“I Demand Power”

Women Deliver 2019 Conference, the largest conference on gender equality and women’s rights took place in Vancouver, Canada this past week. Women for Women International (WfWI) was invited to take part in this event as one of the organizations that continues to empower and help women. The staff had great things to say about the conference, and one name that came up in different conversations over and over was an 18-year-old activist from Zambia, Natasha Mwansa. Natasha was one of the speakers for the opening of the conference along with the prime minister of Canada, and the presidents of Ghana, Ethiopia, and Kenya. Compared to the president’s speeches, this young activist and advocate seemed to have left a long-lasting impression on those who had attended the conference. Recommended by a colleague that I would appreciate Natasha’s talk, I watched the opening where all the leaders were speaking. When hearing the different people take turns to speak, I could not stop but think about the difference in the persuasion route was that caused the audience to remember, Natasha, when presidents were talking on the same stage.

Richard Petty and John Cacioppo theorized that people seem to use two tracks of processing information when analyzing messages: the central and the peripheral routes to persuasion. The central route is practiced when a rational and capable person carefully considers the information presented before them. On the other hand, people who use the peripheral route, simply focus an association of the argument with positive or negative cues such as the number of arguments presented, the incentives provided, and who delivers the message.

Now going back to Natasha, her speech was powerful and empowering. While listening to her online, I could feel the fire in her to fight for children’s rights and demand to be given the position to have power. When she was asked if she had power, her answer was, “power is what you decide to make of it and…I demand power. Look at me. I am on the stage with presidents.” The presidents spoke of creating opportunities for women, the projects they had undertaken in their countries to ensure an increase in the numbers of women holding position and how they would continue to help with women empowerment. Most of what these presidents shared were nothing that I have not heard before on the media. When it was Natasha’s turn, she called out the speakers by saying, “we are done being beneficiaries…nothing can be done for us without us…you cannot make a decision for young people without having them in powerful positions”. She went on to say that many of the leaders say words of how to help women, but there is no reflection of those words in their communities.

So why did her message stick around in the ears of her audience compared to the words of the presidents? Petty and Cacioppo would say that when the subjects are personally involved in the issue, and there is a large quantity of argument, their attitudes towards that issue is considerably high, compared to those issues they do not associate with. In a way, Petty and Cacioppo argue that regardless of whether the arguments presented were strong or weak, Natasha’s audience would have listened to her. However, that is not entirely the case for this event because everyone on that stage was presenting on the same issue, empowering women. But because one speaker stood out then the rest, it shows that both central and peripheral routes were used, and people didn’t give into just accepting simple cues they associated with. And it wasn’t that Natasha’s speech simply had a stronger persuasive effect on followers due to the quantity of her speech since other speakers provided many arguments. Instead, it shows that people listened to Natasha because of the substance of the speech rather than the quantity. Overall, the messages were processed critically because most of the individuals at the conference possess both the motivation and ability to listen to the speakers on an issue they were passionate about. Instead of just relying on someone’s words because of their status or the number of their arguments for mental shortcuts, people did listen and used critical thinking.

It’s true that sometimes the arguments we accept are not always the strongest ones and that often we rely on various mental shortcuts to decide what to believe. Many of us don’t take the time to do the tedious work of analyzing what is accurate in a message and what it’s trying to convey, but, I cannot entirely agree with Petty and Cacioppo that “increasing the number of arguments in a message enhances persuasion.” I think in today’s era, people go after content, not quantity; thus, the number of arguments doesn’t constitute better arguments. I am confident that many of my colleagues at our site can agree with Petty and Cacioppo that we do use simple cues when listening to others, but when we are passionate about an issue, the quantity of the argument means nothing if it lacks quality.

Moving forward, I think it’s essential to be aware of these two routes of persuasion, so we can analyze people’s arguments before internalizing them. I know I will work on becoming a better listener and reflect on what I hear and whom I speak to in our office and for personal growth. At the same time, it’s good to be conscious of being way over skeptic that you are not able to trust anyone for what they say.

Natasha’s speech starts at 01:28:17