Browse Chapters Close Home Contributors Content Filter Search Results Introduction Section 1: System Chapter 1: We live in systems Chapter 2: The simplicity of complexity Chapter 3: Levels are levers Chapter 4: Autonomy is myth Section 2: Equilibrium Chapter 5: Systems Do Not Die Chapter 6: Relationships Are Power Chapter 7: Solidarity is a verb Chapter 8: Force begets resistance Chapter 9: Loops can be unlocked Section 3: Navigation Chapter 10: Narrative is water Chapter 11: Needs are motives Chapter 12: Communities are currents Chapter 13: The messenger is the message Chapter 14: Values are bedrock Chapter 15: Decisions are learned Chapter 16: Emotion is oxygen Section 4: Storms Chapter 17: Storms are stories Chapter 18: Flexibility is perseverance Chapter 19: Foresight is 20:20 Chapter 20: Wrestling with trolls Chapter 21: Change is constant Section 5: Energy Chapter 22: Reflection is action Chapter 23: Truth is human shaped Chapter 24: Seeds are fruit Chapter 25: Endings are beginnings Conclusion Uncommon Sense A systems-based strategic communications handbook for changing the world. This resource is designed for people working for social, environmental, or economic justice at local, national, or international levels. If you are someone who is seeking fresh insights to understand obstacles to change and find better solutions to accelerate change-making, then you have come to the right place. There’s no one right way to use it. Choose your own path... Read in order Start with the introduction and move chapter by chapter Start Here Browse Sections Dive straight in by exploring the five S.E.N.S.E. sections Explore Sections Explore Themes Filter information by stories, concepts, and practical tools Content Filter Offline Reading Save the whole book as a PDF onto your device Download Explore the five sections of S.E.N.S.E. System Section 1 ◇ Chapter 1 We live in systems ◇ Chapter 2 The simplicity of complexity ◇ Chapter 3 Levels are levers ◇ Chapter 4 Autonomy is a myth Equilibrium Section 2 ◇ Chapter 5 Systems do not die ◇ Chapter 6 Relationships are power ◇ Chapter 7 Solidarity is a verb ◇ Chapter 8 Force begets resistance ◇ Chapter 9 Loops can be unlocked Navigation Section 3 ◇ Chapter 10 Narrative is water ◇ Chapter 11 Needs are motives ◇ Chapter 12 Communities are currents ◇ Chapter 13 The messenger is the message ◇ Chapter 14 Values are bedrock ◇ Chapter 15 Decisions are learned ◇ Chapter 16 Emotion is oxygen Storms Section 4 ◇ Chapter 17 Storms are stories ◇ Chapter 18 Flexibility is perseverance ◇ Chapter 19 Foresight is 20:20 ◇ Chapter 20 Wrestling with trolls ◇ Chapter 21 Change is constant Energy Section 5 ◇ Chapter 22 Reflection is action ◇ Chapter 23 Truth is human-shaped ◇ Chapter 24 Seeds are fruit ◇ Chapter 25 Endings are beginnings About Uncommon Sense The Multicultural Leadership Initiative is a non-profit organisation, dedicated to building a climate-safe future for all by cultivating climate leadership that reflects the diversity of humanity. The Multicultural Leadership Initiative would like to acknowledge and appreciate the over 120 climate communications experts and practitioners, across over 20 countries, who have actively shared their wisdom, experiences, and advice to inform the S.E.N.S.E. methodology in this digital book. This resource, though useful to everyone, has been designed with those already familiar with the basics of Systems Thinking theory and practice in mind. If you are new to Systems Thinking applied to campaigning and advocacy we highly recommend you attend a Campaigner Accelerator training run by our friends at the Mobilisation Lab . The Uncommon Sense project was produced with financial and collaborative support from the Climate and Land Use Alliance, including identifying interviewees, proposing case studies, and developing, synthesizing, and reviewing content. We are grateful to the team at Rathana.org as the genesis partners and to the following writers, contributors and reviewers who lent their time and expertise to shaping this handbook: Hugh Mouser, Matt Daggett, Rathana Chea, Dr. Amiera Sawas, Bec Sanderson, David Roth, Diya Deb, Enggar Paramita, Jude Lee, Dr. Lori Regattieri, Dr. Merlyna Lim, Nana Darkoah Sekyiamah, Natalia Vidalon, Dr Nicolas Llano Linares, Renata Senlle, Rika Novayanti, Dr. Thelma Raman, Von Hernandez, Yemi Agbeniyi - click here for their bios . Like all things Systems Thinking related, Uncommon Sense will be an on-going, evolving and iterative initiative. More tools and downloadable resources will continually be added. We are here to support you in building your strategic communications skills for a climate safe future. Yours in uncommon sense, View full contributor list Don’t miss new tools, updates and resources Get occasional updates from Uncommon Sense. Sign Up Acknowledgement We acknowledge all the First Nations and First Nations Peoples. We pay our respects to Elders past, present and emerging. We look forward to the day where we, once more, can live in harmony with our planet as your custodianship has taught us for many thousands of years.

Section 5 Energy Chapter 23 Truth is human shaped This section emphasizes the importance of evaluating system changes through diverse perspectives, not just internal metrics. Recognizing that bias, selective perception, and social dynamics shape how we interpret outcomes, the process calls for valuing stories and opinions alongside data to build a more truthful and balanced picture of impact. Gather with critics and neutrals to identify everyone's contributions to changes within and outside the system. Many Western societies base their analysis on scientific objectivity, believing there is only one true answer to every question. This can reduce our perception of risk. However, humans have selective vision and memories. We often lie to ourselves and others. What happens if we find that we’ve made no impact or made things worse? “Human eyes are selective… We think we can see ‘everything,’ until we remember that bees make out patterns written in ultraviolet light on flowers, and owls see in the dark. The senses of every species are fine-tuned to perceive information critical to their survival.” Rosamond Stone Zander and Benjamin Zander, The Art of Possibility In Russia there are thought to be two kinds of truth: universal truth, and pravda - human-shaped truth. Everyone has their own truth to tell. “We cannot escape ideology, but we can strive to be aware of its influence.” Adam Curtis After reflecting on changes in the system, we should value others’ opinions to help us evaluate. This is especially important when considering what has contributed to these changes and any outcomes we've achieved. Organizations often evaluate their contributions by themselves or hire independent consultants who may be biased. They also rely heavily on numbers to measure success. “To glorify democracy and to silence the people is a farce; to discourse on humanism and to negate people is a lie.” Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed There is power in asking and openly checking for bias by seeking opinions from critics, neutrals, and supporters. Let’s connect with allies, opponents, and others in the system we’re trying to change to gather stories, opinions, and anecdotes. Even our enemies might share the same ultimate goal but disagree on how to achieve it. Depending on how high risk the environment for your work, you could consider asking the following stakeholders: A government decision-maker or adviser (it does not have to be the decision-maker you're targeting) A local member of the public affected by the issue but unaware of your campaign A journalist tuned in to discussions in government An employee of a targeted company “If you have no critics you'll likely have no success.” Malcolm X We recommend: Ask each stakeholder to share what they believe has been the most critical change in the system as they see it, and why they think it has happened. Gather these answers together and explore them alongside the system chart, deep loop and narrative that you created in the exercise in Chapter 20 or previously.** Debias this process by asking yourself: Are we treating the data fairly? Are we considering this too quickly? Are we seeking confirmation? Are we avoiding some kind of risk in our conclusion? Read more: To explore deeper methodologies, research the solution-focused approach of Appreciative Enquiry or the anecdotal approach of Most Significant Change . Source: Rosamond Stone Zander and Benjamin Zander, The Art of Possibility, Transforming Professional and Personal Life (2000), p.4 CONCEPT Social Threats & Rewards David Rocks invented the SCARF model to show how our brains respond differently whether we perceive the people or situations around us as threats or rewards. When the brain is in a threat state, it shuts down to new ideas. When it is in a reward state, it helps us to communicate and collaborate more effectively. According to the SCARF model there are five domains of social threat or reward. For example, feeling respected helps us to feel we have status, and be more open to collaboration; while feeling criticized or like we have lost status, closes us off from interaction or effective collaboration with others. This sense of threat or reward also influences how we receive ideas, opinions and insights from others - and our ability to evaluate what is valuable information or not. For more on the SEEDS of bias and mental shortcuts that affect what we notice and how we consider, see Chapter 15: Decisions are Learned. Read more: https://www.mindtools.com/akswgc0/david-rocks-scarf-model Source: Image: MobLab https://mobilisationlab.org/ Source of SCARF diagram: SEEDS Model from the Neuroleadership Institute, The 5 Biggest Biases That Affect Decision-Making (neuroleadership.com). Take the SCARF assessment: https://neuroleadership.com/research/tools/nli-scarf-assessment/ , SCARF model: https://www.bitesizelearning.co.uk/resources/scarf-model-david-rock-explained TOOL Burning Through Bias Step 1: If you did not gather them using the tool in Chapter 20, now gather allies, opponents, bystanders (e.g. journalists, the public) together and ask them to consider the SEEDS of bias questions* when thinking about changes in the system, who has contributed and when sharing honestly in the group: Similarity: Am I choosing to believe what or who I’m used to? Expediency: Does this challenge my thoughts or suit my instincts? Experience: Am I assuming everyone had the same experience as me? Distance: Am I choosing the answer that fits my current mood, or is most convenient? Safety: Am I picking the safest, lowest risk option? Step 2: Ask each of them in turn to share what they think is the most critical change to the system over the period of your campaign, and why they think it happened. What’s working? Ask one person to capture these in full. Ask another to write each in brief on a post-it and place it on the right hand side of the chart. Step 3: Review the loops and connections across the fire together? What does this tell you about how your campaign is doing? Go deeper: Evaluators use the original Most Significant Change tool to ask affected community members about the most significant change in their lives. The multiple perspectives from this process can challenge the biases of the facilitators as well as identify patterns and causes. Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Section 1 System Chapter 4 Autonomy is myth Systems are deeply interconnected, with each part dependent on others — both within the same system and across different ones. This chapter shows how to extend the soil chart to map interdependent systems, using Bolivia’s Water War as a case study of how diverse groups came together to reclaim control of vital resources. Every part of a system depends on other parts of the same system, and sometimes on other systems. We are influenced by many interdependent, tangible and intangible systems, from people and institutions to values and norms. Every ecosystem has at least one keystone species - an organism that is critical to the survival of others in the ecosystem, and to keeping the system in balance. Its removal can cause irreparable damage. This is exactly what happened with the decline of sea otters off the coast of Alaska. In the 1990s the hunting of whales and sea lions removed two primary food sources for local orcas. When the orcas then began to increase their hunting of sea otters, the sea otter population dropped dramatically, causing sea urchins to reproduce unchecked. The urchins killed off the huge underwater kelp forests which normally provided food and shelter for thousands of ocean species.* Multiple ecosystems work with each other all the time. Perhaps the best known example is of the different systems and relationships connected to a child: the family (parents and siblings), the school (teachers), the state (funding for education types), culture and class (norms and attitudes).