Overloaded: Understanding Neglect Season 4 Show Notes: Episode 2: “We Need Both”: The Science and Stories of Strategic Communication Today’s episode included the following speakers (in the order they appear): Host: Luke Waldo Experts: Jessica Moyer – FrameWorks InstituteClaudia Rowe – National Book Award Finalist and Seattle Times Dr. Bruce Perry – Child Trauma AcademyDesmond Meade – Florida Rights Restoration Coalition00:00-04:22 – Luke Waldo - Jess Moyer and her metaphors from our first episode still have me thinking. Tilling the soil for social change. Not persuading, not convincing, but rather creating the conditions for new ways of thinking to grow. But what exactly are we tilling? What lies beneath the surface that needs turning over? Introduction to Jess Moyer and her bio. I'm honored that Jess has joined us again to serve as my copilot for breaking down and analyzing some of the powerful narrative change efforts that we are hearing this season from many of our other guests. But before we get into some of that conversation, let's start again with what Jess and FrameWorks Institute do and why it's so important in this moment we are living in. 4:22-6:26 – Jessica Moyer – “FrameWorks is a social science research and advocacy organization. We study the relationship between culture and communication, how each of those things kind of shapes and is shaped by the other. And we are really interested in how we can use our communications to engage with how we think as a culture in our sort of shared cultural practices. Our mission is about framing the public discourse and building public will for positive social change.” 6:26-8:03 – Luke Waldo – Could you elaborate on the difference between a story or an anecdote about a family, for example, and a narrative that pattern of stories? And how does a strategically framed story interrupt an entrenched, harmful narrative? 8:03-10:07 – Jessica Moyer – “Each of those stories, it fills in the details in their own particular ways, but there are common patterns across those stories, and that that commonality is the shared narrative.” The “Bootstraps” narrative and The Pursuit of Happyness. The Pursuit of Happyness– Chris Gardner10:07-10:40 – Will Smith - “and don't ever let somebody tell you you can't do something, not even me. All right. You got a dream. You got to protect it. People can't do something themselves. They want to tell you, you can't do it. You want something. Go get it. Period.” The Pursuit of Happyness movie10:40-11:52 – Jess Moyer – “I think an important takeaway here is that it's an insight of the work of narrative change, that we can make some choices. It sometimes seems inevitable that a story gets told in the way that it does, but actually we can tell the same story in so many different ways, and the different ways that we tell it have different implications for how we think in general and can bring about different effects.” 11:52-12:25 – Luke Waldo – I'm going to use an example that I just heard from Claudia Rowe, who wrote a book called Wards of the State: The Long Shadow of American Foster Care. And she talks about a similar Pursuit of Happiness and bootstraps story in which a young man in foster care enters foster care when he's 11,12 years old… Wards of the State: The Long Shadow of American Foster Care – Claudia Rowe12:25-15:13 – Claudia Rowe and Luke Waldo – The story of Jay and the mentor 15:13-16:10– Luke Waldo – But I'm curious, why do we either ignore that part of the story, right, that that in many ways, our success is as much an outcome of the other people in our lives that believe in us, that invest in us, that lift us up, that pick us back up, right? That, that they, they, they help us put those boots on so that we can pull ourselves up by those bootstraps, right? Why is that part of the story often times ignored, or, for that matter, in some cases, just not told? 16:10-20:03 – Jessica Moyer – “The individualism mindset is so strong and so dominant, it's really easily activated.” “I think it's also, I mean, it's interesting to think about that person's story and the alternative tellings that are, that maybe require a little bit more work, because we have to get we have to first recognize what the default thinking is, and then actively choose to take a different approach, to try to understand what are the other mindsets that are available that we might want to work hard to to queue up and to build on.” 20:03-21:10 – Luke Waldo – We have to be cognizant of the fact that there are many dominant narratives oftentimes at play in the same moment. We're put in a position where we if we want to get to curious, we have to really start to ask ourselves, why all of those particular narratives are being triggered in the first place, right? 