Disrupting for Good: Reframe, not rebut

Here we are in May, and things continue to feel uncertain and precarious, beautiful moments that break through notwithstanding. 

You may be feeling overwhelmed—I know I am. I have a pet theory that none of our nervous systems really recovered from the COVID pandemic, and we no longer know how to recognize actual emergencies. We treat a lot of non-emergencies as urgent. I know I have to consciously and pretty regularly tell myself the difference. 

I don’t want to make it sound like it’s all bad. I’m enjoying sunny days, meals with family and friends, teaching my 16-year-old twins how to drive, good books, and meaningful work. 

But I also have to be intentional and realistic about my role and my zone of responsibility in advancing and defending social justice right now. I’m no one’s saviour. I’m a part of movements with lots of smart, talented people, and none of us has to do everything. 

And of course, the more things change, the more some things stay the same, and this includes messaging principles. 

So for all of us, it is worth a timely refresher on this key communications principle: reframe, not rebut.

Reframe, not rebut
Nat Kendall-Taylor wrote about this in a recent newsletter from the Frameworks Institute. He wrote, “Don’t rebut; reframe. Stay proactive—lead with your values and solutions, not your critics’ arguments.”

We’ve talked about this here before. Quoting Anat Shenker-Osorio from her fabulous Messaging This Moment Handbook: 

“[I]t’s tempting to rebut, refute and rail against what our opponents are peddling. But repeating what our opposition says, even in order to counter it, simply lends them more airtime. It’s also another form of leading with problems, not shared values. … As much as we wish otherwise, negating a claim actually brings it top of mind. … In fact, decades of research demonstrate that attempts to refute false information can actually strengthen people’s belief in the claims.”

So this is our reminder that harmful narratives are like waves: if we meet one head-on, we risk getting overwhelmed or simply reinforcing its energy. But if we introduce a well-aimed counter-wave, one that’s timed and shaped to disrupt, it can weaken and even wash out the original force. 

That’s why we don’t want to just rebut harmful narratives. Let’s replace them with stronger, more resonant stories.

Here’s an example that is relevant for a lot of us: encampments are being framed by a number of politicians as a matter of “park safety.” Arguing that encampments aren’t a matter of park safety moves us so far away from the points we want to make. So, how can we offer a reframe rather than a rebuttal?

I would suggest the frame “everyone deserves a safe place to live.” People live in parks because they have nowhere else to go where they feel safe. Real safety—for everyone—comes from investing in housing solutions. Housing First is the real path to safety for all. 

Is there a narrative that you would like to disrupt? I’d love to hear from you, and we can work on a disruptive counter-narrative together. (Seriously. This is one of my favourite things to do.) 

Either way, as we navigate harmful narratives over the next little while, let’s practice reframing them instead of rebutting them, and using our words as thoughtful, powerful, disruptive counter-waves. 

Keep it up. You’re doing great. 

​