Lesson Report:
**Title: Policy as Storytelling: Competing Meanings, the Polis, and Ambiguous Signals**
Today’s class focused on how public policy is shaped by stories, meanings, and interpretations rather than by neutral, purely technical reasoning. Through image-based partner activities and a mini-lecture drawing on Deborah Stone’s concepts, students examined how the same “objective� reality can be framed in multiple, often conflicting, ways. The session set up a key course theme: understanding how political actors use narrative, “spin,� and ambiguous signals to build support for policy positions.
—
### Attendance
– Number of students explicitly mentioned as absent in the transcript: **0**
*(The transcript includes partner-finding and group work logistics, but no specific mention of absent students.)*
—
### Topics Covered (Chronological, with Detailed Activity & Lecture Notes)
#### 1. Course Logistics & Reading / Assignment Reminders
– Instructor noted that the **eCourse** site is now “filled outâ€� with the materials students need.
– **Reading reminder:**
– For **today (Tuesday)**: Students were asked to read up to approximately **page 4** of the assigned text (clearly Deborah Stone, *Policy Paradox*, though not named explicitly in the transcript).
– For **Thursday**: There are **~8 additional pages** to read (continuation of the same reading).
– Emphasis that **timely completion of readings** is important because they directly inform both **today’s** and **Thursday’s** activities and discussions.
– **First assignment reminder:**
– Assignment: A **problem statement about the bus lanes** (previous in-class work).
– Due date: **Submit via eCourse by Thursday.**
– Instructor notes it “shouldn’t really be that much of a challenge,â€� as students already had ample class time to work on it.
– These **bus-lane problem statements** will be the **foundation for activities on Thursday**, so having them submitted is important for upcoming in-class work.
—
#### 2. Partner Formation for Initial Activity
– Students were asked to:
– **Find a partner**, ideally someone they **have not worked with before** (not the same partner from the previous assignment).
– If they could not find a partner, they were told to **raise their hand** so the instructor could help pair them.
– Purpose:
– Encourage **new collaboration patterns** and ensure that students diversify who they work with.
– Set up the room for a **paired interpretive exercise**.
—
#### 3. Image Interpretation Activity I: “What Is This?� (Rope / Noose / Knot)
**Objective:**
To demonstrate that even a single, concrete object can carry multiple, conflicting meanings depending on perspective, experience, and language—foreshadowing the idea that **policy is never neutral** and is always embedded in stories.
**Setup:**
– The instructor projected an image on the screen—described by students as a **noose/knot made of rope**.
– Instructions to pairs:
– Answer the question: **“What is this?â€�**
– Come up with **four different answers**.
– Think of how **different people in different circumstances** might interpret the same image.
– Interpret broadly: not just usage, not just attributes—**multiple possible meanings**, including emotional and symbolic ones.
**Student responses (examples captured in the transcript):**
– **“Nooseâ€�** – students explicitly connect this to:
– **Lynching in the U.S.**, especially in the early 1900s.
– Public, extrajudicial racist violence, primarily against Black people.
– Noted that lynchings were often **public gatherings** and outside the formal justice system.
– Strong **negative, violent, racist, and historical connotations.**
– **“Knotâ€�** – more technical/neutral interpretation:
– A kind of knot that might be used **on a boat** or in other practical applications.
– Understood as a **tool** for securing lines, etc.
– Connotation: **neutral/empirical**, focused on function.
– **“Punishmentâ€�** – conceptual interpretation:
– Moves from the object itself (rope) to what it symbolizes: **punishment or execution**.
– **Other symbolic meanings** (inferred from comments):
– Could be associated with **“inevitabilityâ€�** or **fate**.
– Also, the rope could be used to **kill someone or save someone** (e.g., pulling someone to safety) – illustrating **ambiguous moral valence**.
**Instructor synthesis:**
– The instructor explicitly called attention to:
– The **different connotations** of each interpretation:
– **Positive** (e.g., life-saving tool, practical knot).
– **Negative** (e.g., lynching, punishment, injustice).
– **Neutral/empirical** (e.g., a rope, a knot, an object with a function).
