How to tell stories for the future

If we are to beat the narratives of the far right we need to tell people better stories. But to do that we have to stop thinking about what we feel for a moment and start thinking more about what the people we want to speak to are feeling.

In recent weeks both Common Weal and I have been circling round a similar subject – in the enormous turmoil in which we find ourselves, how did we get here and how do we get out? I've been trying to walk readers through my own thinking on why this has happened.

We've tried to go over the collapse in vision, the reason our economy doesn't work, the way a generation was priced out of housing, how the financial elite have preyed on our crises to get very rich at our expense, how the top ten per cent kept pulling away from everyone else, why we need stories to tell about the future that speak to people.

But none of this is because I'm fatalistic or don't believe we can't get out of it. I just don't think we can get out of it using our old stories. In this article I want to explain what I mean by 'better stories', what I most certainly don't mean – and how to start building them.

I use the term stories here to describe what variously can be called anything from narrative to framing to perception to ideology. Humans organise our environment and try make sense of it by telling stories to ourselves that fit what we see. This gives us everything from gods to the standard model of quantum physics – they're all narratives that explain the available data in ways that makes sense and help us live with and master our reality.

None of us ask why the sun rises every morning these days and few of us even understand the theories that explain the quantum realm. But we care super-deeply about our experience of our lives and we want explanations. At the most basic level, humans are social animals that respond equally to our perception of our material position and our perception of our social position.

If we experience pain and duress in our material conditions or if we feel our social position being challenged or eroded, we need to find a reason why this is happening to us, and what to do about it. Those are the stories that shape how we see our world. They also define how we change it.

I've covered in some depth why our current stories aren't working. But that does not mean we cannot find strong stories that do work, that win back those we are losing, to give us a new conversation with those we never had, and to galvanise and direct those who are with us.

But before we start that search there is something to clear from our minds first. Stories are not manufactured from the things we want to do. A bullet point list of all of our usual asks and requests does not amount to a story. That is an us thing, not a them thing. Their data is their emotional experience of life and that is where we must start.

We need to find out what they're feeling about their lives and why, what their hopes and aspirations are and how we can describe what we are proposing as a better future – but on their terms.

When we understand what citizens are telling themselves about their lives, why it is happening, who is to blame, we can understand how to build a better story. It has to tell the people we're talking to the same thing they're telling themselves but in a different way which leads them to a better place.

At this point we meet the most difficult question for us as we build these stories – how much can we tolerate the creation of villains? As we construct stories that engage with people who think (correctly) they're hard done by, can we do it without apportioning blame to some malign actor?

Things are caused in one of two ways. Either the laws of nature cause things to happen because it is inevitable (the umbrella response) or what we are experiencing is the result of conscious human action (the make the landlord fix the leak we're sitting under response). This has been the battle ground of centrist politics for years now.

They call the latter approach 'populism', which is garbage. Populism is a very intentionally derogative term that refers to the victimisation of minorities as a governing creed. We know the wealthy would like to put criticism of their wealth and control out of reach, politically-speaking.

But while we should ignore them, we also need to take some care about how we're creating villains. There really are villainous things taking place but we need to do what we can not to personalise it or we just fuel more social division. That is a big task and is largely itself an issue of perception.

“Respect emotion, offer credible explanation for emotion, explain way out of emotion, describe what it will be like emotionally at the other end”

We absolutely must call out those who are to blame for failure and we have to make sure people understand who has gained from this failure, by how much and why. But it is a mistake to generate more hatred, so getting the balance right is important.

Fine, but what does all this look like? These two examples offer no more than a very loose pointer. But I hope you get the idea.

Issue one – ordinary people feel like they lack control over their own life. They feel things are done to them not by them. “What I think doesn't matter”, “no-one listens to me”, “the powerful do whatever they want anyway”. Obviously, they're right.

So what would you do about it? Well, you'd want to look at finding ways to make sure they do have more control over their lives. This is a decentralisation, participatory democracy, economic democracy and economic ownership issue. Empowering people through local governance, making the voice of citizens non-negotiable during policy development, changing how the economy is owned and governed – those are all powerful and popular policy responses.

But for the love of god don't say that. This is the most obtuse, pointy-headed agenda if you start listing policies before you've told the story. So what is the story? Well, 'take back control' has been taken. What’s our audience saying? What is at the heart of this story they're telling themselves? It's that they lack power and social standing. It's that they're second class. They're not at the big table.

Put them at the big table. Make them feel first class. The terminology I use is 'powerful citizens'. So your story is 'the powerful have been controlling you more and more and you are getting less say over your life than ever, so fight back and demand that you get to be a powerful citizen too. Stop them making decisions about you and make your own. The right to be heard when decisions are being made is a right of every person in this country and we will make sure your right is protected'.

It's not a technical policy-making process, it's picking someone up from the floor and telling them 'right, now you're powerful, so take a grip'. Empowered people act. But you need to play on their sense of disempowerment first and you must persuade them you are serious about giving power back. Then the story can work.

Issue two – everyone feels like public services aren't working and that they can't get a doctor's appointment. They don't understand why. They've been told its 'tax' or something. But it all went down hill very fast and their tax burden didn't.

What are the Common Weal solutions? We think there is inordinate waste and demoralisation across public services. We think this greatly reduces productivity and syphons off money. We think a management class has inserted itself between patients/pupils/constituents and frontline services and is absorbing far too much resource.

But this needs told carefully. Health sector managers have a lot to answer for but they're not society's great villains. Turning this into a 'them' thing is risky and basically unfair. But they are a problem. So we need to think about describing this in terms of the alternative.

“I don't care who it is – some manager or some profiteering drugs company – no-one should come between you and your health care and no-one should be allowed to leach off your taxes. We need a Frontline First health service where we crack down on every penny that isn't making it to your health care and where we trust our doctors and nurses again and let them run their hospitals”.

I'd hoped to get a few more examples in but this is only a starter to encourage you to think about the stories that you believe can work and can change our politics. Begin by seeking out the deep felt emotional response of the person you're talking to (anger at powerlessness, despair that you can't get healthcare fast enough).

Be patient and respectful in acknowledging their emotions. Do not do that and then immediately talk about something else you care about but instead give them a reason to think about what they feel on your terms and which leads them towards being susceptible to your solutions. Then don't tell them your solutions but first tell them how your solutions will work in general terms and how it will make them feel when they do work.

That is the story. Then and only then you can start talking about policy. Because, unlike so often, you're actually talking about them and not yourself. Respect emotion, offer credible explanation for emotion, explain way out of emotion, describe what it will be like emotionally at the other end. And then offer practical policy solutions.

I can't tell you how bad we are at this generally. The other side do it much better. We need to learn if we're to beat them.

(**And folks, if you come up with some good stories, let us hear them. Email me them to the usual robin@common.scot address.)