** So to understand how to influence one system, we need to be aware of the others that interact with it. In Chapter 1 we showed how to use a soil chart to map a single system. In this Chapter we propose extending this soil chart to see how this system is interacting with and influencing others. We look at dependencies, tipping points (to consider the key moments that could kickstart change) and consequences (to see what might happen if we increased or decreased certain factors at different levels). STORY Bolivia's Water War In 1999, Bolivia, under pressure from the World Bank, privatized the water system in Cochabamba, a city of 800,000 people. The government handed control to a foreign company, Aguas del Tunari, which led to severe price hikes and the takeover of local water systems, creating widespread discontent. Campaigners sought to stop the privatization, reverse the water price hikes, and protect the local water systems. They did this in the following ways: Connecting Systems and Stakeholders: Local Response: Initially, local professionals and small-scale farmers raised concerns but were ignored. However, as the impact spread, various groups including water cooperatives, neighborhood associations, labor unions, and factory workers joined forces. Forming a Coalition: These groups formed La Coordinadora, led by union activist Óscar Olivera, uniting diverse stakeholders to fight against the privatization. Shutdown of the country: Public Mobilizations: La Coordinadora organized mass protests and road blockades, involving urban and rural workers, students, and ordinary citizens. They demanded the government end the contract with Aguas del Tunari, repeal the new water law, and reverse the price hikes. The protests reached a peak in April 2000 with widespread demonstrations and blockades. Symbolic Actions and Solidarity: Protesters used symbolic actions like burning unpaid water bills and organizing non-violent demonstrations, which gathered widespread support and media attention. Even as protests sometimes faced police violence, the diverse participation from all parts of society showed strong unity against the privatization - centering the message of the fundamental right to water for human life. Media and Global Attention: International Awareness: News of the protests and the involvement of Bechtel (a major corporation) spread globally through media and internet campaigns, drawing international attention and support. The government underestimated how well interconnected local, regional and national actors across the Who and How levels could combine to effectively shut down the country’s infrastructure and economy. The government eventually agreed to revoke Aguas del Tunari's contract and return control of the water system to public hands. The government also modified the water law to protect local water systems and ensure public consultation on rates. TOOL Systems Triggers & Consequences Take your soil chart from Chapter 3. Rewind 50 years and fast forward 100 years. When you do this, ask yourself: What does the system look like? Does it need to change? When or where are the tipping points where change could happen, e.g. rainforest turning to savannah? What are the consequences? What are the dependencies across these system levels? Who or what is directly affected, e.g. natural resources, keystone species, socioeconomic groups, cultural beliefs? Take your time and feel free to step up and down through the levels. Challenge your assumptions about why this system works in these different places. Footnotes: * https://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/reintroductions-key-species/keystone-species-and-trophic-cascades **Gerald Zaltzman, https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/the-subconscious-mind-of-the-consumer-and-how-to-reach-it **Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory https://www.simplypsychology.org/bronfenbrenner.html#The-Five-Ecological-Systems “Pull a thread here and you’ll find it’s attached to the rest of the world.” - Nadeem Aslam Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Section 3 Navigation Chapter 15 Decisions are learned We make 35,000+ daily decisions using mental shortcuts and biases. To influence effectively, campaigns must trigger fast, emotional thinking rather than slow, rational thinking. Using familiar cues, emotional hooks, trusted messengers, and loss aversion can shift habits quickly. Triggering the right mental shortcuts and biases can make anyone take a decision. We are all decision-makers, but none of us are 100% rational. On average we make more than 35,000 decisions every day.* Our brains use thinking styles and develop mental shortcuts and biases to reduce the amount of deep thinking we do and to make our lives livable. These become habits that we live by: Thinking styles: Thinking fast (instinctive, emotional) and thinking slow (more deliberative and more logical).* Our aim in influencing is to trigger our target to take a fast decision, and minimize slow thinking including weighing up the cost-benefit or probabilities around decisions and actions.** Mental shortcuts: We develop mental shortcuts to reduce complexity and make decisions quickly. They are subject to internal factors (emotions, intuition, memory related to the decision), and external factors (type of choices available, competing objectives, culture around the decision). Bias: An illogical discrimination between two pieces of data. We also learn thinking styles, shortcuts and biases from family, friends, colleagues and even enemies. Polynesian navigators passed down the wisdom to track the rise, fall and location of the sun and stars. They also learned to take land-dwelling birds with them on ocean journeys. The navigator would release the birds if they believed they were near land. If the bird did not return, the navigator knew that land was close. “We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.” Anaïs Nin From a systems perspective, it is most impactful to shift a narrative that will influence thousands of small decisions. However every action to shift that narrative requires us to trigger the mental shortcuts and biases already in place with those who have power over those narratives. It is far easier to trigger an audience’s existing mental shortcuts and biases in order to shift their habits, rather than overwhelm them with hard choices. We can influence someone to pass on a message the way we want by understanding their feeling, thinking and acting habits. This Chapter shares how people make decisions so we can identify how to get them to do the actions aligned with our theory of change. You may find yourself questioning which key stakeholders should really be the target of the campaign. Footnotes: *Daniel Kahnemann explains these two forms of thinking (Systems 1 and Systems 2). Kahneman, Daniel “Thinking Fast and Slow,” 2011. ** Weighing up cost-benefit and probabilities is called Bayesian decision-making. CONCEPT Thinking Styles, Rational Checks, Mental Shortcuts & Biases Humans tend to use two thinking styles: Fast (System 1): Instinctive, emotional. Our influencing should steer targets towards this Slow (System 2): Deliberative, logical. Our influencing should minimize this. Slow thinking requires rational checks. We weigh up cost-benefits (what do we have to give up, and what do we gain) and probabilities (how likely is something to happen). Skilled strategic communicators deliberately trigger mental shortcuts and biases in an audience to guide them toward fast or slow noticing, consideration and decision. In our modern lives most of us are flooded with information. As a first step, therefore, a communication must break through the noise and be noticed (repeatedly). Mental shortcuts that guide noticing Allocation of attention: Spread, volume, repetition by familiar channels, sense of surprise all increase the likelihood of attention. Urgency: Urgent rather than important threats, events, or opportunities. Proximity: Relevance to someone’s family, community, work, hobbies or life priorities. Mental shortcuts that guide consideration Angle: The framing - the context and perspective through which information is presented. Affect: Information that inspires strong positive or negative emotions. Availability: The information already in your memory or experience. Anchoring: The first information accessed on the subject. Authority: Communication from a trusted or authoritative channel and messenger. Aversion to loss: The perceived risk of loss (pain is twice as powerful as gain).* Average: Likelihood of an event or fact based on a preconceived notion or memory. Biases that guide consideration Similarity: The preference towards what is similar to that which you are used to. Expedience (confirmation bias): People prefer information that confirms their values and does not overly challenge their understanding of the world. Experience: Preferring what we have experienced in the past. Distance: Preferring what is close to them physically or recently. Safety: Preferring what seems safest to them or what has already been proven to be safe. Biases that guide decision-making Optimism: The overestimation of your abilities. Illusion of control: The overestimate of your control over events. When defining and delivering a communications strategy for influencing a decision maker or target audience, consider how to share the framing, stories, and messages to take advantage of these mental shortcuts. If you study great communicators and communication materials - be they emails, TikTok posts, elected officials speeches, or issue campaigns - you will see that these are clearly at use. For example, communications might be from an influential messenger (Authority) sharing an emotional powerful story (Affect) about a scary risk (Aversion to Loss) and a very accessible familiar solution (Familiarity) . How can you shape your communications strategy to do the same? Where possible you may consider how to reach your target audience in a position where they need fast thinking, and trigger the mental shortcuts and biases that will appeal to them and move them to do what we want. At the same time, it is however important that we check our own logic before we engage them, so we avoid triggering unconscious bias that is culturally insensitive. Further reading: For more on the five SEEDS of bias see the NeuroLeadership Institute: https://neuroleadership.com/your-brain-at-work/seeds-model-biases-affect-decision-making/ For a more complex take on influencing behaviors, see the Behavioural Insights Group report here . STORY Replacing Cops With Mimes, Colombia In the early 1990s, Bogotá was a city paralyzed by corruption, chaos, and dangerous traffic conditions. Antanas Mockus, the newly elected mayor, faced the challenge of transforming this dysfunctional system. Mockus could see that the city was stuck in a vicious loop of corruption, impunity and mistrust. Public trust in the corrupt traffic police force was low - when traffic police attempted to enforce the law, the public disobeyed, creating more chaos on the road. So the Mayor removed the existing traffic police from the system, and added a virtuous loop of collective accountability and civic engagement: Mockus disbanded the entire traffic police force. He offered to rehire the officers—but as mimes, who would use humor and social pressure rather than coercion to influence driver behavior. He empowered Bogota citizens by distributing 350,000 “thumbs-up/thumbs-down” cards, enabling them to express approval or disapproval of traffic behavior directly. The mimes, through their non-verbal communication, highlighted the absurdity of traffic violations, encouraging drivers and pedestrians to follow rules not out of fear, but out of a shared sense of responsibility. Mockus cleverly triggered fast thinking, leveraging mental shortcuts and biases to reshape behavior and reduce traffic problems: Affect (Emotion): Mockus used humor to engage the public emotionally. By replacing corrupt police officers with mimes who used playful gestures to enforce traffic rules, he tapped into the positive emotions of surprise and amusement, making people more receptive to following rules. Authority: Although unconventional, the mimes became perceived as figures of authority. Their presence and antics were a novel way of reinforcing traffic rules without traditional enforcement, which the public had lost trust in. Mockus also empowered citizens by giving them “thumbs-up/thumbs-down” cards, making them feel authoritative in judging traffic behavior. Availability and Familiarity: Mockus capitalized on what was familiar and memorable. Traffic violations, once ignored, became absurdly visible through the mimes' exaggerated reactions, making them unforgettable. The citizens’ cards, readily available in their hands, allowed immediate feedback, embedding the new behavior in daily routines. Aversion to Loss: Mockus understood that people are more motivated by the fear of loss than the prospect of gain. By removing the corrupt police force and replacing them with mimes, he reduced the perceived "loss" of being unfairly treated or fined, encouraging compliance. Anchoring: The first interaction with the mimes, who ridiculed violations in a light-hearted manner, became the anchor for future behavior. This initial experience set a new standard for how traffic rules were perceived and followed. Similarity and Safety: The mimes represented something non-threatening and relatable—people in the community enforcing rules in a safe and humorous way. Citizens felt safer complying with these figures rather than with corrupt police officers. By utilizing these mental shortcuts and biases, Mockus effectively bypassed the need for slow, deliberative thinking. Instead, he steered the public towards quick, instinctive decisions that led to safer, more cooperative behavior on Bogotá’s streets. His strategy was highly successful, reducing traffic fatalities by over 50% and transforming the culture of the city’s streets from one of lawlessness to one of mutual respect and shared responsibility. Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/opinion/the-art-of-changing-a-city.html TOOL Navigation & Persuasion Once you have read through the rest of this Navigation Section, you can bring your strategy for reach and communications together. Use the flowchart here as a guide. Route: One by one, select the most powerful decision-makers in the system and plot the route to reach them. It is likely that there will be more than one decision-maker and more than one route to reach them. It is also likely that some routes will need re-planning. Remember, each person on that route is also a decision-maker. For each decision-maker on that route, consider Outcome: Decide on what you want the decision-maker to do. Narrative: How might you appeal to the existing narrative in the system while cultivating your own counter-narrative? Focus on a consistent topline deep narrative, while allowing different people to tell stories in varied ways. This approach will help shift the narrative more effectively. Motives: What are the needs and motives of that decision-maker we need to appeal to? Network: What networks, groups or communities do they draw value and belonging from? How can your message resonate with them so that they are likely to adopt it? Messengers: Which media and other messengers does the decision-maker most trust? What does your message need to say in order for that messenger to pass it on? Values: Which of the four values frames will most likely get the decision-maker to act? Mental shortcuts and biases: Which mental shortcuts and biases will ensure the decision-maker acts quickly? Decision: Are we sure the decision-maker’s action will be the one we want? Emergence: How might our actions and those of the network, messengers and the final decision-maker play out in the system? What else might emerge that we need to consider? Could the decision create a new kind of bias that we need to consider? Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Section 5 Energy Chapter 24 Seeds are fruit This section urges campaigners to adopt long-term and long-time thinking—looking beyond immediate goals to consider how today’s actions will shape the world for future generations. Drawing from Indigenous “seven generations” philosophy, it highlights the need for visions (Guiding Stars) and practical steps (Near Stars) that ensure sustained impact. Jump forward and backward in time to ensure you’re acting for the long term. Many Indigenous communities across North America use “seven generations thinking” to make decisions. They think about how their actions today will affect the next seven generations of people. “In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.” Iroquois Proverb Focusing only on the short term is a big problem not just in capitalist systems but also in the efficacy of campaigning. For example, the campaign to end the slave trade took decades, and some forms of slavery still exist today. The Chinese government has a 100 year plan. But many organizations, coalitions, and leaders only plan for three or four years, and some make long-term plans without clear steps to achieve them. “To use an agricultural metaphor, the current system [of movements attempting to build narrative power for justice] is focused on generating and cascading seeds of knowledge, but overlooking the soil where it is hoped that this will flourish.” Global Narrative Hiv e So, we come to the third question of reflection: “What now?” Once we understand how the system is changing (Chapter 20), and who and what is contributing to that change (Chapter 21), how do we plan our next steps to reach our Guiding Star and Near Star (Section 2)? We need to consider both: Long-termism: Predicting and planning for the future based on rapid and sustained developments Long-timism: Cultivating an attitude of care for the world beyond our lifetimes** It is important to consider what will be needed in seven generations from now. How many people, how much money, and how much effort will it take to change the system over this period? How can we keep the energy and commitment in our community to continue pushing for change? How can we inspire future activists and campaigners to keep the pressure on? “We can’t build what we can’t imagine, so it is imperative for us to create spaces that allow us to infinitely stretch our understanding of what’s possible.” Walidah Imarisha As with all the tools we propose, you will get better results by doing this in community with people you work with and for, and outside with the element of this chapter. There are three stages to this process: Immerse ourselves - Imagine the people we care about and how the world changes for them, in the past and future. See the forest for the trees - Consider the long-term and short-term impacts across the system. Draw out new paths - Put ourselves in the others’ shoes to find ways to a better world. Footnote: **We have borrowed the methods here from a Long Time Project practice created by Ella Saltmarshe and Hannah Smith. For more on long-time thinking see their toolkit here: https://www.thelongtimeproject.org/s/Long-Time-Project_Long-Time-Tools.pdf TOOL Human Layers Step 1: As a group, stand in a large circle 12 feet across, in a room or outside in a good amount of space. Close your eyes and feel your feet on the ground. Breathe deeply. Step 2: Think of someone you love or admire of your grandparents’ age. Focus on what it is in them that evokes warmth in you. It could be their smile, something that made them laugh, their hands, anything. Step 3: Take one step behind where you are and imagine being with that person 40 years in the past. How is that same quality that evoked warmth in you? Step 4: Take another step back and imagine being with that person another 30 years in the past, at their ninth birthday party. Where are you? Take a look out the window - what is it like? How are people behaving? Step 5: Now return to the spot you started in and imagine a small person (child, grandchild, niece) who you love or admire, and focus on what it is that evokes warmth in you. Step 6: Step forward one step and imagine being with that person 40 years in the future. Step 7: Step forward one step again and imagine you are at their 90th birthday party. The guests toast you. What are they choosing to toast you for? Step 8: Step back to the place you started in and take two deep breaths, opening your eyes again. You’ve just time traveled almost 200 years. Share with the group how you feel. What’s coming up for you? TOOL Changing Spectacles Step 1: Go back to your fire chart from Chapter 20. Take 2 sets of Post-Its, each in a different color. Ask the group to write down on the different colors, and place on the chart both positive and negative examples of: Long-termism in the system Norms, relationships, narratives, processes and outputs that are driving short term results Step 2: As a group, discuss how the most critical changes to the system are connected to long-termism and short-termism, and to different stakeholders and efforts that you and others you’ve consulted, have identified. Could you focus your efforts on strengthening or weakening those efforts with the greatest long-term effects? Step 3: Return to your overall plan. What changes might you make to your Guiding Star, Near Star, or to your targeting in order to have these greater long-term effects? TOOL Future Ripples Part 1: Go back to your fire chart. In your group, allocate to individuals in your group key stakeholder relationships (not individuals) in the system. These could be human or non-human, e.g. a river with connected ecosystems / a child and their mother in an affected community, the President and the World Bank. Part 2: Ask them to consider the implications of your updated plans in terms of: Time: What might their needs be in 5, 20, 50 years time? How might your campaign affect them? Assumptions: What assumptions about these stakeholders are we making in our plan? Why might these stakeholders question them? Practicalities: What constructs do the stakeholders need to know in order to do what we want them to do? How might this stakeholder themselves approach this differently? Part 3: What longtime changes in focus do you need to make to your plan to future proof it? Think of these areas: Guiding Star and Near Star Critical relationships and deep loop Target audiences, narrative and activities Prevention of and preparation for storms Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Section 4 Storms Chapter 20 Wrestling with trolls Opponents will always push back — through discrediting, delaying, dividing, or even attempting to destroy. Anticipating their tactics lets you stay ahead. By reframing debates, sidestepping traps, or adapting your Near Star, you can turn their strength against them and protect your campaign’s momentum. Use an opponent’s strength against them to minimize harm. When opponents attack or push back, this can feel like the most dangerous challenge of all. Every action has a counteraction. Anticipate your opponent’s moves to stay ahead. Understanding your opponent’s perspective and likely strategies helps you plan better and avoid surprises, making your campaign more effective. We have adapted approaches from the Commons Library for this chapter. Prepare for disinformation and misinformation Disinformation (deliberate sharing of lies) and misinformation (the sharing of rumors) tend to be types of developmental storm, but can turn into situational and existential threats. The best ways to prepare for this are: Risk management Build resilience in advance. Use the other tools in this Section to predict and rehearse what you would do Assess the risks for severity and impact of any possible disinformation and misinformation campaign Prepare approaches and messages to “prebunk” and mitigate disinformation and test them out using the Red Team tool in this Section Monitoring and Reporting Monitor social media daily e.g. by gathering links to ads being run by certain types of accounts Flag content on social media channels as disinformation Responding Seed alternative narratives (see Chapter 10): Use this as an opportunity to frame the (counter) narrative you want to take hold Frame your facts well (see Section 3: Navigation). Facts alone will not stop the storm Act swiftly and carefully. A hasty reaction could make the situation worse Act efficiently. One briefing that shows how and why the disinformation or misinformation is being spread can be referred back to. Respond directly and calmly to the source (unless you suspect this to be a fake social media account) to clarify Use multiple channels where the disinformation originated and which your audiences frequent. Troubleshooting Consider audience needs (see Chapter 11) and values (Chapter 14). Facts are not always enough. Many internet users are unwilling to engage with fact checkers Reach out via trusted messengers (see Chapter 13) and communities (Chapter 12). Personal preferences and social media algorithms that serve up content to reinforce certain views can prevent your message reaching an audience Show compassion: False and misleading information causes stress and pain for people, particularly at times of crisis. Showing intersectional compassion through your work and communications is a universal way to sidestep divisive rhetoric, show genuine support for people, and build trust. “The weakness of the enemy makes our strength” Cherokee proverb Charge through developmental storms In a developmental storm, an opponent might plant the seeds of a counter narrative to yours and: Discredit: Undermine your credibility through the media or public hearings, painting your group as unreasonable or radical Discount: Minimize the problem's importance or question your legitimacy. For example, they might call your group extremist or downplay the issue's severity Deflect: Shift attention to side issues or pass responsibility to another group. For example, if you demand a hazardous waste cleanup, they might talk about an unrelated environmental bill Deceive: Spread disinformation (deliberately), or misinformation (unintentionally) Mislead you into thinking meaningful action is happening when it is not. This includes offering fake solutions or setting up misleading meetings These may hinder your progress towards your goals and Near Star. The best way to deal with these is generally to charge: Frame the debate on your terms Publicise the tactics your opponent is taking Maintain your narrative Use trusted messengers to spread your narrative Avoid engaging directly with trolls ; instead, leverage supporters to use their weight against them and expose their inconsistencies Sidestep situational storms In a situational storm, an opponent might: Delay: Pretend to address the issue without actually doing anything, hoping to wear you out and make you lose momentum Divide: Create division within your group or between your group and the community. They might try to dox (publish private information about you), attack (to disable a website or other systems or infrastructure) separate moderate members from more militant ones Dulcify: Soothe or pacify by offering small concessions or benefits, diverting attention from the long-term issues Deny: Refuse to acknowledge the problem or your proposed solution. They might claim there's no problem or it is not significant enough - or launch a lawsuit against you Deal: Offer to work with you to find a mutually acceptable solution. However, be cautious of compromises that do not provide real value This kind of storm threatens your Near Star. The best way to deal with these is to sidestep and look at how you can use the situation to your advantage. You could: Consider your opponent’s psychology: You may do better by seeking a solution or