– Core point:
– There is **one objective object** on the screen (a rope in a specific configuration).
– But the **names and meanings we give it** (“noose,â€� “knot,â€� “tool,â€� “lynchingâ€�) drastically shape:
– Whether we see it as **good, bad, or neutral**.
– What **uses** we consider legitimate or illegitimate.
– Transition to policy:
– This exercise is a metaphor for **policy design and debate**:
– Just as a rope can be variously named and interpreted, **policy issues and tools** can be framed in different ways.
– These frames determine whether something is seen as a **tool of justice, injustice, necessity, inevitability, etc.**
—
#### 4. Core Concept: Policy as Storytelling (Condition vs Problem vs Grievance)
**Objective:**
To re-anchor students in a key conceptual distinction from Week 1 and connect it to the day’s theme: policy as **storytelling** rather than just technical problem-solving.
**Key points:**
– Instructor revisits from the **first week**:
– The difference between:
– **Grievance**
– **Condition**
– **Problem**
– Clarification of terms:
– **Condition**:
– Something perceived as **inevitable** or a fact of life.
– Something people **“just have to deal withâ€�**.
– **Problem**:
– A condition that is **framed as solvable**, with **someone responsible** for solving it.
– The shift from “this is just how the world isâ€� to “this is unacceptable and can/should be fixed.â€�
– **Grievance**:
– A complaint or expression of dissatisfaction that can **fuel the reframing** of a condition into a problem.
– Crucial link to storytelling:
– The **act of agreeing** that something:
– **Can** be solved, and
– **Should** be solved by someone specific
– …comes from a **story** we tell about:
– How the situation **came to exist**.
– Who is **responsible**.
– Who is **harmed** or **benefits**.
– Policy takeaway:
– Policy is **not just selling a solution**; it is **also selling a story**:
– A story of the **origin of the problem**.
– A story about **causality, blame, and responsibility**.
– Policies are applications of **narratives** about what counts as a problem and what counts as an acceptable solution.
—
#### 5. Stone’s Framework: The Polis vs the Rationality Project
**Objective:**
To introduce/clarify Stone’s distinction between the **polis** and the **rationality project** as two contrasting ways to think about policy-making and political analysis.
**Polis:**
– Students were asked: **What is a “polisâ€�?**
– Responses: A **city-state**; in modern terms, the **people** or **political base**.
– Instructor elaboration:
– **Polis** in Stone’s sense:
– A **community of people** engaged in politics.
– The arena where **political decisions** are made and contested.
– Modern examples:
– A **town square** in a small village where residents debate what the mayor is doing.
– **Online spaces** (e.g., Instagram comment sections) where people argue about whether something is good or bad, or whether a policy is just or unjust.
– Emphasis on:
– The polis as **social, discursive, conflictual, and interpretive**.
– Politics as rooted in **people’s experiences, identities, and arguments**, not just numbers.
**Rationality Project:**
– The instructor introduced Stone’s term **“Rationality Projectâ€�**:
– Historical context: Emerged in the **1950s–1960s** as political science tried to become a more **formal “scienceâ€�**.
– Rationality Project goals:
– To treat politics as **scientifically analyzable**:
– Belief that we can make a **true science** out of people’s agreements, disagreements, and struggles for power and resources.
– Aim to:
– Boil politics down to **objective, rational, repeatable patterns**.
– Remove “human nature and ambiguityâ€� to uncover pure **cause-and-effect**.
– Connection to public policy:
– Public policy was conceptualized as a field where:
– There are **many problems**.
– **Governments** are expected to fix them.
– Governments often **get it wrong**.
– The Rationality Project asks:
– Can we design a **scientific approach** to solving public problems?
– Can we **standardize** and **repeat** effective solutions across contexts?
—
#### 6. What Makes Something a “Science�? Objectivity & Repeatability
**Objective:**
To clarify what scholars mean when they call something a “science,� and to use that to explain what the Rationality Project wanted to do in politics.
**Instructor-led discussion:**
– Students were asked: **What is a science? What distinguishes science from art?**
– Key criteria highlighted:
– Use of **evidence** and **logical reasoning**.