21:10-22:01 – Claudia Rowe and Luke Waldo – “And as Claudia Rowe, again, said quite a bit in our conversation, is she wanted to tell this story because she was continuously struggling with, she's always been struggling with these, you know, these monikers, these, these frames of she talked about the monster…” 22:01-22:57 – Luke Waldo – So what is the single most common and harmful framing choice you see advocates make when talking about issues like child welfare or family well-being, and what specific framing choice or choices could or should replace it? 22:57-27:02 – Jessica Moyer – “…some framing choices are harmful, but they're actually a whole lot more of them that are just maybe not actively harmful, but kind of get us stuck, or kind of fail to get us unstuck.” Communication traps. 27:02-29:24 – Luke Waldo – So in the season, we've heard from Dr Bruce Perry. He talks in in his conversation, and again, hear this whole conversation at The Shift, but he does talk at one point about how people have really connected when he talks about about the brain, the brain feels like science… The Shift: Voices of Prevention – Dr. Bruce Perry29:24-29:46 - Dr. Bruce Perry – “…because the brain's interesting, and for many people, it feels and this is probably not fair, but it feels more like science than when you talk about social science or psychology, which a lot of people have weird biases about. We're saying the same thing. But if you use kind of brain examples, people go, Oh, the brain.” 29:46-30:23 - Luke Waldo – Building off what you just said from a FrameWorks perspective, what is the value of kind of explanatory metaphors, again, like tilling the soil for social change, while also really pairing it or supporting it with concrete science or research or evidence? And do you feel like either the kind of metaphors, the storytelling or the concrete science is more powerful in changing culture and mindsets? 30:23-34:11 – Jessica Moyer – “That's a great question and a fun one to answer, and I'm I think the short answer is that we need both. We absolutely need both to bring science into our communications. And metaphors are a natural way of thinking and talking. We use them all the time, oftentimes without even realizing that we're using them. But also, an interesting thing is, like you sort of alluded to, metaphors are really, are an effective explanatory tool, and that makes them really well suited to translating science. In fact, the earliest work that FrameWorks did was to translate the science of early childhood development the science of brain development, you know, starting in in the earliest days and weeks of life.” FrameWorks Institute – Early Childhood and Brain Science34:11-35:07 – Luke Waldo – So how do you recommend communicators, or how do you recommend that communicators practically do this without losing kind of the human element of the story? And what specific details or contextual factors should we always put in and never leave out? 35:07-37:17 - Jessica Moyer – “I think of it as being about telling a fuller story about people and about our lives and experiences, because we we don't, we don't exist in a vacuum, right? We interact with our surroundings, and we're influenced by our environments, and we influence our environments, and we're shaped by our relationships and the spaces that we occupy. So that's part of putting parents or putting anyone in context is sharing the full kind of experience of their being and everything that they come in contact with and are in relationship with.” 37:17-37:49 - Luke Waldo – What are a few examples of policies or programs that become kind of legible or good examples of forms of caregiving when framed this way? And you know, for one instance, one that we talk about a lot in our work. How do we reframe a discussion about, say, housing assistance as a form of care? 37:49-40:48 – Jessica Moyer – “I think just by making the connection explicit, and that doesn't have to be a complicated framing choice. Oftentimes really subtle, kind of seemingly very minor, framing choices can have big impacts. In this case, it really matters if we name that there's a connection between, for example, housing policies and the well-being of children, and it's not that hard for folks to see. And also that that lexicon of care, the language of caregiving, is an effective way to do that gives us some tools for doing that.” 40:48-41:42 – Luke Waldo – Desmond Meade in particular speaks really powerfully about how narratives of the other or them can lead to the dehumanization or demonization of groups of people. He then talks about reframing and building a narrative to activate a sense of us, and he does that through this idea of love. The Shift: Voices of Prevention – Desmond Meade41:42-42:00 - Desmond Meade – “How I push it up is having people see a reason to love someone. No, I think the key is, if we can get people to love who, what they despise the most, or who they hate the most, then they're capable of loving e
