Reframing to reach the 'movable middle'
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•415 views
Victoria Lane from International Planned Parenthood Federation presents an Ignite talk at the ECampaigning Conference 2018
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Ähnlich wie Reframing to reach the 'movable middle'
Ähnlich wie Reframing to reach the 'movable middle' (20)
Mehr von FairSay
Mehr von FairSay (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Reframing to reach the 'movable middle'
- 1. WWW.IPPF.ORG #XXX @IPPF Presentation title to go here keep it short and snappy Add a supporting subtitle here if you feel the heading needs to be longer Reframing the message to mobilise political support VICTORIA LANE APRIL 10 2018 ECF 2018 Countering the rise of populism with values based narratives WWW.IPPF.ORG #SEETHECOST @IPPF
- 2. 22 2 Who are we? Our mission: All people are free to make choices about their sexuality and well- being, in a world free of discrimination. Set up in 1952, we are a Federation of 141 Member Associations working in 152 countries, with another 24 partners in 19 countries. In 2016, we delivered 182.5 million sexual and reproductive health services. ECF 2018 #SEETHECOST @IPPF
- 3. 3 Progress on sexual and reproductive health rights is under threat Opposition to SRHR has increased. The expansion of the populist movement along with the success of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump has emboldened conservatives as they have seen their arguments being taken up by the winning side. Always favoring traditional over progressive, the opposition is now using language and issues of progressives to further their ultra- conservative agenda. ECF 2018 #SEETHECOST @IPPF
- 4. 4 Known as the Mexico City Policy or Global Gag Rule, in 2017 it was reframed as Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance. What is the Global Gag Rule (GGR)? ECF 2018 #SEETHECOST @IPPF
- 5. 5 How is IPPF affected? https://vimeo.com/251658961 ECF 2018 #SEETHECOST @IPPF
- 6. 6 Nepal will see the closure of 200 public facilities providing family planning methods. Colombia’s Zika program with displaced populations will no longer be able to expand. Many women accessed health services for the first time through these projects. Ethiopia will see the closure of 10 clinics, reduced services at the remaining clinics, severe effects on 76 outreach centres and 15 youth centres and difficulty in procuring commodities. ECT 2018 #SEETHECOST @IPPF How is IPPF affected? Examples from the field
- 7. 7 A new approach What’s working elsewhere? Manual Academics Can we learn from others Berkeley International Framing Institute How are others tackling this challenge? Started to see success of value-based narratives. IPPF’s reframing manual is born . ECR 2018 #ECF2018 @IPPF
- 8. 8 The power of words: frame activation ECF 2018 #SEETHECOST @IPPF
- 9. 9 Facts versus frames: Framing effects ECF 2018 #SEETHECOST @IPPF
- 10. 10 Step 1 Reclaim the life frame Step 2 Reverse the meddling claim Step 3 Shed the business frame. Step 4 Shed the female- male dichotomy Step 5 Shed the extremist frame and make the opposition the outlier. ECF 2018 #SEETHECOST @IPPF
- 11. 1111 Starting small: testing these ideas on small political audiences ECF2018 #SEETHECOST @IPPF
- 12. 1212 ECF 2018 #YSEETHECOST @IPPF
- 13. 13 On track for Materials have been produced. Holding a series of APPG events in May and June Commissioned YouGov to test how these communications are landing. Watch this space. ECF 2018 #SEETHECOST @IPPF
- 14. 14 Obstacles Coalition working Working group is across three countries, and 6 different organisations plus two external organisations (ad agency and Berkeley). Making decisions on something this complicated has not been easy. ECF 2018 #SEETHECOST @IPPF
- 15. 15 Obstacles Reframing is context specific We can’t just roll this out if it is successful, detailed planning required for every context. ECF 2018 #SEETHECOST @IPPF
- 16. 16 Obstacles Organizational buy-in Resistance to changing the way we talk about how work particularly from technical teams ECF 2018 #SEETHECOST @IPPF
- 17. 17 Questions? ECF 2018 #SEETHECOST @IPPF
- 18. 4 Newhams Row London SE1 3UZ International Planned Parenthood Federation Tel: +44 (0)20 7939 8200 Fax: +44 (0)20 7939 8300 Email: info@ippf.org 18 Thank you. Victoria Lane Senior Communications Advisor vlane@ippf.org ECF 2018 #SEETHECOST @IPPF
Hinweis der Redaktion
- In the early 1950s, a group of women and men started to campaign vociferously and visibly for women’s rights to control their own fertility. Family planning as a human right challenged many social conventions. Campaigners faced great hostility to gain acceptance for things that we take for granted today. Some were imprisoned. But they emerged determined to work with different cultures, traditions, laws and religious attitudes to improve the lives of women around the world. And so, at the 3rd International Conference on Planned Parenthood in 1952, 8 national family planning associations founded the International Planned Parenthood Federation. IPPF. 65 years later, the charity is a Federation of 141 Member Associations working in 152 countries, with another 24 Partners working in 19 countries. In 2016, we delivered 182.5 million sexual and reproductive health services. But about my team and my role.