partnership with them rather opposition Create illusion: Vary your tactics to keep them guessing. Trick your opponents into misjudging your plans, e.g. by making them think you have more resources or planned actions. This spreads their focus and weakens their response Seek support or solidarity Respond through allies or messengers that your audiences trust Raise funds for legal defense Know when to negotiate: Negotiation means settling a dispute through compromise, not surrender. Probing with certain tactics can reveal if negotiation is possible. Be careful not to propose talks too soon, as this might be seen as weakness. Compromise carefully. Giving up too quickly can cost you, while being too rigid can end talks. Understanding the political, economic, and social context helps in making wise decisions Use their weight against them: Nonviolence exposes your opponents’ harsh responses and can sway public sympathy. This works by affecting three groups: Uncommitted third parties: Witnessing repression of peaceful activists moves uninvolved people to support Opponent’s supporters: Violence against peaceful protestors can create dissent within the opponent’s group General grievance group: Enduring repression strengthens the resolve of activists Adjust your immediate goals or Near Star (in some situations) Adapt to existential storms In an existential storm, an opponent might try to: Destroy: Use legal or economic means to destabilize, bankrupt or eliminate your group through legal actions or law changes to restrict civil society space. This might include threats of lawsuits or actual legal action to intimidate you In such critical situations it is crucial to adapt. Consider alternative strategies to advance to your overarching goal or Guiding Star including: Change your Near Star Concentrate your strength against the opponent’s weakness: Use indirect approaches. Create the appearance of dispersed forces to cause the opponent to spread out, making your concentrated efforts more effective. Avoid giving your opponent time to concentrate their forces against you or build belief that they are winning Redirect or share resources with other activists or organizations Adjust your focus or explore new approaches By using these strategies it is possible to “downgrade” a storm from an existential threat to a situational or developmental obstacle. Read more: Dealing with the Opposition paper https://commonslibrary.org/disinformation-101/ More detail and case studies: https://commonslibrary.org/how-to-dealing-with-disinformation/ Civil society organization vs attacks cheatsheet: https://www.metgroup.com.mx/civilstory/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/SCO-attacks-cheatsheet.pdf STORY Dealing With A Government Crackdown, India An existential storm hit an environmental organization (names withheld for protection) in India - a series of coordinated direct attacks on their choice to campaign against massive fossil fuel companies, who were in regular communications with government authorities. The storm included a long list of hostile tactics: Discredit: An organized raid on the organization’s offices one regular working Monday by government officials who accused the organization of financial money laundering Destroy: Locked organization bank accounts so that salaries, rents and even electricity bills were not allowed to be paid Deceive: Fake media stories (disinformation) circulated among different local and national media to crackdown on the organization and question their legitimacy and credibility Destroy: Threats of jail sentences without bail issued to the organization leadership Discredit and Destroy: Private raids of the houses of elderly parents of campaigners and board members Although this storm disrupted the work of the organization, its campaigners were able to take very slow, strategic, steps to emerge from the crisis. This enabled them to revert to doing their work, but in different forms. First the crisis management team focused on a few things: Framed the debate internally on their terms: They maintained transparency within the team to avoid creating any internal divisions, so they could remain united. Considered their opponents’ psychology: A delay tactic was employed to give time to the authorities to tire out and eventually shift their focus to other things. Avoided engaging directly: They maintained their narratives but did not get caught up in a media battle. Instead they focused on a legal strategy that would prove them to be legitimate in their work and the allegations leveled against them to be false. Changed their Near Star and Adjusted their focus: of winning the ongoing campaigns was shifted to keeping the organization functioning and having the resources to fight the legal battle. Redirected resources: Due to the bank account blockades bankruptcy was unavoidable so the teams had to be dismantled but with application of foresight, maintaining transparency, it was done smoothly avoiding all possible disruptions. A small team of less than 10 people was maintained along with lawyers to continue the legal cases. Shared intelligence with others: Meanwhile the original campaigns were led by partners and allies so that they didn’t lose momentum while this organization dealt with the crisis in hand. Created illusion: As a tactic, the offices were closed down or shrunk to give an illusion of success to their detractors, and to remove the risks of further raids and direct attacks. The delay tactic allowed the campaign narrative to persist, while also helping the organization to win the legal case and finally rebuild itself back to its full capacity. While many organizations were devastated in face of similar attacks, foresight, resilience and smart strategic methods to wrestle with the trolls helped this organization to survive, thrive and reinvest itself. STORY The Indigenous Land Rights Movement, Philippines State and corporate actors including large-scale mining operations had been encroaching on ancestral lands in the Philippines. The Indigenous Land Rights Movement in the Philippines, particularly among the Lumad people in Mindanao, had three objectives: Resist displacement by both state and corporate actors Protect Indigenous lands from exploitation Secure legal recognition of Indigenous land rights The movement negotiated all three types of storm caused by these opponents: Developmental Storm Discredit: Opponents, including some government officials and corporate interests, sought to undermine the credibility of the indigenous groups by portraying them as obstructive or radical The movement framed the debate on their terms , and used their narrative around human rights and environmental justice The movement used trusted messengers among media and international support to highlight their legitimate claims Discount: Opponents tried to minimize the importance of the land rights issue, with claims that the land was of little economic value or that Indigenous claims were exaggerated. The movement maintained its narrative by consistently presenting evidence of the cultural, ecological, and legal significance of their land Deflect: To divert attention, opponents sometimes focused on unrelated issues, such as alleged corruption or infighting within the movement The activists avoided engaging directly, and maintained a clear focus on their core issues and publicizing any attempts to shift the narrative away from the land rights at stake Deceive: Opponents proposed false solutions or misleading meetings to pacify the activists without addressing their core concerns The movement publicised the tactics that the opponent was taking , stayed vigilant, fact-checked the offers, and demanded genuine engagement rather than token gestures Situational Storm Delay: Government agencies and corporations sometimes made symbolic promises of consultations or negotiations while continuing with their projects The movement adapted by using these delays to build broader alliances and secure additional support from both national and international bodies Divide: Opponents tried to create divisions within the indigenous groups or between them and local communities The movement worked to foster unity and solidarity through grassroots organizing and outreach to other affected communities Dulcify: Opponents occasionally offered small concessions to appease the activists while continuing harmful activities The movement avoided being pacified by focusing on long-term goals and maintaining pressure on policymakers Deny: Opponents often tried to deny the existence or significance of indigenous land rights. The movement used the weight of opponents against them - it used legal frameworks and international human rights standards to affirm its claims and mobilize support Existential Storm Destroy: Opponents used severe repression on the movement, including violent attacks and legal actions against activists. The movement prioritized resilience as its Near Star , which helped it to: Concentrate its strength on the opponents’ weakness through high-impact legal cases Share resources with international human rights organizations who also took action Create the appearance of dispersed forces : Highlight the severity of the repression, thus galvanizing global support The Indigenous Land Rights Movement in the Philippines achieved several successes including: Increased recognition of indigenous land rights in some areas. Heightened international awareness of the issues faced by the Lumad people. Despite ongoing challenges and repression, the movement's strategic responses helped mitigate some of the impacts of the various storms they encountered, demonstrating resilience and adaptability in the face of multifaceted opposition. Further reading: https://populationandsecurity.com/lumads-in-the-philippians-an-enduring-fight-for-indigenous-rights/ ; see also https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/us-land-life ; and https://youtu.be/LwQpFmcR2eY TOOL Simulation & Preventation Review your Storm Chart. In a group, discuss the most likely crises or opportunities that might arise because of your opponents’ actions against you or others. Stick these most likely scenarios on the storm chart. Which of the “D” strategies is it similar to? Consider the four strategy types and the example responses from the storm chart. Which could you take? What might the consequences, new challenges or opportunities that could arise in the system as a result? Agree and write up your proactive plan to diffuse opponents’ pressure in advance, and reactive plan to respond to opponents’ pressure. Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Section 4 Storms Chapter 17 Storms are stories Every system faces storms—developmental, situational, or existential—that test resilience. Preparing in advance allows campaigners to turn crises into opportunities. By diagnosing the storm type and its system-level impacts, we can act strategically rather than reactively. There are just 3 types of challenge and we can handle every one of them. In natural ecosystems, the species that survive have adapted to change around them. But many organizations perish because they fail to prepare for crises and opportunities within and around them. Often, we face crises and tell ourselves, "this too shall pass," or regret missed opportunities, rather than readying ourselves in advance. Understanding and creating storms Every storm is a tale with a beginning, a middle and an end. Although we cannot predict the weather with perfect accuracy, we can equip ourselves for what may come and build resilience to likely or potential storms. We can also create storms ourselves. For example taking direct action can destabilize a system, hinder an opponent and drive public debate around your issue. “A crisis is an opportunity riding a dangerous wind.” Chinese proverb Navigating storm types To comprehend how a storm might impact our target system or our campaign, we categorize it into three types: Developmental: Challenges a system’s identity or boosts its visibility. Situational: Hinders a system’s operations or enhances its influence. Existential: Threatens a system’s survival or enables evolution to something stronger. Analysing causes and effects To effectively handle a storm, we must analyze its causes and consequences. This involves identifying whether the problem is simple, complicated, complex or chaotic (see Chapter 2), observe its five system levels (Chapter 3), its Guiding Star and Near Star (Chapter 5) and the Deep Loop that drives it (Chapter 8). Preparing for impact Do not underestimate the impact of a storm or your ability to deal with it. Bats’ echolocation is disrupted by storms, preventing them from perceiving their environment. They take shelter and wait out the storm. But the hard truth for campaigners and organizations is that taking shelter is rarely the best option to deal with a crisis or opportunity. When we prepare in advance, we can be ready for all kinds of circumstances. Make sure you read all the chapters in this Section in order to prepare and deal with the three types of storm, because the storms will come. You will fare far better if you prepare in advance. No one wants to lurch from crisis to crisis. Footnotes: Aboriginal season charts: https://www.csiro.au/en/research/Indigenous-science/Indigenous-knowledge/calendars Chart showing Aboriginal Australian fire burning according to season: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-seasonal-calendar-illustrating-aspects-of-Indigenous-fire-stewardship-The-calendar_fig2_359670046 TOOL Storm Diagnosis Spotting Threats Draw out or print the