– The aim of **objectivity**:
– Belief that an **objective reality** exists beyond individual opinions.
– This reality can be **proven** and **shared** through proper methods.
– **Repeatability**:
– If an experiment or process is repeated, it yields **the same result**.
– Examples:
– Mix certain chemicals → always the same compound.
– Same numerical inputs → same mathematical result.
– In political science, the hope: similar political conditions → **similar outcomes** most of the time.
– **Predictability**:
– If patterns are repeatable, we can **predict** future outcomes.
– Application to policy:
– Rationality Project scholars believed:
– If we study past political/policy decisions scientifically, we can **predict** what works.
– We can **design policies** that reliably solve problems, again and again, across contexts.
– This approach often reduces policy to:
– **Economic models**
– **Cost-benefit analyses**
– **Efficiency metrics**
—
#### 7. Stone’s Critique: Limits of Pure Rationality & Return to the Rope Image
**Objective:**
To articulate Stone’s critique: focusing only on the rational, technical side of policy-making misses the **human meaning-making** that actually drives political power.
**Key arguments (from instructor’s synthesis):**
– Stone does **not** say we should throw out rational analysis:
– “It’s important that we try to take this scientific account into account.â€�
– But **if we look only at economics and math**, we:
– “Risk seeing the trees for the forestâ€� (or missing the forest for the trees).
– Miss “something hugeâ€� in how policies gain or lose support.
– Reconnection to the **rope/noose image**:
– A purely scientific view:
– “A tool,â€� “a rope,â€� “a noose,â€� “a knotâ€� – descriptions of **material properties and functions**.
– But in politics, what matters is:
– The **stories and meanings** people attach to the object.
– These provide its **power**:
– As a symbol of **justice**, **injustice**, **racist terror**, **saving a life**, etc.
– The object without meaning is politically inert.
– Policy tools and issues work the same way: their **political effect** depends on how they are **framed and narrated**.
—
#### 8. Image Interpretation Activity II: Ministry of Energy “Spin� Exercise
**Objective:**
To practice **reframing** and **positive spin**: showing how the same image can be honestly but selectively interpreted to support a political agenda.
**Setup:**
– The instructor projected another image (from later references, this appears to be a **factory or smokestack emitting smoke/pollution**).
– Scenario:
– Students are part of a **Ministry of Energy** in some country (country of their choice).
– The Ministry is about to publish an **article** that includes this image.
– Students must write a **one-sentence caption** that:
– Interprets the image **positively**.
– Is **not a lie**—they cannot state anything factually false.
– Must be **aligned with the Ministry’s interest** in presenting the scene in a good light.
– Instructor guidance:
– “You need to **spin** it.â€�
– They may treat it like a **headline**.
– The goal is to **spin the facts**, not to falsify them.
**Student work:**
– Students worked individually or with partners for a few minutes to craft their one-sentence positive captions.
– The key skill practiced:
– **Selective framing**: highlighting jobs, economic growth, energy production, modernization, etc., while not openly denying the presence of pollution.
– Turning potentially negative imagery (pollution) into something that can be **sold as progress** or **development**.
—
#### 9. Building a “Telegram News Image Library�
**Objective:**
To create a shared pool of **contemporary news images** for further practice in framing, interpretation, and identification of ambiguous signals.
**Steps:**
– Instructor asked students:
– To **join a Telegram group** (class communication channel).
– Once in the group:
– Students were instructed to **send a news image** (photo) to the group.
– Requirement:
– The image should **not contain text** (e.g., no embedded captions or headlines).
– **Exception**: Text that is naturally part of the image, such as a protester’s **sign** (“Free Iranâ€�) is acceptable, because it is part of the scene itself.
– Purpose:
– To assemble a **class-wide library** of **real-world political images** that:
– Can be interpreted differently by different sides.
– Can be used in future exercises on **framing and ambiguous signals**.
—
#### 10. Final Partner Activity: Identifying Opposing Interpretations & Crafting Ambiguous Signals
**Objective:**
To have students actively identify **two opposing political readings** of a single image and construct an **ambiguously framed caption** that could appeal to both sides.
