Working on Narrative Change as an Intermediary
During this time of upheaval in the human rights movement, NMAP has pivoted our strategy and is thinking about better defining the role of “intermediaries” in a moment when they are sorely needed
NMAP has been telling human rights stories for 10 years. We were launched with the hypothesis that if the people who suffer human rights abuses have a greater voice in the legal process, they will win more cases. Video — mixed with expertise in the legal process — was a means to get the stories of people typically excluded from decision-making spaces into the process.
Our hypothesis proved true in a number of specific cases. But as we evaluated when our work was or wasn’t successful — a process we undertook in earnest after the 2016 Presidential election in the US — we came to see that our projects that worked on the level of emotional logic rather than legal logic consistently made a greater impact. Before we pick up a camera, we need to explore the belief systems that our audiences use to understand the world if we hope to persuade them of something, increase their knowledge, change their attitudes, or inspire them to action. This is true whether we’re talking to a panel of judges or a rural community considering how to respond to a proposed mining project.
This insight is also confirmed by the research of cognitive linguists like George Lakoff; by the strategies that conservatives have used in the United States and globally to successfully build their movement; and more broadly by the way authoritarian governments and multinational businesses have used narrative change strategies to attack the underlying concepts of human rights and environmental justice.
To effectively use the power of storytelling to advance social change, we need to let go of how we typically talk about human rights — almost exclusively sad, severe and built around legal arguments — and how we think about making change — almost exclusively limited to legal outcomes rather than cultural and narrative shifts. Over the last three years, we have embraced experimentation to go deeper into this new way of working, and we have developed a methodology for not simply telling stories but changing deeply ingrained narratives.
Doing narrative change as an intermediary
In the movement, NMAP is often categorized by grantmakers as an “intermediary.” We’re like the guy in Taken — we have “a very particular set of skills, skills we have acquired over a very long career,” that we provide to activists. Due to a clear need for civil society to update its playbook and expand the movement, there are many intermediary groups specializing in fostering this transformation with their expertise and insights. Groups like Fine Acts and the Center for Artistic Activism are helping activists incorporate artistic practices into their work, JustLabs is helping groups use design thinking, foresight, and innovation, The Engine Room and HURIDOCS are working with NGOs to use data and technology more effectively.
There are a number of intermediaries working on narrative change from various angles — technology, media, storytelling, communications, campaigns, research. But to my knowledge, these groups have never had an intermediary-specific convening to consider the unique role we play in social change movements, the ethical questions unique to our work, to share insights and approaches, and to see where we might collaborate.
NMAP is exploring the potential of bringing intermediary groups together for the first time in person. There are a number of questions we ought to explore as a sector at a convening:
Power dynamics: Intermediaries are often confronted by the inherent power dynamic that exists when a US, UK or European capacity building group provides assistance to individuals or organizations in other parts of the world. This can create a range of problems, from intermediaries not incorporating vital local perspectives into their approaches to repeating the problem of Western experts acting paternalistic. Intermediaries are at the forefront of understanding how to design effective and balanced collaborations between local groups and a range of unusual allies to social change from different sectors. We need to share our approaches and insights with one another, and by extension the larger field.
Data ownership: Speaking of sharing insights, like most intermediaries, we draw insights from our projects that we use in our thought leadership, program iteration and design, and in our fundraising. But when it comes to the data generated — that is, the information that NMAP is able to glean about the best practices for expanding the use of audience research in civil society — what do our local partners think about the insights we’re reaching? We would like to explore how intermediaries think about keeping the recipients of our programs involved in the process of generating insights for the movement. Can a balanced collaboration extend into the thought leadership strategies of intermediaries?
Collective learning: When it comes to narrative change — an emerging focus area that cuts across the social change movement — what approaches are intermediaries taking and what are we all learning? Where are there opportunities for partnerships between intermediaries or areas where our unique approaches are currently missing? Assistance groups have never collaboratively mapped out where we are working and where we might be most needed.
We hope to convene our colleagues in the intermediary space to make progress on these questions and to collectively consider our unique role in the movement. Rather than competing for over the same grant dollars, we think there are opportunities to learn from one another, partner, identify gaps, and overall improve our practice and impact as a sector.
