Ideas, stories, interpretations; all these things exist, but they only become relevant to us when they are part of our own existence। They come to life for us when we know about them। How we view an idea or a story depends on who its narrator is and how the narrator presents it। This is the notion alluded to in Chapter 9 of the text Persuasion and Social Movements, as the authors discuss a certain view of persuasion that “hinges less on changing beliefs, attitudes, or values than on integrating beliefs and behaviors into a story regarded by the audience as coherent, relevant, compatible, promising, and proper” (204)।
It is more effective, or perhaps easier, to adapt the narrative of a social movement to something that is relevant and applicable to an intended audience than it is to change beliefs and values of potential members. To change somebody’s beliefs implies that the narrator has to prove that whatever the audience believed before is a faulty way to think, whereas changing the discourse, or the narrative of a movement to adapt to an audience is less problematic. The emphasis here is on the word “adapt.” Because, as noted in the text, each narrative enacts a set of values that govern its audience appeal, it would be unrealistic to attempt to change the values of a wide range of individuals of whom many will not have a great level of interest in the narrator’s cause. Having an intended audience guarantees a higher likelihood for success because they will find good reasons to follow the cause that will affect them positively and create a change they want to see and experience. However, it seems that a decent narrator, given the story is believable and worthy of a fight, should strive to and succeed at changing the minds of those who may not be in line with its ideas immediately.
According to the text, the two main elements people will question before becoming involved in a story are its “coherence (does the story work?)” and its “narrative fidelity (does the story use the audience’s beliefs and values?)” (204). The story told certainly depends on the narrator, or the person creating the narrative because “it is the narrator’s vantage point in time, intellect, wisdom, values, and character that positions the story for the audience” (204). The narrator must be knowledgeable, inspiring, passionate, etc. in order to draw in an audience that will be stirred to join the cause and take action. There could also be a form of identification and/or identity, helping unite followers by highlighting their common attributes and by identifying an enemy figure against whom to fight. This inevitably leads to the creation of a reality unique to the social movement; a means of both unity and division – a dialectic notion of sort (Philpott, Class lecture 04/27).
Dr. Jeff Philpott’s presentation about the Hawaiian Sovereign Movement illustrates how much the discourse created around and within a movement depend on how the story is presented, the vocabulary used, the “enemy” created, etc. All stories have at least two sides, even if the cause or motive is similar and this seems to be true of all movements. The direction they take are also highly contingent on the storyteller, their background and their beliefs. There is no set formula for the success of a movement, clearly, but its narrative vision is a sure determinant.