At The Dinner Table: Conformity and Narrative

Intro:

The act of unconformity is under attack in the United States of America. Everyone has had at least one experience of paused conversations, asked not to discuss a topic, avoided conflict, and has more than likely heard the narrative of a call for unity. At a surface level, none of these feel problematic but have clear undertones of conforming. We have all had to conform in one aspect or another. Some of us do not realize how far we have let others define our identity by letting microaggressions slide, allowing boys to be boys, our fears to be determined, or simply biting our tongue at the dinner table. Our desire for peace has caused most social issues that plague the U.S. today. But it is not all bad, as that compliancy is responsible for creating one of the largest economies in the world, a leader, and a dream for many. We have built this nation with competition in mind, and to win, you must be willing to conform. As a student and professional, it is my experience that there is no way to succeed without conforming, especially in the political arena. It is a pattern for every new generation to commit to playing the long game to ensure success in their professional and social circles. We listen, respect our elders, and kiss the ring; we are holding our breath, hoping to change the future once those who have power today are gone. As of now, the truth of the matter is unconformity does not equal professionalism.

There is no inherent problem with conforming until you have the power to change things; the issue lies when you have changed so much of yourself that you have become what you once wished to change. I like to call this the Dinner Table Effect. The Dinner Table Effect occurs when you enter an arena where you feel like you are the outlier, and to avoid conflict and fit in and win, you change to become an agreeable human. It is a human survival tactic as old as time, and everyone is doing it for no reason other than fearing failure. Everything is a balancing act in the political arena, and there is no fault in blending in, being respectful, and seeking unity. We must be wary that you may reach a point where you have integrated into so much that your voice is lost in the millions of others just like it. Feeding into this narrative that unconformity is unprofessional is what enforces the systems of power. The solution is not to burn it all to the ground because that does not work either; we must become aware of what is occurring and critically analyze the treatment we are receiving and enforcing. We must understand and critique power structures and the narratives fed to us. Unconformity is not unprofessional, complicated, undesirable, or young; it is ideal.

Acknowledging what we say, how we change, and the compromises we make is one of many tools we can use to bring about change and become less conforming to the status quo. What is equally as important, if not more, is understanding and criticizing political narratives. All Political parties are all guilty of creating and distributing narratives. It makes all that is technical more digestible and is essentially what is responsible for the passing of policies we deem as “morally” right.

A narrative uses storytelling to back public policy; there are four fundamentals to the narrative framework: setting, characters, plot, and morality. All play a role in ensuring what is being told resonates with its audience. I will define each in the next paragraph as it is essential to understand the fundamentals so they can be easily spotted and their purpose understood. What tends to occur when a narrative is used in policymaking is that the story and human emotion override what is factual and best for the people. At its core, it is a form of manipulation; is that inherently bad? No, because without a narrative, no policy would successfully pass. But being aware of the version of the story you are receiving and understanding its significance will make you a better policymaker and one with a defined identity and the tools necessary to critique, understand and create compelling narratives.

The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF)

Setting: the setting is where the issue takes place. It is the big picture. The setting can range from the economy, geography, or societal norms or expectations. It is the context in which the policy is being presented. The setting is of the utmost importance but often overlooked by the audience as it typically does not catch their attention and makes them care about the policy. Once one pays attention to the setting, one may realize that timing is everything and that every aspect of the policy process is a tactical action.

Characters: every story needs characters, someone the audience can care about and someone the audience can hate; a villain and a hero (both do not need to exist simultaneously). When looking for characters in a narrative, you must understand what the policymaker is asking you to care about. It is important to note that not all characters need to be humans. For example, although people’s personal stories are mentioned in policy regarding taxes or even gas, they are not the primary characters. Money is the main character, and everyone cares about money or the lack thereof. Although it is not a person, it draws out strong emotions and has the power to make revolutionary changes.

Plot: without a plot, the story does not exist. There are your core plots that, once you are aware of them, are readily detectable in films and political narratives. The hero faces a tragedy, the hero is on a path to save the world from a villain, or the villain is not hurting anyone, but one day they will change everything. You have probably come up with at least ten films that followed these plots, but at its core, it is the hero vs. the villain. In political narratives, policymakers, the media, and interest groups typically emphasize the villain’s actions more than building up a hero. It is much easier to get your audience to hate a common enemy than to have your audience agree that a person or entity is a hero. If you pay close enough attention, you may pick up on two contradicting narratives from opposing sides. However, not all plots have an easily distinguishable villain or a hero; they may have people in need (rarely successful).

Morality: After listening to the rhetoric, reading the articles, or even your representative’s social media post. What is your take-home understanding of the policy? How did they make you feel? What do you believe? The purpose of all policy is to control the people in the United States; it provides us with safety measures, dictates what is acceptable, and ensures a system is in place. Heck, that is the purpose of politics itself. There is not enough faith in human nature to trust we can figure things out without a guiding hand. We must create a moral code, or chaos will ensue; that is at least what we have been taught to believe. There is no policy without morality, and all narratives question your ethics, prompting you to accept their truth. Our duty as voters is to analyze the narrative policymakers are presenting critically, whether what they are arguing is moral, and whether that aligns with what you believe because both can be true. For example, it can be true that abortion is the ending of potential life, but it is also true that humans should have agency over their bodies. Both are morality questions, but it depends on you, the voter, to decide which you uphold more instead of conforming to what you have been fed to believe.

Next Step:

Now that we comprehend NPF, we will begin to apply this framework to recently presented public policy as we critically analyze each narrative, and I offer my opinion. One policy will be at the state level, and the other at the federal level. Each will derive from two political parties, as I do not want to be found guilty of creating a narrative that one party is less guilty of performing this common action than the other.

