Ah, here we go again. No, you don't need frameworks for a programming language to gain popularity.
I could use SQL and Emacs Lisp as examples (of languages doing fine with no frameworks). Still, you'd probably say something like: "I meant in the context of general-purpose languages".
Python has not become popular solely because of Django, or Java because of Spring, or Javascript due to Angular, or C# because of ASP.Net. Rails leading to broader adoption of Ruby is rather an aberration than normalcy.
What is a framework but the collection of prescriptive "recipes" that are not always so easily compatible with other frameworks?
There aren't many Clojure frameworks because the Clojure ecosystem itself is a framework with many interchangeable parts. Nothing is stopping you, for example, from incorporating both, Fulcro and Re-frame in the same app. Or using Integrant, Trapperkeeper, and Mount - all in one project. But have you ever tried using both, Angular and React in the same Javascript app? It's a glorious nightmare.
Everyone is biased; people who trained to write in Rails would want to see "a framework"; those who come from Racket perhaps would wish for a better macro system, those who like static-type systems may argue that Clojure needs one, some want better error messages, some proper tail-recursion, etc.
There's no tool, library, framework, or language with no deficiencies, and Clojure is not an exemption. It just goes to personal preference, and there are many, many programmers who absolutely love building things with Clojure. I think the language has passed the threshold of "critical mass", there's way too many people and companies invested heavily in it; it's not going away anytime soon. It may not expand rapidly and gain wide adoption and that's fine. It steadily, slowly keeps growing.