In a world saturated with information, activists face a profound challenge: how to draw vital attention to critical issues without alienating the very public whose understanding and support are essential for change. The way a message is presented, or “framed,” often dictates whether it resonates and mobilizes, or whether it simply creates more division and pushback. Understanding these dynamics is key to building broader support for causes that aim for the collective good. This includes not only how external forces frame the activism narrative, but also how activists themselves engage, recognising that their own approach can significantly impact public perception and willingness to connect with their cause.
Our observations reveal a striking difference in how various protests are perceived. On one hand, there are actions driven by a deep conviction for the “collective good”—like those addressing environmental catastrophe or humanitarian crises. These activists often believe that unless significant shifts occur, the future of our planet or the well-being of entire populations is at risk. Their efforts, however, frequently draw fierce opposition and even personal attacks from segments of the public and media, particularly from those who benefit from the existing order. Then there are protests focused on self-interest or the preservation of wealth. Consider groups advocating against changes to tax laws that might affect their personal finances, or those campaigning to maintain existing privileges. These actions, perhaps because they align more closely with conventional notions of individual rights or economic stability, tend to elicit a different, often more sympathetic, response from certain media outlets and segments of society. The challenge for movements focused on the collective good is to bridge this gap in perception.
A significant contributor to this divide is the role of media in shaping public narratives. “Less thoughtful” elements of the media often engage in what can be described as a form of narrative manipulation. They simplify complex issues into easily digestible, often distorted, stories. For instance, the intricate realities of climate change or the historical context of a geopolitical conflict might be reduced to a single, often misleading, soundbite. Crucially, this simplification often leads to what we can call the “them/us trap.” This is where complex issues are boiled down to two opposing sides, creating an adversarial “either/or” mentality that prevents nuanced understanding and constructive dialogue. This framing can reduce a multifaceted challenge like climate action into a false choice between “the economy or the environment,” pitting “us” (those who value economic stability) against “them” (environmentalists who threaten jobs).
Behavioural science, particularly Social Identity Theory developed by Tajfel and Turner, provides a powerful explanation for this. It posits that people derive part of their self-concept and self-esteem from their membership in social groups, leading to in-group favouritism and out-group discrimination. When activists are presented as an “out-group,” this triggers a psychological mechanism that exacerbates polarization, hinders empathy, and makes shared problem-solving far more difficult. Similarly, activists themselves can be easily categorised as “other,” making it simpler for the public to dismiss their message and motivations. This deliberate oversimplification, often highlighted in the work of communication scholars like Robert M. Entman on news framing, demonstrates that framing is not just about a headline; it’s about selecting certain aspects of a perceived reality and making them more prominent to influence how an audience interprets an event or issue. Entman’s work shows how this extends to subtle cues, imagery, and the omission of context, painting a picture that distorts the actual situation.
Beyond simplifying, media can also employ distraction as a tactic. Instead of focusing on the severe implications of an environmental crisis or the human suffering in a conflict zone, attention might be diverted to trivial matters. This could involve highlighting a celebrity’s misstep on social media or focusing on the perceived inconveniences caused by a protest, rather than the urgent issues driving it. Furthermore, the deliberate use of loaded language is a powerful tool in this narrative control. Terms chosen by those in power to delegitimise activists—like labelling a humanitarian aid mission a “selfie yacht”—are often amplified, even if used in quotation marks. This subtle yet effective framing influences public perception, guiding quick judgments and discouraging a deeper, more thoughtful engagement with the underlying facts. The cumulative effect is a “fog” that obscures the true nature of the issues and the motivations of those trying to bring them to light.
This leads to a paradox inherent in activism, particularly for causes aiming for the collective good: the need for disruption. While actions like blocking traffic or attempting to breach blockades can indeed be alienating, they often serve as the only means to break through public silence and force neglected issues into mainstream conversation. The critical question isn’t always “Did it work flawlessly?” but “Would this issue have been discussed at all without this action?” Research from organisations like the Social Change Lab (e.g., Sam Nadel, Thomas-Walters et al.) indicates that whilst disruptive protest can provoke short-term negative public reactions, these effects often dissipate over time, and such tactics can effectively generate media attention and increase issue salience. Their findings, particularly from studies on animal rights activism, suggest that negative attitudes linked to disruptive protests can improve over a period of months.
It is useful to consider the “radical flank effect” which suggests that awareness of more radical groups can sometimes even increase public identification with and support for more moderate groups within the same movement, effectively shifting the Overton Window [the range of ideas or policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time] of what is considered acceptable. The choice is often not between a perfect protest and a less-than-perfect one, but between some level of disruption that garners attention and no attention at all. Without these interventions, crucial conversations about human suffering or planetary well-being might simply not happen, allowing a comfortable inaction to prevail. This complex dynamic also means that activists themselves must often find a delicate balance: knowing when a tactic, whilst attention-grabbing, might become too radical for broad public appeal, potentially leading allies to disengage. Behavioural science highlights that people tend to disengage when overwhelmed by negativity or when they feel a problem is too big to solve, leading to feelings of helplessness, a phenomenon often described as learned helplessness by Martin Seligman. Seligman’s work demonstrates that repeated exposure to uncontrollable negative events can lead individuals to believe they have no control, resulting in apathy and a lack of response to potential solutions. Therefore, activists must consider not only the shock value of their actions but also the pathways for continued engagement and a sense of efficacy, ensuring their narrative offers hope and actionable steps to counteract this learned passivity. It speaks to the ongoing strategic decision-making required to weigh the urgency of a cause against the need for wider public support and to ensure that the methods, whilst challenging, also offer hope and actionable steps for people to participate.
