The system is rigged: accept it, then fight back

Sometimes a piece of research comms along that just makes me want to scream "yesssss!!!!! at last"

Frameworks Institute's latest research "Filling in the Blanks Contesting What “the System is Rigged” Means" is the first piece of strategic comms I've seen in a while that's willing to grasp the nettle and accept that fatalism, cynicism are rife.

The report should be a rallying call to us progressives to get our heads from up our arses and ready to fight back. I strongly recommend you read it!

The “system is rigged” is now a hegemonic mindset

In the past few years, this mindset has become increasingly dominant in people’s thinking. See the polling below.

Frameworks can’t say why it’s become so dominant, what they do say is that people across a range of groups have a shared experience of living in a world in which social, political, and economic systems feel unresponsive to their needs.

This shared experience is grounded in reality… the economic system gives large corporations more and more power over people’s lives and the political system fails to channel popular will and interests.

I've written before about my frustration with our comfy campaigning assumptions. I've grown weary of the idea that’s felt dominant in progressive campaigning circles, the idea that we - those of us with the least power - must take care not to speak to the anger and cynicism that's everywhere, lest we make things worse.

I've nodded along to worthy-but-dull-framings about better worlds, but the evidence of corruption, collapse, division and incompetence is now impossible to ignore. Frameworks’ report should be a jolt to us. An excuse to finally throw that stuff in to the bin of comms history, because:

“There are ways of taking about rigged systems that foster collective efficacy, and support for just structural change while not only guarding against but actually decreasing exclusionary thinking and authoritarian attitudes.”

The right already speaks to the "system is rigged" mindset

The "System is rigged" mindset is dangerous if uncontested, it breeds fatalism and leads to toxic and dangerous political destinations.

This is because mindsets are like a black box. The “system is rigged” mindset per se doesn’t offer explanations for how or why the system is rigged. That part is open to explanation - including from the far right. Uncontested, “system is rigged” thinking leads to conspiracy theorising and even antisemitism, Frameworks argue.

I've written before about how the likes of Trump, Steven Bannon or Farage, speak to people’s “everyday frustrations” this is the far right speaking to the public’s "system is rigged” mentality.

To do this, the right perform a rhetorical 1+2+3:

(1) - "The system is rigged"

(2) - "they [the “other” a gendered, racialised or elite caricature] have rigged it this way"

(3) - "We/you need to [evict, destroy, detain the other] so you can get what you deserve."

What Frameworks are saying is that progressives need to acknowledge (1), but offer credible progressive alternatives at steps (2) and (3). And their research provides some compelling ideas, backed with evidence, about just how to pull it off.

Step 1: Contest “system is rigged” thinking

We need to start by acknowledging that “system is rigged” thinking is real, then work out what this might mean in terms of people’s emotional lives (Forget policy for now - policy is not an entry point to a conversation with ordinary people). Instead assume people know nothing about your issue, your policies your politics).

“System is rigged” thinking makes people fatalistic it switches them off from politics and the media, making them hard to reach.

But not unreachable.

It’s true that people who feel fatalistic are unlikely to share our interest in the news or politics (which they’ve switched off from). But they still share the same emotions and feelings and they are reachable through those feelings. Campaigns need to speak to that.

Try the following, “what would I ask Google?” exercise:

“If I knew nothing, what would I type into a Google search today that might put me on a path towards my issue, policy or campaign?

“What feelings would I be experiencing right now, whose explanation might lead me eventually to discover that issue, campaign or policy?

“If I knew nothing about x [insert issue, campaign or policy here], where would I start?”

In Advertising this is known as “building a moat” around a product. Sometimes the strategic thing to do is to avoid speaking directly to people’s purchasing intent but instead to hook potential customers by speaking to the the widest possible range of feelings and emotions and only then to nudge people, slowly at first, but inexorably towards awareness, and thence to intent - the intent to buy - but it can equally be an intent to act politically.

I cannot stress how useful this first exercise is, how it helps us to speak beyond the base. How vital it is that we do this imagining and listening.

Pro-tip: If you can’t afford a programme of focus groups, do it by paying attention to the conversations overheard in the bus queue, in the throwaway aphorisms of the grocery aisle, in the pain expressed on Mumsnet, in Reddit threads and in Youtube comments.

Step 2: “Use values that centre collective power to flip fatalism on its head.”

The foundation of solidarity is that moment when “the penny drops” and we realise: “I’m not alone? You were thinking the same thing too?”

Frameworks analysis shows that three values are particularly effective at combatting fatalism:

1. Popular Self-Government

2. Solidarity

3. Freedom from Domination

Step 3: Fill in the “black box” with an emphasis on “how” not “who” is rigging the system

Mindsets are a black box. Without clear details about how the system operates or is influenced, it leaves room for persuasion - including from the far right.

The right’s rhetorical three-step uses the “other” (coded through a gender, race or elites caricature) to assert that “someone” (a person of colour, woman, trans woman, doctor, latte liberal or whatever) is rigging the system against the interests of “us”.
Picking an enemy has its place and is sometimes unavoidable (in media work, fundraising or mobilisation activity for example), but is not always effective at shifting people’s minds, Frameworks argue.

Step 3: Policy needs to feel equal to the task of “unrigging the system” AND feel credible

Wonks pay attention: Frameworks identify an “ambition-feasibility paradox” that can reinforce fatalism.

Lets not underestimate just how bad things have got if people believe the system is rigged. One could even describe it as a legitimacy crisis. Policy needs to be equal to the severity of that situation, whilst being credible. Communicators can help in two ways:

1. Focus on a specific aspect: Highlight one part of the rigged system, explain how it operates, and clearly link it to actionable steps that can fix that particular issue.

2. Take a broader view: Explain how the system is manipulated on a larger scale and describe how transformative, structural solutions could correct the entire system.

“…explaining how systems are rigged and can be unrigged, with a focus on how the system is rigged rather than who is rigging it, inoculates against xenophobic and authoritarian thinking and builds support for progressive policies.”

THE CORE ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE “SYSTEM IS RIGGED” FRAMING

Frameworks identify three critical framing choices—that should be included in all system is rigged messages:

1. An effective value—Popular Self-Government, Solidarity, Freedom from Domination, or Fairness

2. An explanation of how the system is rigged that focuses more on how it’s rigged and less on who rigs it

3. Solutions that match the scale at which the problem is explained.

When these elements are included, we steer system is rigged thinking in productive directions, cultivating collective efficacy and building support for systemic changes that advance justice while inoculating against exclusionary and authoritarian thinking.


I’d be interested in your thoughts.