Recently I described myself to someone as an activist. Since then, that pronouncement has sat uncomfortably with me as I’ve come to the realisation that I don’t really know what being an activist means anymore. Often my activism has focused on changing a narrative — the set of messages that the majority subscribes to in order to make sense of the world. Sometimes we call this “groupthink”. Changing narratives is a big undertaking and, if at all successful, usually takes a long time.

Reading Patrick Snedden’s column in last month’s Tui Motu (Oct 2024), I found myself asking the same question Patrick asked himself: Have I been too vested in my various roles to take a wider view and raise my voice in protest? This is where my discomfort sits: I know I didn’t raise my voice in protest loud enough to be noticed. And I continue to ask myself why.

Snedden’s comments were in relation to the Royal Commission. But did I raise my voice in protest when I bore witness to wrongs in other institutions, political or otherwise? Do I do anything to challenge charismatic leaders who manipulate and weave their narrative grip on the groupthink of the day?

In 2006 I wrote a paper for the NZ Labour Party called "Language Matters" about taking greater charge of the language of debate and discussion in New Zealand. This re-framing meant gaining (or regaining) the use of concepts and phrases that spark public and media interest. To do that, I wrote, required a closer examination of our key values and finding words to describe those values that resonate with voters.

I argued then, and still do, that the conservative political right often do this much better than the left, not just in Aotearoa but in many other countries. They do it better because they understand the importance of capturing the language; they invest more money in it; and they tend to assert more arrogantly that their ideas are the right ones.

I drew on the writings of American linguist and cognitive scientist George Lakoff; the US think tank The Rockridge Institute and The Centre for American Progress.

If you control the language, you control the message. The media doesn’t create the message, they run with it. In the early 2000s the dominant narrative against progressive politics and activism was “political correctness”, or “political correctness gone mad”. These days it’s “woke virtue signalling” — a phrase used to diminish and ridicule the left-leaning progressive activist and to distract from the issue at hand.

This debate remains highly relevant as another United States election is upon us, and vastly different narratives to explain our world and gain votes fight for dominance. In America, the dominant prevailing metaphor remains the “family". Lakoff argues that the conservatives espouse a “strict father” model of the family while the social progressives espouse a “nurturing parent” model.

Is it time to be more conscious of the prevailing narratives in New Zealand? What values do they resonate with? Who among us will use our voices to ensure a narrative is based on the values that put humanity first? Or challenge a narrative that doesn’t?

I want to be a person who challenges unjust narratives and who isn’t afraid to speak up. Then, I won’t feel uneasy about calling myself an activist.

Tui Motu Magazine. Issue 298 November 2024: 3