Many of us are reaching for change in ourselves and the world. We’re reaching for each other, and participating in positive social transformation.
We don’t just do this by protesting in the streets (though, this is important!). We do this in every aspect of lives. That donation? Sure. Petition? Yes. The conversation with your taxi driver, or rider? Yep. That policy change at your work? Ah-ha. That article you wrote? Yep! The stop work campaign you participated in? Yep! The diverse characters in the game, film, TV show, or novel you created? Yes. Every part of our lives is open to change.
Narrative design activism is about the action we take through the creative projects we put out into the world, and, importantly, how we make them.
It’s narrative design activism to highlight to overtly include change that is channeled into how we make (our games, films, TV shows, novels, plays, and more*). This is because it isn’t always part of creative activism. Let me explain.
Creatives can be activists in some or all parts of their life and practice. There are areas that people default to putting their energy into more than others. To help illustrate this, I’ve listed patterns I’ve noticed. (Let me know your thoughts!)
Everyday not Entertainment
I know plenty of creatives who are activists about issues (such as changing for the climate and social inequalities), to various degrees, in their everyday, and not with their creative work. Sometimes this separation is unconscious because they learnt to silo different parts of their self (that was me!). Sometimes it is a deliberate split because they’ve erroneously been taught that design is not part of life. Sometimes it is a deliberate separation because while they know their creative work is oppressive and uninspiring, they need the income of conventional design work. Sometimes it is deliberate because they want to maintain an oppressive status quo in a creative industry that benefits them, or promises to.
Faces not Forms
There are those that see their their characters depicted, casting, and crew as activism (whether it is fiction or non-fiction), and they still employ design orthodoxy to make their projects. See Henry Lien’s “Diverse Story Forms and Themes, Not Just Diverse Faces.” This is also seen with initiatives where marginalised folks gain entry to the industry through special programmes, or are given their own niche events & audiences. The idea being that the creative changes to fit the industry, not the industry changes to include all of who they are. Sometimes this is an unconscious separation because they’ve erroneously been taught that they only have agency with implementation, not every aspect of design. Sometimes this is a conscious separation because while they know their creative work is maintaining orthodoxy, it is the only element gatekeepers/stakeholders would approve and they know it is making a contribution anyway. Or, inversely, they wanted it to maintain orthodoxy but they were compelled to include diverse characters, storylines, cast, and/or crew. Sometimes it is deliberate because the creatives want to maintain an unequal status quo for their benefit, or the promise of one, while also benefitting from being seen as progressive. See greenwashing, pinkwashing, blackwashing, etc.
These latter folks are often on funding/investment panels because of their activism, but they find a way to “reluctantly” reject projects with diverse forms, goals, & audiences. I despair at how common this is. But, I also know that they were taught (by society and creative projects!) that unequal treatment is the only way to survive this world. Our activism needs to include their liberation as well.
Industry not Practice
There are also creatives who aren’t using their creative works or their processes for activism, but take action about their industry to try and make things better. They take action on workers’ rights, pay rates, content quotas, open access publishing, respect for different roles, reaching audiences, and so on. Sometimes this is a first foray into activism and is appealing because of the potential personal (or group) benefit and the support of peers. It can be an onboarding to doing more. Sometimes these folks keep the separation because they want to contribute to change while (for the promise of income security) maintaining their professional status with studios and their oppressive practices. Sometimes these folks want to keep enacting and benefiting from oppressive creative practices, and also be seen as progressive. Sometimes there is this separation because they’ve erroneously been taught that design doesn’t change, only the industry around it. Sometimes there is this separation because they’ve erroneously been taught that creativity is about certainty, and so it is best they stick to the design they know.
