Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

How we talk about freedom has major implications for how our messages are received and what they inspire people to do.

For the last two years, the Culture Change Project has been conducting research into how different values can be used to strengthen systemic thinking across issues. One thing we’ve found is that compared to other values (like fairness), appealing to freedom is more likely to backfire and reinforce unhelpful ways of thinking, like individualism. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t appeal to the value of freedom, but it does mean we need to do so very intentionally.

When we talk about freedom, it’s critical to emphasize systems—and specifically, to center how systems can and should be redesigned. If we don’t, our research shows that freedom will likely be understood in individual terms—as people’s ability to exercise their will without limits. Just mentioning “freedom” and not deliberately bringing systems into view can make it harder for people to see why we need to take collective steps to change our systems.

The role our laws, policies, and institutions play in protecting or threatening our freedoms is off the radar for most people. It’s up to us to bring that into view.

Here are two steps you can take to foreground the role of institutions and power when talking about freedom:

1. Be explicit about who poses a threat to core freedoms.

Fill in the blanks early and bring power into view. Talk about that “who” as a set of actors, naming categories rather than individuals (e.g. talking about “corporations” or “big tech”) whenever possible, to avoid your audience focusing on how they feel about particular people.

What this could look like: A wealthy few have designed the economy in their favor. They hoard wealth and limit our freedom.

What this could look like: Big tech dominates our society, controlling it without our permission. It makes huge profits from new technology, even if that tech hurts people.

2. Offer a clear explanation of how freedoms are under threat.

Show how institutional power is wielded, to what effect, and what we can do about it.

What this could look like: A few big corporations have twisted our tax system by slashing taxes on investments and corporate profits. While those companies get rich, our government is left without the money to pay for essential public services. If we want to be free from the domination of big corporations, we need to demand higher taxes on investments and corporate profits.

What this could look like: Our campaign finance system is rigged against the public interest. It lets a small number of ultra-rich people buy influence over elected officials. As a result, the government helps corporations profit at the expense of the rest of us by cutting taxes for the wealthy and letting employers avoid paying decent benefits. As wealth gets more and more concentrated in a few hands, there’s even less of a check on the powerful. That leaves the rest of us without a real say over our own lives.

To us at FrameWorks, there’s no question of whether or not we should try to contest the meaning of freedom. We must contest the meaning of freedom so that over time, the role that systems and collective decisions play in shaping our freedom becomes obvious to everyone. But it’s also critical for us to recognize that this isn’t the default understanding of freedom right now. Simply dropping the word “freedom” into our messages is likely to only push systems further out of view. If we want to win the contest over what freedom means, it will take careful, strategic framing.

A full research report, Claiming Contested Values: How Fairness, Freedom, and Stability Can Help Us Build Support for Transformative, Structural Change will be available this winter. Make sure you’re subscribed to the On Culture newsletter to read it as soon as it’s available.