**Instructions:**
– In pairs, students were told to:
1. **Choose one image** from the Telegram “library� (preferably **not their own**).
2. **Identify two opposing sides** who would likely interpret the image differently.
– Analogous example given by instructor using the earlier **factory/smokestack** image:
– Side A: Sees **jobs, a strong economy, industrial growth**.
– Side B: Sees **air pollution, sickness, lung cancer, environmental harm**.
3. For their chosen image:
– Identify the two **opposed belief systems / stakeholder groups**:
– Who might see the image as **positive**?
– Who might see it as **negative**?
4. **Create an ambiguous signal**:
– A **short caption** (2–3 words, but no longer than one sentence).
– It must **attach a meaning** to the image that:
– **Falls somewhere in the middle** of the two views.
– Is **vague or broad enough** that both sides could potentially accept it or “buyâ€� that interpretation.
– The instructor emphasized:
– Goal is to “get as many people to buy your meaning as possible.â€�
– The caption should **not clearly “take sidesâ€�**, but should still **frame** the image.
– Examples (from instructor, not necessarily students):
– Middle-ground captions like “A changing landscapeâ€� or “Shaping our futureâ€� (not said explicitly in transcript, but the instructor’s example with the factory implies such vague, bridging language).
– Constraints:
– Time was short near the end, so this was framed as something to be **continued / finished by Thursday**.
—
#### 11. Closing Reminders and Next Steps
– Before the end of class, the instructor:
– Reminded students to:
– **Send their one-sentence positive caption** (for the Ministry of Energy exercise) into the Telegram chat **before Thursday’s class** if they had not already.
– **Submit their bus-lane problem statement** assignment via eCourse **before Thursday’s class**.
– Previewed **Thursday’s class**:
– The class will continue with the concept of **ambiguous signals**.
– They will discuss:
– **Why ambiguous signals are so important** in politics and policy.
– **How to identify ambiguous signals** in real-world policies and political communication.
—
### Actionable Items for the Instructor
#### High Urgency – Before Next Class (Thursday)
– **Verify Reading Progress**
– Check (informally, via questions or a brief quiz) whether students have:
– Completed the initial **Stone reading up to page 4**.
– Completed the **additional ~8 pages** assigned for Thursday.
– Plan to explicitly connect Thursday’s discussion of **ambiguous signals** to specific passages/pages in Stone.
– **Collect and Review Problem Statements (Bus Lanes)**
– Confirm that students have **submitted their bus-lane problem statements** on eCourse.
– Skim submissions to:
– Assess how well students distinguish **conditions** from **problems**.
– See whether they are already (even implicitly) embedding **narratives** (who’s responsible, who’s affected).
– Select a few representative or contrasting examples for possible **in-class discussion** or a **short peer review** activity on Thursday.
– **Check Telegram Participation / Image Library**
– Ensure:
– All or most students have **successfully joined the Telegram group**.
– Students have posted at least one **news image with no embedded text**, as requested.
– Quickly scan the image library to:
– Identify a range of strong candidates for **opposing-interpretation exercises**.
– Note any that may be **too obscure or too graphic**, in case you want to steer students toward or away from particular images.
– **Review Submitted Captions (Ministry of Energy Exercise)**
– Look over the **positive-spin captions** students have posted to Telegram.
– Use them on Thursday to:
– Highlight **effective vs. clumsy spin**.
– Show how different students selected **different positive aspects** from the same image (jobs, modernization, national pride, etc.).
– Link explicitly to Stone’s discussion of **symbols, narratives, and political persuasion**.
#### Medium Urgency – For Upcoming Classes
– **Plan a Deeper Dive into Ambiguous Signals**
– For Thursday:
– Prepare **one or two policy examples** (e.g., bill titles, slogans, or agency mission statements) that use **ambiguous, broadly appealing language**.
– Ask students to dissect:
– Which **different groups** might interpret the same phrase differently.
– How these signals **mask underlying conflicts**.
– Consider using:
– A **short writing task** where students must deliberately craft an **ambiguous policy slogan** for a contentious issue.
– **Reinforce Stone’s Polis vs Rationality Project**
– In future sessions, explicitly tie:
– Students’ **image-interpretation work** to the **polis** (subjective, contested meanings).
