Part 2 in a series on meaning-making
If you’ve decided now is a good time to do meaning-making — whether because you want to focus people on a priority problem to solve, popularize a solution or look at the world from a different perspective — you need to plot out how to get from here to there. And you’ll want to consider that what got you here may not get you there. Think about where you might want to do things differently or how you might engage with different people.
To ground us in this practice, meaning-making is a human process where one interprets what is happening to create a coherent understanding. In other words, how to make the world make sense. This is how one knows what to believe and how to make decisions. At times like now, when a lot is in flux, there are collective meaning-making opportunities underway competing for what will ultimately be widely accepted. Meaning-making is both deeply personal as well as social.
While meaning-making can happen in myriad ways, below are some phases that will help with planning. When you know where you are going, it is much easier to line up the momentum behind that. Planning ahead also offers an opportunity to start thinking about whom you need to involve, when, and even whom NOT to involve to keep from going off track.
Define your focus. At the start, you need to define what you are meaning-making about. Is it the answer to disengagement at the workplace? That’s what quiet quitting did. It explained a phenomenon that people were experiencing, and then demand to create solutions for it followed. Your definition will provide a point of focus to draw attention to.
At the starting point, there are several reasons you need to consider whom to involve in the definition setting. First, you need expertise. Consider those with different perspectives who have visibility on what you want to define and who will also add heft to your definition when they agree with and are seen as part of the brain trust.
From Peter Leyden: “At that early phase of ideation and innovation, you don’t look to elected officials, who have spent their lives focused on getting elected through the old systems. You don’t look to the established figures, who have climbed to the pinnacles of all the old institutions from elite universities to mainstream media to billionaire-backed think tanks, either. At that early stage of ideation and innovation, you look to the intellectuals and entrepreneurs and out-of-the-box thinkers — those who are not constrained by the old world and are focused instead on the new one.”
Credential the nascent idea. Early on, the right people need to say, “There is something to this.” They make it tangible. Who are those people? Experts on the issue are definitely important. What about skeptics or critics? Getting them to credential the idea may anticipate and navigate around an obstacle. Expand beyond experts, though. Whom does this idea impact? What do those individuals think? Does it line up for them? Is it common sense? And whom do you NOT need to credential the idea because that will make it take on meaning you don’t want?
“Placemaking” offers one example. This is a movement that took urban planning to a new level, asking people to consider beyond buildings whether they wanted to build deep connections. According to the Project for Public Spaces, William Whyte “introduced groundbreaking ideas about designing cities for people, not just cars and shopping centers. This new perspective gave birth to an entire field that thought about urban development differently. Because influential people, like Jan Gehl who saw Copenhagen as a laboratory for the idea, used their credibility to bring the idea to life, placemaking grew into a mainstream idea.
Catch on. The idea needs to take flight to have impact. Who are the evangelists and early adopters who can connect this idea to what they are working on and talking about? People who embrace new ideas and serve as emissaries are known as cultural entrepreneurs, and they shape how people see the world, what people want to solve and what opportunities people want to make a reality. Consider all the different people you want this idea to reach. Who serves as a gateway to those people? Where does increased reach need to happen to turn up the volume? Where does it not need to happen to avoid becoming controversial or polarized early before you are ready?
This is also when to consider that there might be many different reasons people have for embracing this meaning. How many doors can you create to give multiple entry points without watering down the idea? Digital wellness is a solid example. In some ways, how to deal with screen time, especially for kids, sits between a false binary of screens vs. no screens. But the truth is more complicated. Kids need screens to learn; so, instead of talking about screen time, groups like Half the Story and the former U.S. surgeon general are talking about what it takes to have teen digital wellness.
Become mainstream. This is conventional wisdom territory. Who are the herd and latecomers who, once they back and embrace the meaning-making, will give the idea the reach and penetration to make the needed impact? Is the idea resonating in all the sectors you need? Consider the concept of how to tackle the issue of boys and men who have fallen behind. Whereas in the past this was a somewhat invisible topic and often pitted against women and girls’ issues, it emerged after the 2024 elections as a mainstream idea that is attracting funding, policymaking and buzz. And those are all signals of mainstreaming.
Withstand the haters. When an idea takes hold, it often has winners and losers. The losers could decide that they don’t want the idea going any further. Consider “Climate change is happening” to make meaning of what we see in the natural world. Climate denialism rose up to slow it down, create friction, and, when possible, foment backlash. And it worked.
You can’t (necessarily) stop this from happening, but you can be smart in anticipating it and taking steps so that it is only a headache and not a momentum killer. Fast Company just published a piece on the fall of stakeholder capitalism, but however you might feel about this analysis, keep in mind that stakeholder capitalism had a 25-plus year ascendancy and it might be evolving rather than dead.
Embrace that imitation is a form of flattery and a crossroads. Co-option happens. When meaning-making is successful, others will use it as an anchor to make sense of their own ideas. This can be problematic. Superficial and insincere examples can damage the idea, taking away its power. As a meaning-maker, you will have to decide whether you can rehabilitate the co-options to remain true to your intentions or decide whether you need to find new ground to do meaning-making. Let’s look at placemaking again. After more than two decades as an ascendant idea, lots of developers tried to hook different initiatives and efforts to this, hoping to use the halo of placemaking for things that might not quite fit. Those who focus on communities that are cohesive and have purpose and awe built in will have to decide whether to make the placemaking definition stricter so that it doesn’t get watered down or whether they need to cede the field and find a new place to meaning-make.
Enhance the definition or start fresh. This decision takes you as a meaning-maker back to the creative phase to decide whether you want to put more teeth on the definition to foil negative co-option or find new ground and start again. While frustrating, take heart in the fact that you were so successful, and remember that surely whatever you decide, you can do consequential meaning-making again.
