top of page

Competing narratives

"Narratives are the primary way in which we make sense of our lives" - Jacqui Stedmon



What are narratives? 


In most situations there is no clear solution. Worse still, we lack much credible data. In that absence of evidence, hypotheses are developed and we come into the world of narratives. People come to situations with differing starting points and from there we form our narratives. What tends to happen is we and our ideas compete. This situation is a far cry from the decision-making we hope is going on for building a nuclear power plant for example but politics is largely about competing narratives so we should understand it.


I was reminded of competing narratives in the recent 35th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. This was a tragic overcrowding of a football stand where too many away fans were let in eventually resulting in the death of 97 people. The enquiry was an example of a government and media narrative blaming the Liverpool fans, obstructed justice for the families for decades.


We all hope that i) even-handed and impartial people get great data from ii) good sources that they trust and understand and finally iii) make long-term, country-level decisions for the long-term using the research appropriately. However, anyone who has made senior level decisions in government (or large institutions of any kind) know that it is unusual that this process happens. Mostly, it tends to be a battle of competing narratives.


Today’s blog highlights that phenomenon and how decision-makers can arm themselves with a checklist to help them navigate narratives.

 

An example of competing narratives – The rise in anxiety


Anxiety is ostensibly on the rise. Anxiety is an unpleasant state of inner turmoil and includes feelings of dread over anticipated events. This is clearly a bad thing. The challenge comes when trying to get to the bottom of it and combat the rise.


There are differing views on what is driving the rise in anxiety:


  • The use of smartphones has hacked the cognitive functioning of children and makes them feel like they are missing out when not near the phone

  • New parenting approaches encourage children to stay away from things that make them anxious rather than face them head on

  • There is more loneliness and children are not getting enough opportunities to socialise and have fewer real world connections

  • It is a measurement phenomenon, where because more children are being asked about anxiety, we are seeing more recording of it

  • There is medicalisation of what we used to call 'nerves'

 

These narratives are all plausible and have their own advocates. These narratives then compete for how the solution should be framed. Petitions, advocacy groups, newspaper articles, parliamentary debate etc. formed around these narratives push for the solution to be focused on their interpretation of what’s going on.

 

The problems with narratives

 

Competing narratives are often short of data and long on beliefs. This can lead to a polarised situations which stifles debate, and stops us moving forward together. With increasing media polarisation, people can live in worlds where they are not exposed to a well-articulated other viewpoint which makes them view the other side with frustration – “why can’t those people get it?”.


We see this all around us, but there are clear problems here. Narratives need people to transmit them, and here are my three stereotypes:


 

When tribals, bandwagoners and opportunists get together you get a lot of noise but not much more. Whoever is tasked with getting to the bottom of this will therefore be faced with some decisions. This includes how to manage both the practical and political elements of it i.e. to what extent can you be impartial and solve the problem rather than appease those dissatisfied. We see competing narratives all around us: Climate change, vaccinations, fertility rates, Immigration, and each have a significant political as well as practical consideration.

 

How to deal with competing narratives

 

Putting yourself in the seat of somebody who must pick up one of these hot potato issues, I suggest the following questions:

  1. What is the true objective here? Are you really looking to solve it? In politics and large institutions your role might be to make things quieten down. This (perhaps cynically) seems to be the role of decades-long enquiries. If you are not empowered to solve it, it might make you rethink about whether you should take it on or not.

  2. To solve it you need humility, which means, coming at it with an open mind rather than a half-baked notion of a solution before you have encountered any clear evidence.

  3. Be realistic about what bias do you come to the situation with? Do you feel more inclined to look in one place than another? Do you identify more with one set of people than another?

  4. What are leading narratives out there? What about the peripheral ones? What other explanations not thought about are there? (understand the field)

  5. For each narrative, what is a charitable understanding of it. What do they have in common?

  6. How are you going to assess each narrative?

  7. What good data do you have, what commonly quoted but bad data do you need to debunk, what data do you need?

  8. When presenting the findings, how can you show you have considered several possible outcomes and be methodical as to how you have come to your choice of ranking.


I believe this approach will help you understand identify underlying assumptions, gain the trust of the various stakeholders and feel thorough. The feeling of 'whitewash' will not lead to a lasting solution to what is likely to be an emotive topic.


So what?

  1. Narratives help us understand complex situations – When there's not enough clear evidence, people form different narratives or explanations to make sense of things, often competing with each other.

  2. Competing narratives can stop progress – Competing narratives can polarize people and hinder progress because they focus on beliefs rather than solid evidence.

  3. Decision-makers should be methodical with narratives – To handle competing narratives, decision-makers should ask key questions, be open-minded, and consider multiple perspectives with good data before forming conclusions.


Next blog will argue we need to have a "crisis" mindset and propose some ideas for a radical centrist manifesto. Don't forget to sign up to the blog Blog | Deciders (hartejsingh.com).


Democracy series

Comments


bottom of page