- Progress on SRHR is under threat. Opposition to SRHR has significantly increased in recent years. The expansion of the populist movement along with the success of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, has emboldened conservatives as they have seen their arguments and language being taken up by the winning side. Always favoring traditional over progressive, the opposition is now using human rights language to further their ultra-conservative agenda. The influence of this can be seen in the announcement on May 16 2017 of the expanded Global Gag Rule (GGR) which frames itself as Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance. These changes have serious implications in terms of political support and financial investment in SRHR and development issues. In Europe, the populist movements seek not just to undermine support for SRHR policies in their own countries, but funding and support for such policies internationally. Their rhetoric favors traditional over progressive values; advocates national self-interest over international cooperation and development aid, and encourages traditional sex roles for women and men over more fluid gender identities and roles. Opponents to abortion have long used inflammatory language such as ‘partial birth abortion’ and umbrella terms such ‘gender ideology’ or ‘gender theory’ being used to lump LGBTI rights, feminisms, secularism and SRHR issues together. These provide a platform for different conservative actors to unify as a movement and to challenge the values underlying European liberal democracies. Presenting themselves as unconventional ‘taboo breakers’ standing up against the political establishment and its ‘totalitarian control of thought’, these groups draw towards them large parts of disenfranchised citizens in Europe who feel that liberal democratic systems do not represent them. The success of these tactics is already being felt: In 2001, the European Commission was a first responder to the reinstatement of the GGR by President George W Bush and committed €32 million. In 2016, deep opposition from within member states such as Poland, Hungary and Malta means the European Commission has so far taken a cautious approach and no funding has yet been pledged. A move to right-wing conservative governments in key countries threatens SRHR more widely. There is a real risk of diminished European leadership in terms of financial support and agenda setting, on development, human rights, and particularly on SRHR.
- It is an historical ideological stance taken by US Republican administrations since the 1980s, which renders international NGOs that provide abortion-related services to clients as ineligible to receive USAID family planning funding (circa USD 575 million), even if such services are provided through non-US funding. Conditions of the policy further forbid abortion as a topic of conversation between USAID family planning funding recipients and respective clients.. Thus, the GGR ‘gags’ funding as well as ‘gagging’ service providers from discussing abortion. In 2017, the GGR was given its new name and current implementation under President Trump who has expanded application to all US funding for all aspects of global health assistance, including ‘funding for international health programs, such as those for HIV/AIDS, maternal and child health, malaria, global health security, and family planning and reproductive health.’ (US Department of State 2017). This impacts circa USD 8 billion of funding. The GGR’s impact hence extends beyond family planning services and is of particular concern to the longevity of HIV/AIDS-related programs, which were exempt under President G W Bush’s administration via the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
- Projected loss of $100M over three years for services, including but not limited to family planning and HIV/AIDS care. Many Mas are now experiencing the reality of significant cuts to essential integrated services. In some cases, program support has been cut by up to 60%, significantly affecting services for hard to reach and vulnerable groups – adolescents, young girls and other key populations.
