The most provocative symbol from the Occupy Wall St protests thus far has been the proliferation of the “99 percent” signs. These signs are ubiquitous now – both on the streets and on the web (where anyone can upload a pic on the We Are the 99 percent blog).

Why have these signs become so popular? What is their power and what is their impact?

The standard structure for the 99 percent stories is as follows:

1- A description of a person’s personal economic situation

2- An description of an unfair economic system that contributes to the problem

3- A mention of an action to take, such as visit occupywallstreet.org or attend a protest

Many in the Occupy Wall St protests have been derided for not having a structured message, but the 99 percent stories come closest to some sort of common narrative that ties the protestors together.

The power of the 99 percent stories lies in their ability to create a collective identity. For a movement to gain traction, it needs to create a shared identity for people to relate to. This helps answer the three important questions that social movement scholars, like Chuck Tilly, state are key to forming a collective identity – “Who are we? Who are they? Who am I?”

“We are the 99 percent” does just that. If we follow the logic of this story, We refers to the the majority of Americans who are not wealthy. They refers to the top 1% of the wealthy population. I refers to the individual who is a part of the majority of Americans who are economically disadvantaged.

The 99 percent signs state the “I am” part. These signs are an opportunity for individuals to situate themselves in the movement. This storyline is “open” and “vague,” as many have noted, but this is not a weakness of the storyline. For an emerging movement, a storyline that has an element of interpretive flexibility can be a major strength. As Francesca Polletta notes, author of “It Was Like A Fever: Storytelling in Protests and Politics,” the openness to interpretation in a movement’s story allows “diverse groups to see their interests as alike enough to act collectively.”

Lastly, the power of these stories lies in their ability for people to see their personal situation as part of a larger political and economic circumstance. This is the heart of C. Wright Mill’s notion of the sociological imagination. This is what helps people to see themselves not just as an individual, but as a citizen with a “vivid awareness of the relationship between [their] experience and the wider society.”

The power of the “We are the 99 percent” story is what is fueling the spread of this movement beyond Wall St into cities across the U.S. and even in international regions. This is a story that people can relate to across party lines and across cultural lines. Even if one is not personally protesting on the streets, they can identify and become a part of the movement by making a sign (or sharing a sign) and sharing it in virtual solidarity in the online space. This helps to explain the “viral” nature of the spread of this message in the last week.

But is this a powerful enough statement to mobilize a full-fledged movement with specific goals and action for change? It is too early to tell, but Sidney Tarrow, another well-known social movement scholar, has some worthwhile insights on CNN.com in regards to the potential impact of these protests.

What we do know that can make this message stronger is to ground it in strategic framing. Where are the key values in this messaging? How can protestors explain the economic situation in a way that helps the public understand and support an appropriate solution? Furthermore, what are the specific solutions that this group would like to enact?

It’s clear this movement needs to think through the communications side a bit more…and I believe that the ground is fertile enough at the moment for some spokespeople to stand in and guide the movement in a more constructive direction. It is definitely worth looking into some of FrameWorks recommendations on framing Budgets and Taxes for creating a message that can lead to concrete action.

What are some of the most poignant signs you’ve seen? Which ones do you think are the most powerful? What are the ways in which this message can be strengthened? Link to the signs that have stood out most to you in the comments section below.

How does the public make sense of incoming information? Through stories.

What kinds of stories help the public make sense of information on social issues? Thematic stories.

People process new information best through narrative structure. Kurt Vonnegut, the famous American novelist of  Slaughterhouse-five and Cat’s Cradle, knows this well. Watch this entertaining lecture as he lays the basic outline for three types of narrative structures.

Click here to view the embedded video.

What does this mean for those of us in the non-profit communications field?

As you can see, these narrative patterns queue familiar stories. While Vonnegut only briefly mentions key pieces of the story, like “a glass shoe” or a “girl in a hole,” we are able to fill in the rest to provide meaning to his construction. The pattern of the story and his added detail helps us create pictures in our head of what the stories are supposed to be and how they should play out.

Similarly, this is how people understand social issues. When experts and advocates use narrative structure to tell a meaningful story about social issues, they help the public more easily make sense of and take action on those issues.

It is important to distinguish, however, between narrative structure and narrative content. In Vonnegut’s lecture, he uses the specific narrative of Cinderella to explain the structure of the story. We, of course, do not want to tell stories of individuals facing challenges in their personal lives. This would be an episodic story that we know tends to individualize an issue.

To maximize public support, we want to use narrative structure to tell thematic stories that share the experiences of groups and communities facing challenges that they can surmount together. If you’d like to learn more about thematic vs. episodic stories, see our Framing Essentials pdf entitled, “Telling Thematic Stories.”

How can your organization use narrative structure and thematic content to better frame your issue?

Question: “Why shouldn’t I tell personal stories?  The media wants them, legislators love them, and I think they can really touch people’s hearts.”

Answer: This is a question we are often asked by organizations that are new to framing. Public relations experts commonly advise advocates to communicate their messages through vivid personal stories. These stories are often about the heroic struggles of individuals who have triumphed in the face of great odds. They are usually accompanied by pictures that depict the hopeful faces of the downtrodden and neglected in organizational materials.

Scientific research shows that, if this technique works at all, it probably doesn’t work the way advocates think it does. There are three primary reasons why this kind of storytelling doesn’t work to promote policy solutions to social problems.

1- “Not all examples are good examples” — distortion effects.  People tend to generalize from the example you present, and to overestimate the extent to which the specific situation portrayed occurs in the overall population.

2- “Can’t see the forest for the trees” — episodic framing. Episodic frames are those that focus on discrete events happening to specific people at particular places and times. The more vivid the examples, the more likely they are to draw the audience to miss structural and environmental causes and conditions. In contrast, we are trying to get people to understand social issues in a “thematic” way, focusing on the trends, context, and broader societal forces that underlie the problem.

3- The “Cosby Effect” — invigorating global stereotypes. Advocates must be extremely careful not to activate a global and/or negative stereotype when utilizing examples of individual successes.  In other words, when people see a successful depiction counter to the prevailing stereotype (such as a successful, middle-class African-American family like the one shown in the popular 80’s television show about the Cosby family), it does not map onto their thinking about other members of the group.  On the contrary, research shows that people are left wondering what’s wrong with those who do not live up to the example, and the existing stereotypes are actually reinforced.

Three questions to ask before you use a vivid case example are:

1.  Is the case I would choose likely to result in a distortion of my broader policy goals?

2.  Is the case likely to narrow the discussion away from themes and systems to individual characteristics of particular people, or likely to set up a charity response?

3.  Is the case connected in any way to global stereotypes associated with the issue, and thus, likely to backfire?

This doesn’t mean that you can’t tell stories about people.  There are many powerful stories of cause and effect, environmental conditions, and policy solutions that are often neglected in the focus on vivid case examples. Much of FrameWorks material is devoted to teaching about how to tell stories that will actually accomplish your goals and change how people think about your issue.  This kind of storytelling is more difficult to do at first, but will ultimately result in the communications outcomes we seek.

For more information on framing essentials, visit our FrameWorks Product and Tools page. This article has been adapted from Framing FAQ’s Ezine.