Storm Chart. Write on one Post It at a time: A challenge or opportunity you might face Write down whether it relates to: the system you’re trying to change your campaign both Write down its corresponding Storm type: Developmental: An challenge to a system’s identity of or an opportunity to raise its profile Situational: A challenge impeding what the system does or an opportunity to boost its reach Existential: A threat to a system’s existence or an opportunity to create something stronger Write down whether this threat or opportunity in itself is: Chaotic Complex Ordered Place the Post-It on the Threat / Opportunity ring in line with the Storm type. Continue this process for all the possible threats you could face. There should be a fairly even distribution of Post-Its. Storm as system On an A3 sheet, pick the most harmful, most likely threat. Note down: Why: Why has this threat come to happen. Is it because of your campaign? Who: The storm’s Guiding Star and Near Star. The key relationships that give it equilibrium, power and set the rules for how it operates. Where: The relationships that allow information to flow and enable the threat to function. How: How the storm manifests. What: The short, medium and long term impacts are, on you and others in and outside the system. Does this tell you anything new to prepare for, in how the storm affects the system or your campaign? Eye of the storm On a separate sheet, draw out the key loops that you think are driving this storm. Add arrows to show direction, and pluses and minuses alongside them to show where some elements increase or decrease others. Identify the loops as stabilizing / stagnating / vicious / virtuous. Review the loops and identify the most critical ones. Zoom out. Could you see these loops together as one large loop? What does this tell you about what is driving the storm, and how you could deal with it? Is the storm a threat or opportunity as you originally believed? Could it evolve into one, or could you turn it to your advantage? STORY Stopping Arms Transportation To Zimbabwe, South Africa During the 2008 elections in Zimbabwe, the ruling party ZANU-PF suppressed opposition and manipulated results. Meanwhile, a Chinese ship carrying weapons for Zimbabwe's Defense Force arrived in South Africa for the arms to be sent to Zimbabwe, raising fears of increased violence. Civil society groups in South Africa aimed to prevent the ship from delivering weapons to Zimbabwe, thereby avoiding further violence and human rights abuses. They did so by understanding the type of crisis and opportunity and responding to them appropriately: There were three interrelated crises: Developmental Crisis: False election results. This was a symptom of the deeper situational and existential crises. Dealing with those was more critical. Situational Crises: Voter suppression and manipulation of results. The arrival of the ship carrying weapons. This needed addressing immediately or it would risk an existential crisis - the lives of people in Zimbabwe. Existential Crises: The potential for increased state violence and suppression of the opposition. Zimbabwe's long-term struggle with corruption and political violence. Addressing these would take longer, but understanding their connection to the situational crises were important for building strength across civil societies in the long fight against repression. Campaigners took coordinated action: Using voice at the What level: Religious groups and NGOs in South Africa protested at the Durban harbor. Blocking infrastructure at the How level: The South African Transport and Allied Workers Union refused to offload the weapons. Civil society groups and unions in Mozambique, Namibia, and Angola coordinated to prevent the ship from docking and offloading weapons in their countries. Legal challenge at the Who level: The Southern African Litigation Centre (SALC) filed a legal challenge to stop the transfer of weapons. Results: System sabotage: Unions, religious groups and NGOs navigated the connected storms to stop the system from functioning. The ship could not offload its weapons cargo in any of the ports, and eventually returned to China. Legal and social impact: The campaign highlighted the willingness of regional leaders to support Zimbabwe’s lawlessness and spurred public outrage. Showed strength of future regional solidarity and resistance: It sent a clear message against state violence in Zimbabwe. Read more: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/chinese-arms-to-zimbabwe/ https://www.industriall-union.org/archive/imf/unions-block-arms-delivery-to-zimbabwe https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/24/zimbabwe.china Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Section 2 Equilibrium Chapter 5 Systems Do Not Die Lasting change comes not from new leaders, but from reshaping a system’s vision. This chapter introduces Guiding Stars — long-term visions rooted in trust, empathy, and collective wellbeing — and Near Stars, shorter-term milestones that show we are on track. Change the system’s vision to rebalance it. Campaigners often rush towards their goals, not realizing it is a long journey. Citizens vote for new leaders, expecting big changes, but often see little improvement in their lives as new officials grapple with the same old system. We too often look in the wrong place to find our way to system change. We recommend setting a Guiding Star as a vision or aim for the system we are trying to change. A Guiding Star means that a healthy system is in place, with the why, who, what, and how in place that helps maintain itself. An example of a Guiding Star for a society is a government that citizens trust and in enacting this trust they vote at general elections - showing their support for structures like the rule of law. The system would be at risk if many citizens rebelled against these structures. Strategies to achieve a Guiding Star should address a scarcity mindset and promote empathy and collective values. “The civil rights movement tended to be focused on integration, but there were those who said, we don't want to assimilate into a sinking ship, so let's change the ship altogether.” 2014 interview in Conversations with Angela Davis Edited by Sharon Lynette Jones (2021) (Referring to the emergence of the Black Panther Party) We recommend setting a Near Star as a 5-10 year major outcome that shows us we are on track to achieve our Guiding Star or vision. This is a major step towards achieving your vision. A Near Star means that conditions for a healthy system are in place. An example of a Near Star is an easy voting process. The system would become unstable if this process was not in place. Campaigners are used to setting a vision and then Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound (SMART) goals. This approach builds from this foundation, adapting it for a systems mindset. First, it is important to understand that systems do not die. Every system already has a Guiding Star showing it is in good health, and a Near Star showing what needs to happen for it to remain healthy. So, start by understanding how the system(s) operate today and then determine how you would like to see them evolve - rather than setting visions and SMART goals assuming a static starting point and a blank page. The tool in this Chapter shows how to identify the existing Guiding Star and Near Star for the system, and how to identify new stars to replace them. STORY Buen Vivir: Bolivia and Ecuador For much of the 20th century Bolivia and Ecuador adopted economic policies based on advice from Washington, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). By the mid-2000s, the extraction and sale of their natural resources by multinational companies had left many Bolivians and Ecuadorians in poverty. Progressive movements in each country brought together coalitions representing Indigenous movements and left-leaning white working-class people. These movements recognized the stability in community that Indigenous peoples had established long before country borders were drawn. This could be a new Guiding Star to ensure their societies and environments could thrive. This focus on the collective rather than the individual was rooted in the Quechua vision of “sumac kawsay,” meaning “the fullness of life, living in community and harmony with other people and nature.” The Quechua practiced their stewardship of nature, by only taking what they needed from their environment, focussing on helping nature to stay in balance. “We… hereby decide to build a new form of public coexistence, in diversity and in harmony with nature, to achieve the good way of living.” Constitution of Ecuador, 2008 Evo Morales, an Indigenous leader in Bolivia, and Rafael Correa, a middle-class intellectual in Ecuador, won elections based on the idea that they would restrict the extraction of natural resources and reinvest a large portion of the profits to fight poverty and inequality. In 2008, Ecuador established the Guiding Star of “buen vivir” (a Spanish phrase, based on sumac kawsay) as a cornerstone of its constitution. In 2011, Bolivia passed the Law of Mother Nature, the world’s first national legislation to bestow rights to the natural world. The reforms changed the idea of development, prioritizing “ecological balance over relentless growth.”* Were systems fully and effectively reformed based on these new why guiding stars? No. But it is still relevant to consider as an example of one key step towards enacting system change. Sources (formal sourcing): *Rapid Transition Alliance: https://rapidtransition.org/stories/the-rights-of-nature-in-bolivia-and-ecuador/ Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/buen-vivir-philosophy-south-america-eduardo-gudynas STORY The Salt March, India, 1930 Under British colonial rule, in 1930 India was gripped by a growing demand for independence. Mahatma Gandhi, the leader of the Indian independence movement, decided to challenge the British monopoly on salt production, which forced Indians to buy salt exclusively from the government. Gandhi’s Near Star was not just an objective to defy the salt law, but to use this act as a catalyst to unite the Indian population in a mass movement against British imperialism. His Guiding Star was to gain India's independence through nonviolent civil disobedience, rather than merely achieving minor policy changes. He took learnings from other Indians who had practiced ‘Satyagraha’ - to resist by non-violent non-cooperation with oppression. “For Gandhi, satyagraha, the force of truth, was the force not to cooperate with unjust laws that called for a ‘no’ from our deepest conscience”. Gandhi organized the Salt March, a 240-mile trek to the Arabian Sea, where he symbolically broke the salt laws by making salt from seawater. This act of defiance sparked widespread civil disobedience across India, leading to the arrest of over 100,000 people. The campaign was able to bring the British to the negotiating table, resulting in the 1931 Gandhi-Irwin Pact, but this seemed to deliver limited concessions. Many within the Indian National Congress felt disillusioned, believing that Gandhi had settled for too little—only minor exceptions to the salt law and the release of some political prisoners. Although the immediate gains from the Salt March appeared modest, Gandhi saw the bigger picture and stayed true to his long-term aim. He understood that the symbolic victory of forcing the British to negotiate with an Indian leader on equal terms was a significant moral and strategic win. This shifted public opinion and built the capacity of the Indian independence movement for future struggles. The campaign also demonstrated the power of nonviolent resistance, inspiring mass mobilizations that would eventually lead to India's independence. Gandhi's ability to focus on his Guiding Star, rather than getting sidetracked by the immediate, lesser objectives, ultimately helped dismantle British imperial rule in India. Read more: Shiva, V. (2021). Satyagraha: The Highest Practise of Democracy and Freedom . Social Change, 51(1), 80-91. Sharma, A. (2015) Gandhi’s Non-Violent “Raid” During the Salt March . TOOL Star Setting Take a piece of paper and plot the guiding star and near star of the system you want to change in the top left-hand corner. Then plot your campaign's guiding star and near star in the top right. Both need to be inspiring, meaningful, and compelling. As Donella Meadows says: “Good systems goals - the guiding stars and near stars of the world, the system we want - require: Going for the good of the whole Expand time horizons Expand thought horizons Expand the boundaries of caring Celebrate complexity Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Section 3 Navigation Chapter 14 Values are bedrock Values are the bedrock of worldviews, shaping decisions, communities, and behaviors. To move stakeholders, campaigns must appeal to values they already prioritize—especially community (ethics, connection) and autonomy (openness to change). A stakeholder will want to act if we appeal to their values. Just as the moon, winds, and ocean currents shape the seas, the ocean floor (bedrock) also plays a crucial role by affecting the density and temperature of the water above it. Values are the bedrock or foundation of our worldview. They shape our behaviors, the communities we join, and even the people and media that set the rules for our world. Value priorities are our preferred values. They serve as standards, guiding us in deciding what is good or worthwhile. They can change slowly, or quickly if in a crisis where for example