Win the narrative, not just media
Over the weekend we were reading of counter-protests in Boston.
In response to the 'free speech' rally by conservative activist group, 40,000 Americans did what the Trump Government was unable to; marginalise white-supremacy and dwarf an emboldened far right.
Visually and practically speaking - Black Lives Matter, Violence in Boston and broader activists reclaimed public norms and expectations in Boston. Responding quickly and powerfully, their counter-protest symbolised zero tolerance to hate speech.
Image: AAP Boston Resists 2017.
As anyone who has attempted to mobilise the public for social or political change would know, this was a moment that must have deeply inspired a huge number of the community to see them take to the street and lay voice to the values they felt had been threatened.
With a 40,000 turn out, this no longer had to be perceived as a counter-movement. In fact in many ways it became a demonstration of what Boston's community stood for in spite of national leadership. It affirmed a city and a space where people in all their diversity are protected.
That is a space that stands for inclusivity and belonging. One that in turn supports shifting shared symbols from slavery to human rights. From a history of violence to a future free from oppression. Principles that are not controversial or 'alternative', but indeed principles that America was founded on.
And while this sounds like rhetoric, these weren't the messages I saw as I scrolled through the protest's social and media coverage. Rather The Guardian and other outlets, described the movement as a "resistance" and a "fight against white-supremacy". Official hashtags themselves were also #bostonresists #fightsupremecy".
Despite in very real-terms this campaign moment succeeding to marginalise the voice of right extremism: 40,000 to 25, these descriptions continued to place their opposition in a very powerful position. They suggested their opponents as dominant - one that we must 'resist' and 'struggle' against.
But of greater concern, was the definition of the movement by what it was not. Not by what it sought to achieve. "Anti-fascist", "Anti-racist", "Anti white-supremacy". Neuroscience into messaging time and time again suggests the importance of our language to grow social support - to shift ourselves from activist and change maker to status-quo and simply, common sense.
In this case we left our audiences across the world to be reminded of the power that fascism and supremacy have. Giving them not only more airtime, but leaving our audience unsure of what we then stand for. As Van Jones says, Martin Luther King became famous for "I have a dream!" "Not I have complaint!"
Indeed, reinforcing messages filled with reference to "Neo-Nazis", "Smashing Supremacy" and "Fighting Hate", we conjure the very image of violence and extremism that we seek to distance ourselves from. As our audience scrolls through, they're reminded of an uncomfortable reality that they're not familiar with. And no doubt one we're happy being unfamiliar with.
With our Nazi and Supremacy slogans, placards and hashtags, we leave possible supporters feeling not just daunted but possibly wanting to resist the message itself - even if just subconsciously, even if just for a sheer moment. Joining a movement that's anti-hate and reactionary, is not nearly as fun as something that's pro-peace and visionary.
And let's face it, if we could have our way, one that's ideally the status quo and as controversial as the denim we wear and pizza we eat.
As messaging expert, Anat Shenker states, it's critical for progressive campaigns to reinforce the vision and not just the opponent. Embodying that vision in your descriptions, your hashtags and your language use and not just the resistance. Let's be passionate, strong and purposeful. Not angry, strong and ambiguous.
Anti-supremacy resistance may gain the media story, which is without a doubt an important campaign win. But without using language that our audiences have positive affiliations with we risk losing wider public support for long-term change.
Without normalising our position as common sense we risk losing a narrative of legitimacy. A narrative that with 40,000 demonstrators and international headlines we indeed deserve.