– Their understanding of **cost-benefit / efficiency thinking** to the **Rationality Project** (objective, technical, repeatable solutions).
– Possibly create a **comparison chart** in class:
– How the same policy issue (e.g., bus lanes) is approached:
– In a **Rationality Project** frame.
– In a **Polis** frame.
#### Lower Urgency – Ongoing Course-Level Considerations
– **Track Group Work Patterns**
– Since students were asked to **work with new partners**, you may want to:
– Informally note whether they are in fact **rotating partners** over time.
– Encourage varied groupings to **broaden perspectives** in interpretive exercises.
– **Document Example Interpretations**
– Keep a running list of:
– Strong student-generated **interpretations**, **captions**, and **ambiguous signals** (from both the rope/noose and news image exercises).
– These can be:
– Reused later as **teaching examples** when the class discusses **framing**, **symbols**, and **policy paradoxes** more formally.
– Helpful if you plan to **publish course materials** or **reuse this lesson** in future semesters.
—
This report encapsulates the major lecture themes and interactive components of the session: policy as narrative, Stone’s polis vs the Rationality Project, and practical exercises in framing and ambiguous signaling using images and captions.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Bus Lane Problem Statement Submission
This assignment asks you to finalize and submit the problem statement about the bus lanes that you worked on in class, so that we can use your statements as the foundation for Thursday’s activities on how policy problems are framed as stories rather than neutral “conditions.�
Instructions:
1. Review your in-class work on the bus lanes problem.
– This is the “first assignmentâ€� already posted on the course site, which you had “plenty of time to get it done during class.â€�
– The instructor referred to it explicitly as “that problem statement about the bus lanesâ€� which must be submitted by Thursday.
2. Make sure your problem statement clearly:
1) Describes the current situation with the bus lanes (what is happening now).
2) Explains why this situation counts as a *problem* rather than just a neutral condition (who is affected and how).
3) Hints at who you think is responsible for addressing it (e.g. city government, transit authority, etc.).
– Keep in mind the class discussion about how policy is “storytellingâ€�: you are not just listing facts, you are implicitly telling a story about what went wrong and what should be done.
3. Edit for clarity and focus.
– Use clear, concrete language rather than vague complaints.
– Aim for a concise, coherent statement (for example, about one well-developed paragraph or a short set of well-structured bullet points, according to the usual expectations for this course).
– Check that someone who was not in class could understand:
– What the bus lane issue is,
– Why it matters, and
– What kind of change you are suggesting should be considered.
4. Proofread your problem statement.
– Check grammar, spelling, and sentence structure.
– Make sure your main point is obvious in the first few sentences.
5. Submit your problem statement online by the deadline.
– Upload it to the usual place where written assignments are submitted, **by Thursday** (the instructor said: “basically by Thursday, please submit that problem statement about the bus lanesâ€�).
– Ensure the file is correctly attached and submitted, and that your name is clearly indicated according to course conventions.
6. Keep a copy accessible for Thursday’s class.
– You will be using your submitted problem statement “as the foundation of the activities that we’ll be doing on Thursday,â€� so bring a digital or printed version you can refer to during class.
ASSIGNMENT #2: Complete This Week’s Reading (Stone, the Polis, and the Rationality Project)
This assignment asks you to finish the next portion of the assigned reading so that you can connect Stone’s ideas about the “polis� and the “rationality project� to our ongoing discussion of policy as storytelling and non-neutral.
Instructions:
1. Locate the assigned reading for Week 3.
– This is the same reading you used to prepare “up to page … fourâ€� for today’s class.
– Access the reading file for this week on the course site.
2. Identify the pages assigned for Thursday.
– The instructor said: “for Thursday’s class, there will be, I think it’s an additional like eight pages.â€�
– Read the next block of pages indicated for Thursday (approximately eight pages following what you read for today).
3. Read the new pages carefully, with particular attention to:
– Stone’s distinction between:
– The **polis** (political community of people, meanings, and conflicts), and
– The **rationality project** (the attempt to make policy into a repeatable, objective *science* like chemistry or physics).