Impact Documentary not Impact Entertainment
There are creatives and stakeholders who take action with the stories they tell, the design process, and their audiences, but only in documentary, education-based works, and serious games, not entertainment in general. Sometimes this separation is because creatives and stakeholders have been erroneously been taught that people don’t learn from entertainment. Some of the most impactful films, TV shows, and games were not made for impact. Take Jaws as an example, and it’s impact on shark policy and public fear of deep water (and for me, dipping my toe on the floor from my bed). Sometimes there is this separation because funders are limited by government policies that don’t allow them to invest in anything other than hedonism. Sometimes this is this split because investors have been erroneously taught that creative orthodoxy is the only market. Sometimes there is this split because creatives who work in entertainment fear they won’t be taken as seriously by their activist peers. Sometimes there is this split because creatives haven’t yet learnt how to be responsible with their design and make something undeniably entertaining.
Status Quo not Structure
There are people, including activists, who aren’t working creatives but who use storytelling in their campaign speeches, videos, and even use existing creative projects. More often than not, despite their goals of changing the status quo, they often use status quo design. Sometimes this separation is because design orthodoxy is what reaches them. Design orthodoxy is uplifted by the status quo and so reaches newcomers and those who aren’t inartistic professions. But, it needs to be said, design orthodoxy is not what many creatives work with, and their skewed representations of craft have been the subject of design activism within screenwriting, playwrighting, literature, as soon as the new oppressions were invented. Sometimes this split is because they’ve been erroneously told by trusted creatives who themselves have been misled about how design works. Sometimes there is this split because they’ve erroneously been taught that orthodoxy is the only entertainment market, even though there are activists sharing data on different designs for different audiences. Sometimes this is because the activists have taken on the oppressive ideas informing in design orthodoxy, and so they don’t see any contradiction.
Attuned without Accountability
There are creatives who are activists about the processes, methods, and techniques to the extent it frees them to design their way. This often excludes any interest engaging with prosocial design (in their fiction or non-fiction, or even in their peer relationships), or for social change goals. Sometimes this separation is because the issue with design orthodoxy isn’t just that it is anti-progressive, it’s that it thwarts most peoples’ creativity full stop. Sometimes this separation is because finding a process attuned to them is their first step on a journey of creative liberation. Sometimes there is a deliberate separation because they want to maintain and benefit from creative orthodoxy, but they personally can’t do conventional processes. Sometimes the split is because they crave novelty but they loudest voices around them steer that interest in the direction of a selfish status quo.
Aligned Practice
There are creatives that don’t silo their activism but instead continously attend to it, to the best of their ability, where they can, in every aspect of their creative and personal life. This is the least common because of impediments mentioned above.
I’ve been through every one of these areas of focus and I’ve found that what helps me align all of them. (Which doesn’t mean I’m perfect at all!) I’ll quickly share what that is rather than leaving the conversation there!
Narrative change activists talk about it, and so too do system change designers, and information communication researchers, among others. It’s got various names, including a “deep narrative,” “mindset,” “cultural narrative,” “paradigm.” This repetition doesn’t mean it is right and always will be. It means that there is a community of interest around it, lots of energy being put into it, and it resonates with me.
It’s about the underlying, cultural stories we tell ourselves about how the world works. It gives us the deep logic — the underlying worldbuilding or theme in writing terms — that contribute to what we do in our everyday, with our peers, our craft processes, the structures and mechanics we use, what we make, and so on.
I find that attending to deep narratives gives me a continuity of practice and cumulative insights.
I’ll be sharing the work people have done in this space and my own, too. I’m running a workshop on the restricting and liberating deep narratives that inform how we talk about craft, and will be sharing more in other formats as well. I’d love to hear your thoughts!
* There are those in games familiar with the term “narrative designer” as a noun to describe a job which involves, among other things, being a ‘team synthesist;’ playwrights familiar with the term “dramaturg,” which involves, among other things, attending to the meanings of the collective representations; and literary writers familiar with the term “narrative design” to include the form work of writing. I’m using the term less as a noun and more to denote the focus on designing. With the emphasis on the various meanings (narratives) associated with our design work on teams, industries, cultures, and more.
How to cite this page:
Dena, Christy (2026) “The Landscape of Narrative Design Activism,” Next World Narrative, 23 June. Last updated 24 June, 2026. www.nextworldnarrative.org/articles-2/the-landscape-of-narrative-design-activism/