State Policy: Dixie State University Name Change

This was a hot topic in the Utah state legislature during the 2021 session. H.B. 278 proposed that Dixie State University change its name to best match the school’s identity, growing population, and services. Due to its public school status, Dixie State University needed to be approved for a name change. The name change came about as students and alums expressed concern about the name, citing the exclusion of career opportunities. In contrast, the Dixie name came from Utah’s history with southern settlers as and totem of their travels and culture. When H.B. 278 was presented, the narrative was that this was a change not to erase history but to fit the current student population best and where the university was headed. According to the Associated Press, the bill’s sponsor stated.

“This process is not about cancel culture. No one is trying to erase the great history of this beloved institution,” said Republican Rep. Kelly Miles, who sponsored the name-change bill. “We as Utahns pride ourselves in our forward-thinking … it just makes sense that our students in this great state will be better served by the name Utah Tech University.”

For more information about the bill, visit the Associated Press.

The narrative was unsuccessful, to say the least, as a counter-narrative presented itself, citing that the liberal agenda to change history (the rep. running the bill was Republican) was the reason for the name change. An intreating item to note is the word racism or slavery, which were never used when discussing the bill to avoid uproar on the floor. This was a tactical language strategy used to gear away from accusing any of their fellow same-party representatives of upholding racism.

Setting: Educational institutions and Free Speech

Characters: Students of Dixie and Members of the community.

Plot: there was a victim in need of saving but not by a particular evil; this makes Dixie a compelling case study. No enemy was given in the narrative as a method of preservation of relationships, as determining an enemy is alienating those who believe in preserving “history.”

Moral: The name Dixie is not wrong but instead impacts our students, and for the betterment of them and the university, it is time to change the name not to ask for forgiveness but rather to ensure success.

My Thoughts:

Dixie is a deeply rooted racist name. There are no if and or buts regarding the topic. I used the Dixie name change as an example to show how much people are willing to compromise to ensure success. The bill did pass, but not without significant modifications and conversation no one should be proud of, as no one was bold enough to stand up to the status quo and express the real issue with the name Dixie. I say this with no connection to Southern Utah, I comprehend the importance of the name to some alumni, but it is simply a name used to depower groups of people. I present the analysis that the hesitation of the bill was not rooted in the name but instead in the changes the U.S. is making.

National Policy: Student Loan Forgiveness

Since the beginning of his campaign, president Joe Biden has promised forms of financial relief for the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of that relief, Biden expressed his interest in addressing the high cost of higher education and how it has financially crippled those seeking a better life for themselves. The student loan forgiveness policy commits to cancel $20,000 in student loan debt for those who receive a Pell Grant and whose loans are held by the department of education, while $10,000 of debt is canceled by non-Pell Grant recipients. The cancellation of debt only applies to those individuals making less than $125,000 per year. The rhetoric used for the narrative was this would assist million of loan holders, rebalance the rising cost of higher education, and lend a hand to those seeking a better future while providing economic relief to those hurting from the COVID-19 pandemic. According to President Biden himself, during a press conference, stated.

“I will never apologize for helping working- and middle-class Americans as they recover from the pandemic, especially not to the same Republicans officials who voted for a $2 trillion tax cut that mainly benefitted the wealthy Americans and the biggest corporations that wasn’t paid for and racked up our deficit.”

His full speech can be found on Whitehouse.gov.

Analysis:

Setting: financial crisis after COVID-19 and Inflation. In addition, timing is an important aspect to note as the 2024 election comes closer and the rise of Americans begins to express displeasure with the high cost of living. What was the current administration to do to ensure their voters are pleased without addressing the high-speed rate of inflation and platitude income? Give them a win, a small yet manageable one.

Characters: Students with debts and educational institutions.

Plot: the villain (institutions) have abused their power for personal gain and preyed on those students with less financial backing for college.

Moral: Punishing those seeking higher ed and a better tomorrow is not very American.

My Thoughts:

As a low-income college student that relied on scholarships and financial aid to get through my undergrad, I am pleased with this policy and equate it as fair as the substantial rise in tuition has left lower to middle-class Americans with a financial burden that many cannot seem to dissolve. In the same breath, I acknowledge that I graduated debt-free from my undergrad due to my financial decisions like staying local for school, finding a university that had the best offers for a student in my GPA range, applying for hundreds of scholarships, and ensuring a high GPA during college. I can understand the sentiment of how it is unfair for those who made poor financial decisions should be awarded for those choices. But because this policy also addresses graduate degrees, that level of education should not be exclusive to the rich and powerful.

Conclusion:

In science, no contradicting ideas can be true at once. That is not the case for politics; my thoughts at the state and national levels are valid and hold the truth in one aspect or another. What I have done is what I recommended you do. To not simply conform to the narrative presented by “your” political party, agree with everything your boss says, or allow unfair treatment. I shared my thoughts on each policy, aware that some of you will not share the same sentiments as I have, and that is fine. I must stay true to my beliefs and my moral code. Playing the waiting game to ensure success is a great tactical plan, but ensure you are aware of its dangers. At what point have you compromised too much? There is a phrase often used by legislators while developing and debating policy “kill the bill” . It merely means that the bill will not pass this session due to outside forces who disagree with its purpose and will do anything possible to stop the bill before voting using more than shady practices. But I am going to share with you something I heard from a representative that will stay with me throughout what I hope will be a fulfilling career. “I would rather kill my bill than have it stripped of all significance” (Anonymous). Mabey the time isn’t now, and change is far, but it is best to stick to what is true to you than to lose all to gain a win, especially for your future policymakers. So, I leave you with this final piece of advice, do not bite your tongue at the dinner table.