Case Study: The Big Climate Plan Campaign – Framing for Collective Good
To illustrate how these principles translate into practice, consider a campaign such as “The Big Climate Plan” (as highlighted in the North East Summer Gathering Programme), which advocates for a bolder and fairer national climate strategy by autumn 2025, focusing on tangible benefits like warmer homes, green jobs, and cleaner air.
The core challenge for “The Big Climate Plan” lies in preventing the “them/us trap” from framing climate action as an economic burden or an ideological conflict. Instead of allowing external forces to portray environmentalists as “anti-growth” or “job-destroyers,” the campaign proactively frames its demands in terms of universal values that resonate with a broad public. Phrases like “warmer homes,” “green jobs,” and “cleaner air” are carefully chosen to evoke widely shared desires for comfort, economic security, and public health. This is a strategic application of framing, as described by Robert M. Entman, moving beyond just the campaign title to integrate a consistent message that highlights direct, positive outcomes for everyday people. The campaign effectively seeks to align the “in-group” of climate supporters with the broader public by appealing to shared aspirations, thereby making it harder for opposing narratives to categorise them as an isolated “other.”
From a behavioural science perspective, this campaign directly addresses learned helplessness. Climate change can feel like an overwhelming, insurmountable problem, leading to public apathy. By focusing on a “plan” and a specific deadline (“autumn 2025”), “The Big Climate Plan” provides a concrete, actionable target, offering a pathway to efficacy. The emphasis on “new UK legislation” further reinforces that collective action can lead to tangible policy changes. This counters the sense of powerlessness by demonstrating that individual and collective efforts can indeed influence large-scale outcomes. While the campaign itself may not employ highly disruptive tactics, it implicitly benefits from the radical flank effect. The existence of more radical climate groups (such as Just Stop Oil, often the subject of intense media scrutiny) can make the “Big Climate Plan’s” policy-focused, solution-oriented approach appear more moderate and therefore more palatable to the general public, effectively shifting the Overton Window towards accepting more ambitious climate policies as reasonable.
To further enhance engagement and minimise alienation, “The Big Climate Plan” activists need to consistently leverage authenticity in their messaging. Showcasing personal stories of individuals benefiting from green jobs or living in energy-efficient homes, or those directly affected by air pollution, thereby fostering deeper emotional connections. As Ritu Bhasin argues, genuine personal narratives build trust and make abstract policy demands relatable. By doing so, any campaign moves beyond dry policy discussions to illustrate the very human stakes and benefits, making it harder for the “manufactured fog” of distraction or “them/us” narratives to take hold. This holistic approach to framing, rooted in behavioural insights, is crucial for turning public awareness into widespread support and meaningful action.
Finding this crucial balance involves several strategic considerations for activists. Firstly, understanding the “Paradox of Disruption” means accepting that some friction is inherent in challenging established power; the aim is to ensure this friction serves to enlighten and motivate, not just to divide. Secondly, strategic framing of actions and messages is paramount. This extends far beyond a simple campaign title or slogan, encompassing every element of communication that shapes public perception. It involves clearly communicating why an extreme measure was taken, emphasising how the cause aligns with universal values (e.g., “protecting the air we all breathe”), and proactively using factual realities to counter misleading narratives. This broader framing includes consistent visual identity, metaphors, storytelling elements, and a unified message delivered across all platforms and by all messengers to build a coherent understanding over time, as explored by communication and social movement scholars (e.g., studies on “collective action frames”). Thirdly, a mindful approach to the “them/us” trap is vital. This means focusing critique on the harmful systems that enable problems, rather than demonising all individuals or groups, and striving to invite broader engagement rather than creating an impenetrable in-group. Finally, leveraging authenticity and integrity, as highlighted by Ritu Bhasin in “The Authenticity Principle,” can build trust even amidst controversy. Bhasin’s work demonstrates that choosing to live and lead authentically, by resisting conformity and embracing one’s true self, fosters deeper connection and influence. When activists embody genuine conviction, their message gains resonance, making it harder for external forces to fully discredit their efforts. This multi-faceted approach aims to ensure that tactical choices, whilst potentially disruptive, ultimately serve to inform and mobilise a wider public, demonstrating that transformation is not only necessary but achievable.
Where next? Use the links below:
Snippets: Curated collection of short, impactful articles and inspiring ideas.
Forward Futures: Actionable essays delving into contemporary issues.
Planet and People Books: Charting paths toward a more empowering future.
About: Our mission – From Awareness to Action.
Your voice: A vital part of our collective strength.
Facebook: Our community space and new content information.
Substack: An online free subscription
Bibliography
Bhasin, Ritu. The Authenticity Principle: Resist Conformity, Embrace Differences, and Transform How You Live, Work, and Lead. Ritu Bhasin Consulting Inc., 2017.
Entman, Robert M. Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy. University of Chicago Press, 2003. (Also widely cited in various communication studies focusing on news framing effects).
Nadel, Sam, and Thomas-Walters et al. Research from the Social Change Lab (various reports and papers, including “The short and long-term impacts of disruptive animal rights protest” and work on the radical flank effect).
Seligman, Martin E. P. Learned Helplessness: A Theory for the Age of Personal Control. Oxford University Press, 1992. (Original theory developed with colleagues, e.g., Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978).
Tajfel, Henri, and Turner, John C. The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7-24). Brooks/Cole, 1979. (Foundational work on Social Identity Theory).