– How Stone criticizes the idea that public policy can be “distilled into a true scienceâ€� that always works the same way.
– Any sections that relate to:
– Policy as **storytelling**,
– The role of **meaning** and **interpretation** (like with the rope/noose example),
– The idea that “policy is never neutral.â€�
4. As you read, connect to class activities:
– Think back to:
– The image of the rope/noose and how different names and stories (tool, knot, lynching, punishment, inevitability) changed its meaning.
– The smokestack/factory image, where one side sees economic growth and jobs, while another sees pollution and health impacts.
– Ask yourself:
– How would a “rationality projectâ€� approach each image?
– How would a “polisâ€� approach emphasize human meaning, stories, and conflict?
5. Take brief notes you can bring to class.
– Jot down key definitions (e.g., *polis*, *rationality project*).
– Write one or two examples (from news, your own experience, or our in-class images) that illustrate Stone’s ideas.
– Note any questions or confusions you want to raise in Thursday’s discussion.
6. Finish the assigned pages before Thursday’s class.
– Plan your time so that you’ve read and thought about the material **before** we build on it in the continuation of the “policy as storytellingâ€� topic and our work with ambiguous signals.
ASSIGNMENT #3: Ambiguous Caption for a News Image
This assignment extends the in-class exercise on “ambiguous signals�: you will work with a partner to choose a news photo from our shared Telegram image library and craft a short, middle-ground caption that different sides could plausibly accept, then send your caption into the class chat before Thursday.
Instructions:
1. Confirm that you are in the class Telegram group.
– In class, you were asked to join and “send that picture to the Telegram groupâ€� (a news photo without text).
– Make sure you can see the shared “libraryâ€� of news pictures your classmates have posted there.
2. With your partner, select **one** image from the Telegram library.
– Choose any of the news-style photos that do **not** have text overlaid.
– It may be related to protests, environment, conflict, politics, etc.—the topic is flexible as long as it is a news-type image.
3. Identify the two opposing sides that might interpret this image differently.
– Following the in-class instructions: “identify the two sides that are likely to see this image differently, right? Just as we did with the smokestack.â€�
– For each side, briefly clarify (for yourselves):
1) Who they are (e.g., government vs. protesters; environmental activists vs. factory owners; different political parties; local residents vs. outside investors).
2) What they would likely see or emphasize in the image (e.g., “jobs and strong economy� vs. “air pollution and sickness�).
4. Use that analysis to design an **ambiguous signal** (a shared caption).
– Your task is to “create an ambiguous signal … maybe two or three words, no longer than one sentence, but a caption of some kind that gives a meaning to it, that falls somewhere in the middle.â€�
– The caption should:
– Be **short** (a few words to one sentence).
– Contain **no lies** or factual falsehoods (you “are not allowed to lieâ€� about what is happening).
– Be worded so that **both sides** could plausibly accept or at least tolerate it, even if they read different implications into it.
– Think of it as a carefully “spunâ€� middle-ground headline that tries to “get as many people to buy your meaning as possible for this image.â€�
5. Draft and refine your caption together.
– Experiment with different phrasings until you find something that:
– Does not clearly “take sides,â€� and
– Still says something meaningful about what is happening.
– Use the Ministry of Energy smokestack exercise as a model: remember how we tried to say something *positive* without lying, by choosing particular facts and wording.
6. Post your caption in the class chat before Thursday’s class.
– The instructor’s closing instruction was: “If you have not already, please send your quick little caption into chat before Thursday’s class.â€�
– When you post:
– Clearly indicate which image your caption refers to (for example, by replying to the image or briefly describing it).
– Include only the caption text in your message (the caption itself should not be an image with text overlaid).
– If you already sent a caption during class, verify that it is in the chat and clearly linked to the chosen image; if you are not satisfied with it, you may refine and repost a clearer version.
7. Keep your notes on the two sides and your reasoning.
– You do not necessarily need to submit this analysis formally, but keep it handy for Thursday’s class.
– We will “continue with the idea of ambiguous signals on Thursdayâ€� and discuss why they are so important in policy and how to identify them in real-world policies.