, and Implications, pp. 291–316. NewYork: Plenum.

Pinkley, R.L. (1990), Dimensions of Conflict Frame:Disputant Interpretations of Conflict. Journal ofApplied Psychology 75, pp. 117–126.

Pretty, G.H., H. Chipuer & P. Bramston (2003),Sense of Place Amongst Adolescents and Adults inTwo Rural Australian Towns: The DiscriminatingFeatures of Place Attachment, Sense of Commu-nity, and Place Dependence in Relation to PlaceIdentity. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23, pp.273–287.

Proshansky, H.M. (1978), The City and Self-identity. Environment and Behaviour 10, pp. 147–169.

Relph, E. (1976), Place and Placelessness. London:Pion.

Relph, E. (1985), Geographical Experiencesand Being-in-the-world: The PhenomenologicalOrigins of Geography. In: D. Seamon & R.Mugerauer, eds., Dwelling, Place and Environment,pp. 15–31. New York: Columbia University Press.

Scheufele, D. (1999), Framing as a Theory of MediaEffects. Journal of Communication 49: 104–122.

Shilhav, Y. (2001), Territorial Iconography: Geographi-cal Symbols of Jerusalem – A Jewish-Israeli Perspective.Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies(Hebrew).

Shipps, J. (1985), Mormonism: The Story of a New Reli-gious Tradition. Chicago, IL: University of IllinoisPress.

Shmueli, D. & M. Ben Gal (2003), StakeholderFrames in the Mapping of the Lower Kishon RiverBasin Conflict. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 21, pp.211–238.

Shmueli, D. & M. Ben Gal (2005), Creating Envi-ronmental Stakeholder Profiles: A Tool forDispute Management. Environmental Practice 7, pp.165–175.

Shmueli, D., M. Elliot & B. Kaufman (2006),Frame Changes and the Management of Intrac-table Conflicts. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, vol. 24,pp. 207–218.

Shmueli, D. (2008), Framing in Geographical Analy-sis of Environmental Conflicts: Theory, Methodol-ogy and Three Case Studies. Geoforum 39, pp.2048–2061.

Sibley, D. (1995), Geographies of Exclusion: Society andDifference in the West. London: Routledge.

Snow, D.A., E.B. Rochford Jr., S.K. Worden & R.D.Benford (1986), Frame Alignment Processes,Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.American Sociological Review 51, pp. 464–481.

Stedman, R.C (2003), Is It Really Just a Social Con-struction? The Contribution of the Physical Envi-ronment to Sense of Place. Society & NaturalResources 16, pp. 671–685.

Stokols, D. & S. Shumaker (1981), People inPlaces: A Transactional View of Settings. In: J.H.Harvey, ed., Cognition, Social Behaviour and theEnvironment, pp. 441–488. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Strauss, A. & J. Corbin (1990), Basics of QualitativeResearch: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Taylor, D.E. (2000), The Rise of the EnvironmentalJustice Paradigm: Injustice Framing and the Social



Construction of Environmental Discourses. Ameri-can Behavioral Scientist 43, pp. 508–580.

Tuan, Y.F. (1974), Topophilia: A Study of Environmen-tal Perception Attitudes and Values. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice–Hall.

Tuan, Y.F. (1977, 2001), Space and Place. Minneapo-lis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Tuan, Y.F. (1979), Space and Place: Humanistic Per-spective. In: S. Gale & G. Olson, eds., Philosophy inGeography, pp. 387–427. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Pub-lishing Company.

Tunbridge, J.E. & G.J. Ashworth (1996), DissonantHeritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource inConflict. Chichester: Wiley.

Tversky, A. & D. Kahneman (1981), The Framing ofDecisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science211, pp. 453–458.

Twigger-Ross, C.L. & D.L. Uzzell (1996), Placeand Identity Processes. Journal of Environmental Psy-chology, 16, pp. 205–220.

Umemoto, K. (2001), Walking in Another’s Shoes:Epistemological Challenges in Participatory Plan-ning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21,pp. 17–31.

Vaughan, E. & M. Seifert (1992), Variability in theFraming of Risk Issues. Journal of Social Issues 48,pp. 119–135.

Watson, S. (2005), Symbolic Spaces of Difference:Contesting the Eruv in Barnet, London andTenafly, New Jersey. Environment and Planning D:Society and Space 23, pp. 597– 613.

Wilton, R.D. (1998), The Constitution of Differ-ence: Space and Psyche in Landscapes of Exclu-sion. Geoforum 29, pp. 173–185.

Wood, G. (2011), Cognitive Science and ReligiousBelief. Philosophy Compass 6, pp. 734–745.

Zelinsky, W. (1997), Seeing Beyond the DominantCulture. In: P. Groth & T. Bressi, eds., Under-standing Ordinary Landscapes, pp. 157–161. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.



Understanding Religious Conflicts through Framing: The Mormon Site in Jerusalem as a Case-study,

Documents

Transcript of Understanding Religious Conflicts through Framing: The Mormon Site in Jerusalem as a Case-study,