someone’s value priority of altruism might shift in order to put food on the table for their family. As campaigners and communicators, our target audience may not always prioritize the same values as us. As one strategic comms expert offered: “Remember: We are not the audience.” Our task is to appeal to certain value priorities in certain situations. We can frame messages to bring different values to the fore, helping to strengthen our audience’s ability to experience and use those values in their own decision-making. “You can't get people to change, except in the direction that they want to change.” Milton Rokeach / Shalom Schwarz We have created a guide to framing messages for different relationships and audiences based on their values, adapted from the work of Liz Manne and Harmony Labs, based on Shalom Schwarz. This guide starts by laying out four areas of value priorities: Autonomy (I): Openness to change (values like hedonism, stimulation, self-direction). These values prioritize seeking new experiences. Community (Us): Self-transcendence (values like universalism, benevolence). These values prioritize ethics, new ideas, and connecting actions to values. Authority (Me): Self-enhancement (values like achievement, power). These values prioritize personal success and influence. Order (We): Conservation (values like security, conformity, tradition). These values prioritize stability and self-esteem. This framework helps us identify the values of key relationships and individuals that maintain the system’s equilibrium. It also guides us in framing our messages to influence these relationships and stakeholders. “Feed what you want to grow, not what you want to fight - Building narrative power demands building new vocabularies. This requires making people familiar with your ideas rather than using old, harmful frames and tropes to get your point across.” Thomas Coombes To galvanize action for social or environmental change, we must appeal to the bigger than self intrinsic values of community (self-transcendence) and autonomy (openness to change). If we try to appeal just to self-interest or social status values, we are being incoherent with our mission, less effective and not building the changes we want to see. When combined with other tools discussed in this Section, we have a comprehensive way to target and frame all our messaging. Read more: Liz Manne and Harmony Labs’ Narrative Observatory on audiences, with examples from the USA: https://narrativeobservatory.org/audiences CONCEPT Ten Basic Personal Values Shalom Schwarz identified ten basic personal values identifiable across multiple cultures: conformity, tradition, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism and benevolence. The Public Interest Research Centre (PIRC) created a values map to show where some of these values and their components are related. We recommend looking at the map to explore how close certain values are to each other. If a target audience prioritizes one value, it will be easiest to get them to prioritize another close to that value on the map. While helpful for considering groupings of values, we do not recommend it for targeted campaign planning purposes. Sources: *The values map and wheel are both from: Holmes T., Blackmore, E., Hawkins, R. and Wakeford, T. (2011), The Common Cause Handbook: Public Interest Research Centre https://publicinterest.org.uk/download/values/Common%20Cause%20Handbook.pdf STORY Religious Values & Climate Change, Indonesia Religion has proven to be a powerful lens, or worldview, through which people organize in Indonesia, particularly during elections like the 2019 Presidential Election. Indonesia is highly vulnerable to climate change, experiencing climate-related impacts and disasters annually, but there is not yet a unifying narrative around the drivers of and solutions to the climate crisis. With 1,340 ethnic groups and over 700 local languages, defining and identifying climate change the way that Western media and scientists do is challenging. It is liminal—existing between different beliefs and at the edges of understanding. While some local languages can describe climate phenomena as “pancaroba”, “pagebluk” or “paceklik,” there is no single term that encapsulates the scientific concept of climate change. In Indonesia, national climate audience research revealed that Indonesians place greater trust in local government figures and faith leaders over national government officials or NGOs. With 87% of the population being Sunni Muslim, Islam plays a significant role in shaping cultural and political dynamics. However, communicating the urgency of climate change in 2019 was challenging due to the diverse cultural and linguistic landscape, where Western scientific terminology wasn't easily understood or accepted. The MOSAIC (Muslims for Shared Actions on Climate Impact) campaign formed to mobilize Indonesians for climate action by aligning the message with their existing values and belief systems. The campaign needed to effectively engage the population by leveraging the values of Community (self-transcendence), prioritizing ethics, new ideas, and connecting actions to values. This approach emphasized the ethical responsibility of Muslims to protect the environment, connecting climate action with Islamic teachings on stewardship and benevolence. The campaign did this through Ecosystem Mapping and Engagement: The campaign began with comprehensive ecosystem mapping to identify key players and understand their values, needs, and current actions. Significant Islamic organizations like Nahdlatul Ulama, Muhammadiyah, and the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) were identified as pivotal due to their influence and alignment with the values of community and benevolence. These organizations were engaged through dialogue and collaboration to promote environmental stewardship as a core Islamic value. Building Trust and Collaboration: Trust and collaboration were built through various convenings, including the organization of the "Kongres Umat Islam untuk Indonesia Lestari" (Muslims Congress for Sustainable Indonesia). Triggering the Community values priority: This congress emphasized the ethical responsibility of Muslims to care for the environment, framing climate action as a moral imperative rooted in Islamic values. The manifesto developed at the congress was endorsed by the vice president, a prominent Islamic leader, further reinforcing the message. Developing Initiatives: Following the congress, the campaign developed several initiatives aligned with the values of community and self-transcendence: Islamic Philanthropy for Climate Funding: "Sedekah Energy" and "Forest Waqf" to encourage community-based environmental action, linking charitable giving with sustainability efforts. Training and incubation projects: “Bengkel Hijrah Iklim” projects led by Islamic youth leaders to empower the next generation of environmental advocates. Knowledge Hub: A "Fiqht for Just Energy Transition" to legitimize and socialize climate action within the Islamic community, ensuring that actions are grounded in religious teachings. Social media platform: “Umat untuk Semesta” was a social media platform focused on the intersection of Islam and the environment, helping to spread the message of climate action as a communal and ethical responsibility. The campaign successfully Engaged millions of Muslims across Indonesia by connecting climate action with Islamic values of benevolence and community. Gained recognition from media outlets like AP, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Got endorsed by the Indonesian Vice President and the Great Imam of Istiqlal, the biggest mosque in Southeast Asia. Laid the foundation for a sustainable, values-driven climate movement. TOOL Finding Bedrock Which values are driving your mission and driving the key stakeholders or relationships you need to influence? Are you appealing to the bigger than self values of community or autonomy? How might you tap into your audiences’ own bigger than self values? Part 1 Draw the values chart on the left. Write on Post-Its and place on the chart: Your organization or campaign’s mission; The key relationship(s) that you need to influence; The deep loop elements that maintain the system; The communities that are most trusted by the key relationships; The messengers most trusted by the key relationships. Discuss where the Post-Its are clustered and where there are gaps. What does this tell you about the gaps in values that you need to cross in order for your targets to act? Part 2 Now, how might you frame your message to appeal to the community and autonomy values in your audiences? How could you get them to think bigger than themselves and take action? As a group, draft messages that could activate this value priority in your audience, in line with your campaign mission. Consider how these messages could work within your existing campaign branding or messaging, advocacy and communications Seek opportunities to test these messages using the techniques in Chapter 15: Decisions are Learned and Chapter 16: Emotion is Oxygen . Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Section 1 System Chapter 1 We live in systems There is no single set of definitions for the key concepts in systems thinking and strategic communication — even the word “narrative” does not translate well into many languages other than English. For the purpose of shared understanding, however, it’s helpful to form a shared vocabulary we will use together with the S.E.N.S.E. methodology. Here is our definition of key terms: strategy, communications, and systems. Strategy Strategy: A plan of action to achieve a specific goal. It involves different actions or tactics in different places and times. Communications Communication: The broadcasting or exchanging of information, knowledge, or ideas through speech, writing, non-verbal cues, electronic or traditional media, and large-scale societal conversations. Communication is the glue that holds strategy together and propels it forward in the real world. Strategies that treat communications as an afterthought often fail. Simply broadcasting information, especially alarming or controversial content, can exacerbate denial and polarization. Framing: The choices we make regarding how to present ideas (consciously or unconsciously) that shape how people think, feel, and act, usually geared towards long-term shifts. We frame ideas using the following building blocks: Narrative: A big idea that helps you understand the world - like the bootstraps narrative of making your own success through hard work. A narrative contains types of characters, plots, and places - like the Hero’s Journey. Narratives are made up of stories. Story: A specific account of events or ideas. A story contains particular characters, plots, and places, such as Luke Skywalker in Star Wars. Stories are made up of messages. Message: An idea, talking point, phrase, or hashtag that suits the political moment, usually geared towards a short-term attitude/behavior change. Strategic Communications: An intentional communications program designed to advance progress toward a defined goal. To achieve this purpose, strategies weave together approaches from various communications disciplines, including but not limited to public relations, media engagement, influencer and digital marketing, advertising, issue campaigns, cyber advocacy, and more. Effective strategic communications begins with effectively understanding the target audience. This typically involves engaging that audience with your knowledge or ideas to inspire a shift in understanding, action, or decisions. To do this: Identify and listen to the appropriate target audience. Craft and exchange tailored, values-based information through the most effective messenger and relevant channels at the right time, in a repeated process. Design and deliver strategies and tactics from the most relevant communications disciplines, including public and media relations, influencer and digital marketing, and social and audience research. Narrative change work attempts to influence the narratives that shape laws, societies and norms, and how they are implemented. Systems Systems: Arrangements of tangible elements (e.g., people and institutions) and intangible elements (values and norms) working together towards a common goal, like in a natural ecosystem, a government, or the human body. Linear strategic thinking assumes a direct cause-and-effect relationship between elements. The classic approach involves: Defining the problem Setting a S.M.A.R.T. goal Identifying a target decision-maker and/or audience Outlining a strategy with objectives Defining and executing tactics and plans Linear thinking can work in ordered, less complex situations with few actors, but it often fails when we are seeking systemic change. Systems thinking focuses on the relationships among a system's parts, not just the parts themselves. It is like seeing a forest and understanding how trees, soil, animals, and weather interact to form an interconnected system. In systems thinking, the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and the connections between parts are crucial. Tackling problems as systems Winning campaigns, programs and projects require an effective narrative change strategy - with strategic communications and systems thinking at its heart. Use the tool in this chapter to practice applying a system lens to a common problem analysis approach, a Context Analysis, or P.E.S.T.L.E. analysis. A Context Analysis includes factors like social norms and key audiences who are not always visible but do shape the system and status quo.