- FPAN (Nepal): IPPF is using US funds to help the Ministry of Health train public sector service providers in long acting and permanent methods in order to expand the method mix available to the hardest to reach throughout the country. 200 public facilities in project districts now provide 5+ family planning methods – up from 66 facilities at the start of the project. Seven facilities provide vasectomy because of the project’s work. Reinstatement of the GGR will now close this initiative. FGAE (Ethiopia): PEPFAR and the CDC fully fund 10 of 31 clinics, supporting HCT, STIs and PMTCT services through an established SRH service network. Funding will not be renewed for the 2017-2021 period. This will lead to the closure of 10 clinics, reduced services at the remaining 21 clinics, severe effects on 76 outreach centres and 15 youth centres, difficulty in procuring commodities and 162 staff redundancies affecting the lives of 15,000 key population members (sex workers) and 1,800,000 women, men and young people. Profamilia (Colombia): USAID has been supporting efforts to reduce transmission rates and increase access to essential SRH contraceptive services for some of the poorest women who face some of the greatest barriers to accessing SRH care. The Zika program with displaced populations (including highly marginalized indigenous and Afro-Colombian peoples), was due to expand its effective model to nine municipalities at the request of the government. Many women accessed health services for the first time through these projects.
- We started to look around and see how others were tacking this issue in the field of human rights, and academia, and came across Elisabeth Wehling and her work at the University of Berkley on reframing. This was initiated by our European Regional Office who has become very interested in tackling the opposition. It was brought in in an unorthodox way which has brought its own challenges.
- What is reframing? from worldviews to words. Words are the most powerful means to mobilize fellow citizens because of a simple truth: Words evoke frames. Every single word evokes a frame in the recipient’s mind. This is true for all lan-guage. The word “salt” for instance evokes a frame that infers concepts like eat-ing, food, taste, and even thirst. The reason for this is that the brain recruits its knowledge from real world experience to attribute meaning to the concept en-coded by the lexical item, or: the word. Whatever your brain learned about salt based on your everyday experiences will be activated. This even includes your brain simulating taste! The process is called neural simulation. When we hear words whose meanings feed off concrete experiences we have had in the world, then the brain simulates what it stored from those interactions. For salt, it activates the region that com-putes taste, because it has many times made the experience that salt infers a strong taste. For cinnamon, it activates the region that computes smell. For kick-ing it activates the region that plans motion. For rotten it activates the region that computes physical disgust and avoidance behavior. And so on. You get the idea. To give meaning to a word, the brain invokes a frame that in-cludes emotions, smells, tastes, movements, and mental imagery, amongst other things. And, for each word you hear, the mind activates a frame that in-cludes a string of concepts that are technically not ‘there’ in the word itself – concepts, rather, in relation to which the single lexical item you are dealing with is defined.
- Time to move from everyday language to political language and specifically the domains that your work and concerns focus on. Remember, every single word evokes a frame. Now, take the lexical item “pro-life”. It invokes a frame that includes the concept of death, because life is defined in opposition to death. Thus, if your opponent is for life, then you are by definition either against life or pro-death! It is hard to think of a frame as clear-cut when it comes to who is in the right and who is in the wrong. Of course, there are many intrinsic details that make the frame pow-erful in additional ways. For instance, the frame defines when life begins: at conception. If you are against abortion at whatever moment in time after concep-tion, and you label this as a matter of being for life, then your framing succeeds in making the listener infer that there is life in the womb from day one. When people hear the phrase, the frame gets activated. Next, the frame deter-mines people’s decision-making around the issue. Those who are adamant sup-porters of IPPF will be the least impacted by this wording. For individuals who are torn between you and your opponent, or who have kept out of the struggle until now, it will show quite an effect! It will make them more likely to support your opponent. No matter the facts. No matter the factual arguments you pre-sent. Because frames always win against facts. This is called framing-effects. Take this quick empirical example to understand the process: When study par-ticipants are asked to make a medical decision regarding a surgery, those who are informed of a 90 percent survival chance decide for the surgery. Those who are informed of a 10 percent death risk decide against the surgery. Very simple facts. Two frames: one foregrounding life, one foregrounding death. People care about life and they are afraid of death. Therefore, participants do not rationally consider the very simple factual lay of the land. They decided based on the frames, which are evoked through single lexical items. When people hear about a pro-life movement, they will be psychologically in-clined to support it. Facts in and of themselves will not readily change that. Only alternative frames can accomplish this. They must be frames that imply equal moral urgency – and shine a light on the issue that comes from your values and moral concerns.
