Leaders of environmental organizations, social justice groups and others in the progressive movement sometimes must turn to groups very unlike their own as they seek additional support for their cause. For example, environmentalists have begun courting evangelicals, who see environmental protection as a form of stewardship, even though enviros and evangelicals disagree on many other policy matters.
Reaching out to such groups – sometimes called “Strange Bedfellows Groups” or SBG’s, presents special challenges of communication. People in these groups experience the world – both cognitively and emotionally – very differently the way your base does. It’s critical to build a deep understanding of the ideas, beliefs and values of such groups in order to build a strong and durable relationship with them.
The Communications Challenge
Designing effective communications strategies requires close analysis to understand the mindset of the target audience. This assessment has both cognitive and affective dimensions. Several aspects of the audience mind-set should be considered:
Pragmatic self-interest: How the audience views their direct interest – what they have at stake in the issue at hand.
The Controlling Frame: The conceptual structure that the audience refers to (consciously or unconsciously) as they form their opinions about the issue at hand.
Learning Strategies and Related Beliefs: The habits of thought used by the audience to filter through the information that is presented to them and decide whether or not to trust it.
Pragmatic Self Interest
Pragmatic self-interest addresses the question of “What’s in it for me?” Any prospective strange bedfellows partner has arrived at an understanding of their self-interest. You may feel their understanding of their own interest is accurate, or not.[1] Frankly, it makes no difference. They will judge your proposal based on their understanding of their interests, not yours. If you can’t explain your proposal convincingly in terms of their self interest, as they define it, further progress is unlikely.
Sometimes it is possible to find alignment on matters of pragmatic self-interest even with groups that disagree on many of the issues. For example, consider the stance of business groups toward climate protection legislation. Many business interests oppose action to reduce carbon emissions. However, at the same time, they favor having a stable context in which to make large, long range investment decisions with confidence. A power company investing in a power plant that will last 30-50 years wants predictability regarding carbon pricing. Consequently there is room to build business support for climate protection, if the proposal meets power company’s goals for long term stability in pricing and regulatory requirements.
Another basis for mutual self-interest that is often not obvious has to do with the mechanisms used to implement policy change. For example, business may not want to see carbon output limited, but when faced with a high likelihood of government intervention, many businesses would rather see reform through legislative action (which companies can influence through lobbying) than have the regulation imposed by agencies, depending on the administration.
The Controlling Frame
A frame is a structure of ideas that people invoke to create clarity, order, and meaning out of their experience and to draw conclusions, particularly when faced with novel situations or ambiguous information. As George Lakoff[2], and many others have observed framing is inescapable in political discourse. The frame, once established, determines how people will reason, which facts they will acknowledge, who they will listen to, and what conclusion they will ultimately reach. The competition between groups to set the frame often determines who will succeed in electing their candidate or passing their desired legislation.
All of us hold many frames in mind simultaneously, however the Controlling Frame in any given situation is the one that we rely on to explain the situation at hand. For example, after the 9/11 attacks there were a few brief days of ambiguity during which it is not yet clear whether the attack would be interpreted to the public in the “crime” frame or the “war” frame. In the crime frame, we pursue the perpetrator, bring him and his accomplices to justice, and that’s it. In the “war” frame, we must vanquish an entire nation or people before we can declare victory. Once the “war” frame was set, all the consequences were inescapable.
In Strange Bedfellows situations, we often see a clash among the controlling frames held by the groups involved. This collision can create enormous difficulty rhetorically. For example in the climate change context, environmentalists see the fundamental frame as about protecting the environment, protecting nature. Those involved in business and commerce see the fundamental frame as about protecting the economy, protecting business, protecting the sources of jobs and prosperity. It’s important to recognize that in this case both sides see the situation as one of protection -- protecting that which is held most dear, and felt to be most central to one’s core identity, both personally and professionally. But they differ in their understanding of what is most important to protect.
In long term movement building, Lakoff points out that one should never step into the framing of the other side, even to refute it.[3] It implies that the argument should center on getting people to care more about the environment than they do about economic growth. Our experience indicates that on a short term, tactical basis, there may not be enough time, or enough money, or enough access to media to accomplis a broad and pervasive change on this scale. It is often more effective, when working with strange bedfellows groups, to work within the controlling frame of the other group, and truthfully demonstrate how your proposal addresses what they care about at the deepest level.
To explain this in the context of climate change, when advocates of climate protection address the business community by saying, in effect “your business needs to suffer so that the nation and the world can survive” it is a direct challenge to the controlling frame used by those we wish to engage. It’s far better to explain truthfully to the business world that it’s in their individual financial interest, and the national economic interest to move America to a more forward-looking energy policy. By moving forward, quickly, we can strengthen our economy, promote entrepreneurship in critical technologies, make America more competitive, create jobs and consumer demand, and huge eliminate hidden costs of energy that push our taxes up.
Learning Strategies and Related Beliefs
People vary widely in the strategies they use to decide what information to trust, and they employ a broad range of background beliefs as filters which they apply to any new message they receive. Subcultures within our society show important differences as well. These differences need to be recognized and acknowledged in crafting communications to Strange Bedfellows groups.
A simple example of this is Problem Talk vs. Solution Talk. Business people motivate themselves and others by creating an exciting vision for a future that doesn’t exist yet, and then showing how that future can be built. The titles of best-selling business books illustrate this: “In Search of Excellence”, “Quest for Value”, “Good to Great” and so on. We don’t see best selling business books with titles like “How Not to Go Broke”. The business culture won't respond to this approach.
The global warming conversation to date has emphasized the problem to be stopped rather than the better future to be built. Even the names used to label the subject reinforce this impression: We label the issue as “global warming” and “climate change” rarely “climate protection” and more rarely still, “America’s Energy Advantage.” The imagery of melting glaciers and starving polar bears reinforces this stance.
Business culture does not usually respond well to problem-avoidance language; it is likely to respond better to a well-crafted and plausible description of the better future that’s within reach.[4]
Conclusion
The cultivation of Strange Bedfellows Groups is an important part of building alliances for social change. Special care is needed when reaching out to Strange Bedfellows because their beliefs and values usually differ markedly from your own, sometimes in ways that are quite subtle. Fortunately, it is possible through in-depth research and analysis to develop a more robust understanding of prospective Strange Bedfellows partners, and how they view the world. And with that understanding, it is possible to build much more powerful alliances.
------------------------------------------ Notes
[1] As Thomas Frank pointed out in his famous work What’s the Matter with Kansas, large groups can readily misunderstand which policies best advance their material interests, and this vulnerability is easily exploited.
[2] See for example Lakoff, George Moral Politics (1996) and Don’t Think of an Elephant (2004) for an explanation of framing and political discourse.
[3] Reiterating the opposition frame tends to reinforce it, as when Nixon said “I am not a crook”, it gave a strong impression that he was, in fact, a crook.
[4] The “RePower America” campaign by the Alliance for Climate Protection illustrates solution-oriented language that is more compatible with business modes of thinking.