** Footnote: ** To run a P.E.S.T.L.E. analysis, list out the political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental factors that are or could be affecting the challenge or system that you’re facing. To run a Context Analysis, list out the social norms, narratives, emotions and audience identities as well as the P.E.S.T.L.E. factors above. CONCEPT Systems thinking embraces interconnectedness The way many of us are taught to think about solving problems is most effective for simple challenges and controlled classroom exercises. Decades of mainstream education and socialization - rooted in ‘enlightenment thinking’ from Europe - have taught us to break the world into manageable pieces and see issues in isolation from each other, addressing each challenge in turn. This common sense problem-solving approach implicitly informs how adults in many of the world’s cultures and geographies address challenges they face in their working lives, be that setting government policy or defining a company's corporate strategy. While this might be the most effective approach for organizing a family to share household chores or friends to divide up buying groceries at the supermarket, it is rarely the right approach for making real-world progress on solving more significant environmental and societal issues. The problem with this ‘common sense’ approach is that it tends to focus on treating the most visible symptoms, but not actually solving the root causes of what we see. But when we look at the world through a systems lens, we see that everything is interconnected. Problems are connected to many elements within dynamic systems. If we just treat one symptom, the effects of our interventions often lead to unintended consequences elsewhere in the system. Systems thinking shows us that everything is part of a larger whole and that the connections between all elements are critical. It helps us to be more effective.* Real-world systems are often non-linear and complex rather than being neatly organized into structured layers. So, where do we even begin? Diagrams like those below help us to understand the layers of a system initially. If you’re familiar with a P.E.S.T.L.E. (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, Environmental) Analysis of the issue you are facing, that’s a good place to start. The S.E.N.S.E. Methodology takes inspiration from the MobLab to adapt and extend a PESTLE analysis with a systems lens. Read through the story below as an example, and try using the tools to look at your challenges through a system lens. Footnote: *With thanks to MobLab (text adapted from MobLab presentation) STORY Help Delhi Breathe, India Delhi citizens were frustrated. By the winter of 2015, decades of air pollution in Delhi had risen to their worst levels, among the worst in the world. Human activity and demand for goods had driven industrial pollution through crop burning, and vehicle and infrastructural emissions. Together with inadequate government measures, this had big ecological impacts on Delhi and beyond. Campaigners saw how these layers of the system were interconnected, and how many different social groups were affected. They knew that bringing together Delhi’s different groups would be key to getting the government to change its policies to improve air quality. Then, they formed the Help Delhi Breathe campaign as a platform for people to share their concerns and mobilize actions. This was rooted in a broader national movement - the National Coalition for Clean Air. The Delhi campaign used social media and on-the-ground networks to spread awareness and engage people in a different vision for the city and its communities. Mobilizing Interconnected Communities The campaign connected with stakeholders who were all directly affected by the pollution: local groups, long-time activists and new participants. It used creative messaging to spread awareness and mobilize action. They targeted specific influential tech-savvy middle- and upper-class groups: Mothers and Schools: Schools monitored air quality and communicated the dangers to families, making mothers key advocates for clean air. This group was hard for those in power to ignore. Entrepreneurs: Small business leaders and startups, like a company making stylish breathing masks, joined the campaign, promoting solutions and organizing events like Clean Air Fairs. This showed that those in industry, responsible for the root cause of pollution, wanted action. Expatriates: Foreigners living in Delhi, used to stricter environmental standards, voiced their concerns, drawing more attention to the issue. Many of these people had strong connections with industry and the government. Direct actions for stakeholders to take and feel part of something bigger: Events: To demonstrate diverse support across society: The first air pollution rally in January 2016, which mobilized hundreds and sparked media debate, leading to the government’s new transportation policy. To show business support: The campaign organized the Clean Air Fair which brought green businesses and local organizations together to promote climate solutions. Petitions gathering nearly 100,000 signatures each: For air pollution displays - so all stakeholders could see the current air quality status. For approval of Delhi’s Solar Policy - so people and businesses could hold the government to account. Systemic Approach to Maintaining Momentum It takes time to build campaign architecture to influence the human and industrial layers of the system, and shift the thinking of decision-makers. Help Delhi Breathe sustained pressure and momentum by: Organizing and engaging communities: Smaller activities during less polluted seasons. Partnering with grassroots groups to push for renewable solutions, like residential solar power. Running digital and offline campaigns including polls, videos and social media content that reached millions. Help Delhi Breathe influenced public discourse, engaged diverse community groups, and successfully pressured the government to recognize and address the air pollution crisis. The campaign engaged thousands of citizens and organizations and gained 50 media mentions and millions of social media views. It also trained 40 Solar Ambassadors, created 1,750 solar assessment leads, and supported nationwide coalitions for clean air, setting a foundation for ongoing environmental advocacy. As a result, the government approved a new Solar Policy for Delhi, and the Health Minister committed to installing air quality displays so that the public could monitor their air quality at any time. Read more: https://mobilisationlab.org/stories/help-delhi-breathe-clean-air-delhi/ and https://www.purpose.com/case_studies/help-delhi-breathe. TOOL Problem Statement and Systems Circles Write down the problem you are trying to solve in 1-2 sentences. Make sure you are clear on the differences between the problem and its short- and long-term causes and consequences. Systems Circles Draw the concentric circles above on an A3 sheet and stick up on the wall. Gather a set of Post-Its. Write down and stick on each key factor that is influencing the way this system functions, one per Post-It. If you’re in a group, work individually first and then only afterwards compare notes. Write down and stick on the diagram, each actor who can help solve the problem or make it worse.; and each driving force who may persuade the decision-makers. Draw relationship lines (thick lines for strong influences or relationships, thin lines for weak ones) between the Post-Its. Group the factors. Among these, also add a question mark to any about which you are uncertain. Step Back and Discuss Consider the Problem Chart and Systems Circles together: What do these diagrams tell you about the challenge you’re facing? How do communications power those relationships? “A system is never the sum of its parts; it's the product of their interaction.” Russell L. Ackoff Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Section 3 Navigation Chapter 10 Narrative is water Narratives are like water flowing through a system, shaping how people see the world and what they believe is possible.They are more powerful than facts alone and determine how messages are received. To create change, we must identify dominant and counter-narratives, understand how they are told and heard, and use framing strategies to shift worldviews. If we think of the system as layers of soil, then narrative (the lens through which we see the world) is the water that flows through it. We need to reach a person or institution before we can create messages that get them to help shift the system. We also need to understand that person or institution before we navigate toward them. Surprisingly, the first step to knowing an audience is to understand the narratives and deep narratives that shape and feed the system that they live within. “Narratives explain how society should work. Narratives use values to establish norms and compel people to either enforce these norms or to change these norms. Narratives shape reasoning and response, common sense and consensus. They shape and reshape the boundaries of what is possible.” Jen Soriano, Joseph Phelan, Kimberly Freeman Brown, Hermelinda Cortés, Jung Hee Choi, Creating an Ecosystem for Narrative Power Do not confuse the system narrative (what we all experience) with the values of those in power or those who can influence the powerful. We will focus on values in Chapter 14. “While the statement ‘Black Lives Matter’ on the surface holds a very clear and straightforward meaning, when tied to stories of police murders of unarmed Black people, these stories create a larger narrative of systematic and violent oppression of Black people in the U.S.” ReFrame report To explain how narratives work, we have used a water chart: Worldviews and narratives shift during a crisis. It is not one single story but multiple stories told by different people, the media, the social media, the government, the civil society, your family members, that confirm narratives or counter-narratives and shape our worldview. Narratives define how people believe and act. We can provide a lot of facts and information, but the narratives will ultimately shape how this information is understood and the path of change. For example, if you grew up with the narrative that hard work leads to success (like ‘the American Dream’) then this becomes common sense and you are going to work hard. It becomes difficult for you to step back from or dismantle that narrative, even with lots of facts and information that might disprove this belief. Framing: The choices we make in how to present ideas (consciously or unconsciously) that shape how people think, feel and act, usually geared towards long term shifts.’ We frame ideas using the following building blocks: Deep Narrative: The dominant mindset in a system that helps people and institutions within the system to understand the world. Like the 12 notes on a musical stave, it defines the limits of our understanding. Similar to the “Why” level of a system. Narrative: A big idea defined by people in power, to help us understand the world - like the bootstraps narrative of making your own success through hard work. A narrative shapes what we think, believe and do. Like music, it can be felt deeply. A narrative contains types of characters, plots, places - like the Hero’s Journey. Narratives are made up of stories. Similar to the “Who” level of a system. Stories: The widespread major access points for understanding - a specific account of events or ideas that we see, hear or experience together, reinforcing a narrative. A story contains particular characters, plots and places - like Luke Skywalker in Star Wars or a particular piece of music. Similar to the “Where” level of a system. Interactions: The exchanges and feedbacks of information which enables a narrative to flow and a system to function. Like when musicians interact with each other in “call and response.” Similar to the “How” level of a system. Message / Messaging: A piece of information, talking point, phrase or hashtag that suits the political moment, usually geared towards a short term attitude/behavior change. Like individual musical notes. Similar to the “What” level of a system. Now that we have identified the system (Section 1) and the relationships and deep loop that power it (Section 2), in this chapter we look at the narratives that maintain the system’s health. Learn how to reach and activate key audiences before thinking about tactics. The steps to take are these: Identify and deconstruct the main narratives and possible counter narratives in the system according to: Our own assumptions and possible biases: We are all a product of our cultures and upbringings. White supremacy is one example but there are many -isms that can influence our unconscious thinking and our very ability to spot bias. Story world: What is the setting, central plot and who are the key characters? This is the environment in which the narrative plays out. Employment by a multinational company to extract and export natural resources could be presented as a way out of poverty for young people. Every story has a villain. Who is it here? Story told: Who is telling the story? Why are we expected to trust this story or person? The identity of the storyteller influences how the narrative is received and understood. We might trust a community leader more than a President. Story heard: What are we led to believe? Who is winning, losing or being blamed? How can we intervene? There may be a story underneath the one we are being told. Might others understand this story differently from us, depending on their situation? What is the purpose of that story in this context? Map these narratives and the media that can support or block them using an ocean chart. Consider what role you need to play to support the new/counter narrative: create, counter, amplify, reframe or attach. For a narrative to become popular we must ensure different people retell the narrative in their own words and stories. CONCEPT How Populists Use Narratives Populists use crises to shift narratives. