Navigating a fragmented public space is no longer a matter of mastering messages, but of decoding tensions. The communicator no longer has the comfort of a well-framed narrative: he works in friction, where stories and narratives no longer align. They deal with the unstable, aware that any narrative can be turned against them. He arbitrates conflicts of perception in a fractured public space.
Accepting instability: multiple, ambivalent and unequal audiences
Understanding one's field of action doesn't mean controlling audiences or anticipating the unpredictable. For communications professionals, it's less a question of dominating the space than of listening to it, reading it in its depths and dealing with its contradictions.
Stakeholders (customers, users, partners, citizens, employees) are neither homogeneous nor always accessible. They are fragmented, sometimes silent, often ambivalent.
Serious cartography doesn't just identify the visible players; it also interrogates the absent ones, the marginalized voices and underground tensions. Adapting a message means more than simply translating it into another language or tone. It's about choosing a position within a field of forces - which involves ethical trade-offs.
Imagine an organization running an awareness campaign: on paper, it's aimed at "the general population". In reality, it's aimed at people who are already informed and convinced. Those who feel excluded, ignored or stigmatized don't hear the message - or resist it. Not because they're hostile, but because they don't recognize themselves in it. Because their experience has not been taken into account in the construction of the story.
Another frequent case: a public institution or company confronted with online criticism. Its first reaction is often to respond with figures, facts or procedures, in the belief that this will ease tensions. But that's not always enough. With hindsight, we realize that in some cases, what's expected is more than just objective information: it's often a need for recognition. People don't necessarily want an immediate solution. Above all, they want to be listened to, and for their feelings to be taken into account in the response, whether it's a statement or an explanation. Depending on the circumstances, they expect their experience to be recognized as legitimate, even if it is partial, subjective or emotionally charged.
By being aware of social issues and competing narratives, communicators need to know how to detect dominant narratives and those that remain invisible. This means keeping a critical eye on media and societal trends: which narratives dominate the public arena? Which others are ignored? What biases are we unwittingly reinforcing?
Adapting is not enough; sometimes we need to confront the narratives, to redefine the terms of the debate and pave the way for communication that is perceived as fair.
Data never speak for themselves
Data is precious, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Behind every figure, there are blind spots: misrepresented audiences, collection biases or biased interpretations.
The danger is not the absence of data, but the blind trust we place in it. All too often, data is used to validate decisions that have already been taken, motivated by political, emotional or opportunistic considerations. For decision-makers, relying on analysis must go hand in hand with a capacity for self-criticism.
This doesn't mean that all decisions are biased or manipulated: in some contexts, data are actually mobilized to rigorously inform action. However, data never speak for themselves. Its selection, interpretation and "storytelling" always depend on a framework of thought. That's why it's essential to keep a critical eye on how data is used, to cross-reference sources and to remain attentive to what data can hide, in particular the human, social or symbolic dimensions of a situation.
Transforming mistrust into a relationship
We don't engage all audiences. Some audiences can't be convinced or captured. Yet they influence reputation, acceptability and legitimacy.
In such cases, storytelling is no longer enough. You have to create spaces for dialogue, accept disagreement and actively listen to what's disturbing. Criticism is not necessarily a misinterpretation: it's a weak signal to be taken seriously.
When talking is no longer enough, or when mistrust sets in, the challenge becomes relational.
Let's take a simple, everyday example. A patient expresses reluctance to follow a medical treatment recommended by his doctor. The doctor, convinced by the clinical data, responds with technical arguments: figures, studies, probabilities.
If the patient is not confident, or has a family history of distrust of medicine, this response can seem cold, even authoritarian. It risks reinforcing the distance...
Conversely, starting by listening to fears, asking open-ended questions, acknowledging doubts, can restore a form of connection. It's not the solidity of the data that convinces here, but the quality of the listening. Communication becomes relational. In reality, it's not the veracity of an argument that convinces, but the perceived legitimacy of the person making it.
Three levers for demining sensitive areas
1. Mapping competing narratives, not just targets
Don't stop at hearings. Identify the various narratives: who is speaking, with what legitimacy, and against what? Analyze fringe or radical narratives too, not to validate them, but to anticipate their impact.
2. Test messages on critical profiles
Have your messages evaluated by external or critical audiences. Their reactions can reveal blind spots before they become sticking points. Don't try to smooth over tensions. Make them visible, understand them, and integrate them into your communication.
3. Anchor legitimacy in relationships, not in proof
In a climate of mistrust, it's not the "true" that convinces, but the "credible". Build the relationship before the argument. Start by acknowledging a fear or frustration before proposing an answer that seems "rational" to you...
Further information
The terrain is alive: enter it without arrogance.
The terrain you observe and navigate cannot be owned or predicted. It's something you experience, go through and negotiate. For communicators and decision-makers, this means adopting a posture of active humility: observing without projecting, dialoguing without manipulating, adjusting without giving up integrity.