Two months into the new administration, many of us are feeling the whiplash of reaction to the unending news cycle and the intentional creation of crises by the administration. Through it all, nonprofits are working to make sense of unfolding events and take strategic action. In our support of clients through this time, one significant pattern has caught our attention amidst the massive amount of information: the importance of boundaries and the dynamics around them.
In many ways the new administration wants us to believe that our reality is made up of distinct boundaries dividing life into dichotomous categories such as “good” or “bad” parts of government, those that are “efficient” or “wasteful”; “strong” or “weak” nations or leaders; only male or female; “loyal” or “disloyal” members of the government or military, etc. This is also seeping into the ways that public discourse is categorizing people. For example:
- On Immigration: DREAMERS, undocumented immigrants who have been working throughout our communities for decades and documented immigrants seeking or granted asylum or protected status are now being framed as “illegal immigrants.” Even the identities of legal immigrants and naturalized citizens are being narratively pushed into that categorization through attempts to undermine birthright citizenship, threats to expand denaturalization processes and attacks on freedom of speech among green card holders. This trend may be further advanced with the new emphasis on English as the official language of the US, to encompass those who speak English as a second language or not at all.
- On DEI: The complex array of people associated with “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility” broadly defined is being flattened into the categorization of “people supporting illegal preferences.” This is demonizing Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indigenous and LGBTQ+ people and women for seeking to advance more equitable systems. The banned words lists being used behind the scenes for funding cuts to the NSF indicates that just using these words is now resulting in punitive measures—effectively cementing the idea that racial and other identities are problematic. Not only is this directly racist and bigoted, but by framing that plethora of identities within one simplistic category, it reduces our ability to think about the nuance that exists within those groups, the ways that none of us have just one identity, and that there is no norm.
- On Gender and Sex: Official documents can no longer recognize gender diversity and must now only reflect one of two genders based on the physical appearance of a child at birth; transgender members of the military are being framed as incapable of serving well our armed services; the history of women serving in the military—which counters traditional gender norms—is being erased; members of the National Security Administration who participated in chats for transgender staff are being framed as threats to national security.
- Race: High-profile firings of multiple Black military leaders have come within a context in which the Secretary of Defense has repeatedly questioned whether they were hired based on their race. This implies that their capabilities, experience, history and on-the-job work—in short, their entire identities—can be understood fully by their race. Not only is this an inherently racist argument, because it subtly associates being Black with a lack of qualifications or capacity to serve in a leadership role of this kind, but the overall narrative impact is to further associate race writ large with people of color, and obscure the reality that White people also have a racial identities.
In all of these areas, the nuance, overlap and complexity of identities are being obscured within public discourse. This matters for all of us because it is the flattening of identities into homogenous politicised categories that can be aligned with “us” or “them.” This is toxic for values-based narratives meant to drive positive change for our communities.
Why Does the Simplification of Identities Matter?
For those seeking to reduce the possibility of political or civil violence, this is an essential element to keep tabs on because it is intricately linked to dehumanization and the politics of fear. Put simply, when we are convinced that those around us are only either “good” or “bad”, or that they either “belong” or “don’t belong” here, we are more susceptible to ingroup and exclusionary thinking—as is shown in social science research on political violence.
In times of social stability, this state of affairs can go on without significant disruption. However, in contexts where people feel that their livelihoods, wellbeing, safety and survival are uncertain or at risk, this “us” versus “them” mentality can easily turn into justifications for exclusion and in the worst instances, violence.
What Can Nonprofits Do?
Nonprofits have the opportunity and responsibility to work against these dynamics. Think about how you can:
- Ardently tell other stories—those that demonstrate nuance, the reality of overlapping identities and the inherent weaknesses in the arguments of “us” versus “them.” You should take up public space with narratives that trouble those simplistic dividing lines, causing our audiences to feel a sense of shared humanity with people of different identities but shared values.
- You can also keep an eye out for and combat fearmongering or claims of exceptional circumstances that actors may use to justify behavior or policies against our values. When you see these, you should use communications to remind your audiences of central grounding ethics.
- Identify and avoid thinking in terms of scarcity. When arguments are made in your sector that there is not enough funding or that to maintain support for some people, you have to give up on supporting others, stop and consider: how might you move out of that fear-based, reactionary mindset, to anchor your decisions and communications about them in an approach that reasserts the value that social goods should be widely shared for a collective future.
This increases awareness of the experiences of these groups and individuals and humanizes them in the eyes of audience members otherwise being exposed to xenophobic, racist and exclusionary narratives. This may not feel like a very direct way to impact the evolution of events in our country today, but this indirect work is perhaps the most important kind of mobilizing story you can tell to support a peaceful democratic society today.
This is hard work. It can be difficult to extract ourselves from the never-ending news crises, especially when each new story may have significant impacts on your field. But building the muscles to think outside of the narrative boxes being imposed by exclusionary movements is the key to avoiding reactive responses and establishing proactive and strategic organizational communications.
If you are uncertain about how to proactively address risk before it balloons into a crisis, or if you feel you’re actively putting out fires all the time, let’s talk about how we can support you and your team. In recent weeks, we have seen a strong demand for reworking language on websites, organizational positioning and supporting team members in orienting communications for the current climate.