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was reported that the oil industry quickly moved to activate different people to tell stories that this would create a scarcity of resources which meant oil and petrol prices had to increase. Civil society organizations in general need to improve their narrative skills during crises although there are some examples of good work. See Chapter 19: Foresight is 20:20 for tips on how to plan in advance for crises and opportunities. In the figure below, Mindworks Lab in India shows how harmful narratives against religious minorities are constructed and amplified by different stories and messages across different institutions, and levels of the system. CONCEPT The Features of Narrative For every narrative there is a possible counter-narrative. See the example below of the dominant narratives and counter-narratives concerning the death penalty, immigration, and economic inequality. While these will vary depending on the country and society, there are common themes which appear. It is important to understand how these show up in our country in order to cultivate the right counter-narrative. The second diagram here shows the different aspects we need to consider when cultivating a counter-narrative. Example: Narrative power analysis - Story Told Source (both tables and adapted table) FrameWorks Institute. (2021). The Features of Narratives: A Model of Narrative Form for Social Change Efforts. FrameWorks Institute. Read more: Frameworks Institute MetGroup Mindworks Lab Narrative Initiative STORY Women Use Anlu for Social and Political Change, Cameroon In 1958, the women farmers of the Kom and Kedjom areas in the Western Grassfields of Cameroon faced several threats that they perceived as systematically undermining their power. These included the encroachment of Fulani cattle on their farmlands, the imposition of a new farming method (contour cultivation), and rumors that their land might be sold to Nigerian control by the Kamerun National Congress (KNC), a political party aligned with Nigeria. The women needed to counter these threats by challenging the existing power structures and narratives that sought to diminish their influence. They aimed to protect their land, assert their authority, and influence the political direction of their region in favor of the Kamerun National Democratic Party (KNDP), which opposed the KNC. Local women tapped into a traditional women's practise and network called anlu to organize a large-scale nonviolent resistance campaign to counter this narrative. The network was traditionally used to punish those who broke social norms - creating leverage at the Why and Who levels of the system. This network had leverage that Cameroonian men could not oppose. Campaign activities The anlu campaign took the following approach: Actions: 40 mile-march by thousands of women to converge on Njinikom, where they held weekly demonstrations, disrupted colonial meetings, and mocked colonial officials and local men in power. Symbolism: Women protesters dressed in symbolic clothing, such as rags, greenery, and men’s clothes, and carried branches to imitate guns, challenging traditional gender roles and claiming power typically reserved for men. Alliance: They aligned themselves with the KNDP political party, which were in opposition to the KNC. Nonviolent resistance: Protest disrobing, singing, taunting officials, and social disobedience. Challenges to system infrastructure (How level) and inputs and outputs (What level): lowering school attendance by 50-70% by pulling their children out of schools associated with the KNC party. Powerful new narrative: They created a parallel government, with their leaders taking on titles that mocked the British colonial system. To create this powerful new narrative, the women farmers built a popular and irresistible narrative to shift the power back to them: Narrative change approach Challenging Assumptions and Possible Bias: Women farmers recognized that the colonial authorities and local male leaders tended to operate under the biases of colonialism and patriarchy, seeing the women as lacking the authority or capability to challenge political and agricultural decisions. The women used their cultural knowledge, such as the power of anlu as a social enforcement mechanism, to counteract these assumptions. The women farmers’ actions also challenged the internalized biases within their community, asserting that women could not only participate in but lead political resistance. This campaign forced both the local men and the colonial powers to confront their own biases about gender and power. Story World Setting: The rural Western Grassfields of Cameroon, under the control of colonial powers and influenced by local patriarchal structures. The villains’ narrative promoted new agricultural practices and political control, while the women fought to maintain their way of life and power within their community. Central plot: The women farmers’ struggle to protect their land, autonomy, and traditional practices against external threats. Key characters: The women farmers of Kom and Kedjom (protagonists); The colonial authorities and local male leaders (antagonists); The KNDP political party was in a supporting role, in opposition to the colonial-aligned KNC. Story Told Storytellers: Mainly the women of the anlu movement. They are the narrators of their resistance, using actions, symbols, and traditions to communicate their story to both their community and the colonial powers. Frame: Empowerment, justice, and resistance against oppression. Trust: Is created because the story is rooted in the lived experiences and cultural knowledge of these women farmers, making it authentic and resonant with their community. Position: The anlu women use their position as community members and the guardians of social norms to lend credibility to their actions and their cause. Story Heard At first the colonial authorities and local male leaders may have seen the women’s resistance as a disruptive, irrational challenge to established order. But the underlying story that resonated with the public and increasingly understood by authorities was a story of righteous resistance to oppression, a call for justice, and a demand for respect and recognition of their rights. Within the women farmer community the story was heard as a powerful assertion of their agency and a challenge to both colonial and patriarchal authority. Success The women farmers’ anlu campaign was highly successful because it: Made the traditional government powerless to deal with the campaign. Sabotaged the efforts of non-supporters. Significantly disrupted the colonial administration. Their efforts also contributed to an electoral victory for the KNDP in 1959. Over the next few years, the government gradually met the movement’s demands. The anlu movement became an immense political force in the region, influencing Cameroon’s independence movement. Read more: https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/cameroonian-women-use-anlu-social-and-political-change-1958-1961 STORY Miniskirt March, Zimbabwe In Zimbabwe, one traditional view claims that women should not wear revealing clothes, or risk public harassment. But in December 2014, a video showed a woman in Harare being publicly harassed and stripped naked, causing public outrage. Women activists came together to challenge and change the cultural ideology that allowed public harassment of women and to create safe spaces for women. They did this by: Understanding the Power of Narrative Seizing the Moment: Activists knew the video of the men harassing and shaming the woman went viral nationally and globally, drawing attention and outrage. Creating a Counter Narrative: Activists decided to use this moment of “shame” to cultivate a counter-narrative that women have pride and power, pushing back against the cultural norms that claimed to justify harassment. Organizing Protests Miniskirt March: Katswe Sistahood, a women's rights group working on sexual and reproductive rights, organised a street march where 200 women wore miniskirts and tight-fitting clothes, shouting “We can dress as we please.” The march was publicized through grassroots organizations and word-of-mouth. Shocking the Establishment Gaining Attention: The march received mixed reactions from the public but was significant in raising awareness about women's rights and the need for safe spaces. Mass Street Action: Scores of women marched through Harare, openly defying the cultural norms and protesting against street harassment. Men among the elites were shamed into action. The government and police took action in response Justice: The men who harassed the woman in the video were arrested and faced charges. Influential support: The march gained the support of political leaders who advocated for women's freedom to dress as they please. Narrative Shift: The protest helped grow a counter narrative of pride and empowerment among women in society, countering the shaming fed by the more traditional view it opposed. Momentum: Women had transformed their collective strength and demanded their right to safety and freedom of expression. That said, the women’s movement did not always agree on the approaches taken to this challenge, which arguably may have reduced its impact. Gender inequality and the women’s movement continue their fight in Zimbabwe as they do around the world. Read more: https://beautifultrouble.org/toolbox/tool/miniskirt-march TOOL Narrative Ripples In a group, examine your Soil Chart (Section 1), and Relationship Constellations and Deep Loop (Section 2). Individually, take 15 minutes to: Consider your own bias: We are all a product of our circumstances and upbringings. White supremacy is one example but there are many -isms that can influence our unconscious thinking and our very ability to spot bias. Write down the accepted, counter- and emergent narratives that are unfolding in the system. Write these down on Post-Its and place them on the chart to show how they are unfolding across the system. In a group, take 10 minutes to: Place on the chart the most used media platforms/channels where the main narrative is told; and those that might back your counter-narrative. Discuss how you can help the new/counter narrative, through these media channels using the five tactics mentioned earlier in the chapter: Create: Do you need to seed a new deep narrative, narrative or story? Counter: Do you need to deal with another harmful narrative before or at the same time as communicating your own? Amplify: Do others in the system need to be heard more widely? Reframe: Do you need to shift how people understand an existing story? Attach: Can you use a crisis or opportunity to promote your alternative narrative? For more on how to deal with a crisis or opportunity, see Section 4: Storms . Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Section 1 System Purpose To understand the overlapping systems we live in that are both moving and restrictive. How to use this section Read this before you do any other analysis of the problem. What is a system? A system is an arrangement of tangible elements (e.g. people and institutions) and intangible elements (values and norms) working together toward a common goal, like in a natural ecosystem, a government or the human body. Here, we use layers of earth and a soil chart to explain systems, the various actors within them, and the effects of changes within them. We live in systems The Lakota people of North America and Indigenous Australians do not have a word for "nature" because they see humans and nature as one system, not separate entities. This interconnected view is a more logical and strategic way to see and understand the world. Simplicity in complexity Push your hands into the soil, and you may feel earth, seeds, shoots, rocks and insects. Removing what you think is a weed or pest can affect the growth of nearby plants. Understanding that we are all interconnected is the first step to understanding complexity. Learning the difference between ordered, complex and chaotic systems helps us define our approach. Levels are levers Exploring a system deeply helps us understand why its structure works. Each level of a system is like a layer of soil, with deeper layers having more control. To change a system fundamentally, we need to understand its deepest parts. Autonomy is a myth Many systems thinking use the metaphor of an iceberg to emphasize the importance of considering the hidden problems beneath the surface. This is useful, but thinking about soil layers is better. First, most of us will never see an iceberg in person, but all of us can put our fingers into the earth. Second, we believe it is essential to emphasize the connections between the many elements of a system. Rather than just ice, a system consists of roots, rocks, water, dirt, seeds, and worms, all in active connection. Footnote: * https://silvotherapy.co.uk/articles/nature-connection-native-americans Section summary Previous Chapter Next Chapter