- How can we reach the moveable middle? Focus on the victim and not the threat. Talk through reframing manual examples
- Packard already funds one of our projects, a three-year project focuses on access to abortion. We mentioned this work in conversation and they said they might be interested in putting a small piece of money towards it, as they are becoming interested in strategic communication to tackle opposition. So we needed to identify a small pilot that we could test some of this work out. Knowing the biggest impact on the GGR is shortages to funding for our much-needed projects, we looked at how we could target governments in the EU for extra funding, knowing that there are key political events happening. It offers an opportunity to test reframing in a small controlled audience where we are looking at tangible results. So we decided to test this on a small audience where we have concrete messages and asks: In Europe, the populist movements seek not just to undermine support for SRHR policies in their own countries, but funding and support for such policies internationally. Their rhetoric favors traditional over progressive values; advocates national self-interest over international cooperation and development aid, and encourages traditional sex roles for women and men over more fluid gender identities and roles. Opponents to abortion have long used inflammatory language such as ‘partial birth abortion’ and umbrella terms such ‘gender ideology’ or ‘gender theory’ being used to lump LGBTI rights, feminisms, secularism and SRHR issues together. These provide a platform for different conservative actors to unify as a movement and to challenge the values underlying European liberal democracies. Presenting themselves as unconventional ‘taboo breakers’ standing up against the political establishment and its ‘totalitarian control of thought’, these groups draw towards them large parts of disenfranchised citizens in Europe who feel that liberal democratic systems do not represent them. The success of these tactics is already being felt: In 2001, the European Commission was a first responder to the reinstatement of the GGR by President George W Bush and committed €32 million. In 2016, deep opposition from within member states such as Poland, Hungary and Malta means the European Commission has so far taken a cautious approach and no funding has yet been pledged. A move to right-wing conservative governments in key countries threatens SRHR more widely. There is a real risk of diminished European leadership in terms of financial support and agenda setting, on development, human rights, and particularly on SRHR. We felt this work is a key focus for us in fighting the GGR and offers a tangible way we can test some of these new messages. There are a number of key events in 2017 and 2018 where reframing how IPPF talks about and presents SRHR can make a significant impact and influence political leadership at EU level and national level. This project will target key events at the European Parliament, in Germany, France and the UK, and work in partnership with IPPF national Member Associations and Countdown 2030 Europe partners in these countries. We produced reframed visual communications, including video, graphics, digital and physical posters and banners, aimed at the ‘movable middle’ of parliamentarians. Research shows that across cultures and geographies, between 25 to 35 per cent of the population have versions of both progressive and conservative moral values in all sorts of combinations, and they apply those different values to different issues. There is no ideology of the moderate; no set of views held by all moderates. This offers an opportunity for IPPF to activate progressive values on SRHR issues through reframing. New SRHR frames will provide new language and discourses with which to discuss SRHR and the need to support it nationally and globally to parliamentarians, civil servants and decision makers in key EU member states and at EU institutional level. These communications will create a sense of moral urgency in support of SRHR, undermining the intention of the opposition to claim and subvert moral and rights-based language. Country selection We targeted the governments of France, Germany, the UK, and the European Union, where positive funding opportunities have been recognized, based on anticipated outcomes of elections, upcoming budgetary negotiations and /or traditional political support for SRHR. Despite opposition and the rise in populism, France, Germany and the UK are among the biggest EU countries with some of the large ODA budgets and strong political support and leadership on SRHR. The general elections in these countries provide an opportunity to bring on board a new cadre of Parliamentarians supportive of SRHR to increase additional political championing of SRHR in the global policy arena, matched by increased financial commitment. The European commission is to start negotiations for the next budget cycle 2020-2027 (multi-annual financial framework) in which SRHR funding needs to be defended. Although the impact of Brexit could have negative impacts on the next EU budget, renewed political recognition for SRHR in the draft new EU development Consensus (setting the EU’s policy agenda for development for the next years) provides an important opportunity. New budget reviews after the elections in 3 other countries in 2017: France: with election of Centrist President Macron, France could continue and even strengthening its diplomatic voice on SRHR internationally and standing financially Germany: whatever the results of the election, perspective show that Germany will remain an important player in the SRHR sector and clearly committed to FP2020. UK: a major supporter of FP funding to be maintained and after Brexit, UK may want to strengthen further its global political strategy on this matter and be a leader in the sector. The UK is clearly committed to FP2020
- An example of some of our matrials – see in production. Add video to beginning or end once we have it.