Listening to Rural Voices: The Transformative Power of Story Circles

Collaborative governance—or “co-governance”—offers a model for shifting power to ordinary people and rebuilding their trust in government. Co-governance models break down the boundaries between people inside and outside government, allowing community residents and elected officials to work together to design policy and share decision-making power. Cities around the world are experimenting with new forms of co-governance, from New York City’s participatory budgeting process to Paris’s adoption of a permanent citizens’ assembly. More than a one-off transaction or call for public input, successful models of co-governance empower everyday people to participate in the political process in an ongoing way. Co-governance has the potential to revitalize civic engagement, create more responsive and equitable structures for governing, and build channels for Black, brown, rural, and tribal communities to impact policy-making.

Still, co-governance models are not without challenges. The hierarchical and ineffective nature of our current governing structure is difficult to transform. Effective collaboration between communities and politicians requires building lasting relationships that overcome deep distrust in government. So far, effective models of co-governance tend to be local and community-specific—making it critical that we share stories of success and brainstorm ways to scale.

In this series, we share stories of co-governance in practice. For this interview, New America’s Hollie Russon Gilman and Sarah Jacob spoke with Dee Davis and Ben Fink about the power of story circles as an organizing tool.

Could you briefly walk us through the origins of this project?

Dee: We were asked by the Omidyar Network to put together a project for their rural economic future work. After some hesitation, we decided to proceed. We felt it was important to incorporate rural viewpoints. We initially planned focus groups but later shifted to story circles due to logistical issues.

I discussed this with Ben, who had significant experience in community organizing, particularly in Appalachia around creating culture hubs. Ben had found ways to find people who were diametrically opposed politically and getting them to work together. We aimed to focus on personal economic experiences, believing they would resonate deeply. We brainstormed prompts to encourage folks to open up and settled on “tell us a time when your economic prospects changed.” Initially it was prospects, not future, but it got massaged in the circles with words like outlook. A difference with little distinction.

What are story circles, and what is the process of carrying out a story circle?

Ben: Story circles are deceptively simple yet carefully curated. They provide space for participants to comfortably share some of their most vulnerable experiences, while also complementing the stories shared by others. Story circles were created by the grassroots theater companies Roadside Theater and Junebug Productions, who were deeply rooted in community organizing. They were touring across the rural south where Klan activity was going on, so they needed to find a way to make it possible to share their stories, both openly and safely. What distinguishes a story circle from a focus group is that you lay out all the rules in the beginning, and then the group takes over and starts sharing.

Before diving into the stories, participants are encouraged to have a meal together to break the ice. Then, the facilitator sets the stage, emphasizing the importance of listening and responding to each other’s stories. Crafting the prompt is the most challenging and crucial part of the story circle, striking a balance between specificity and openness. The prompts often ask people to reflect on something in their personal life in relation to something bigger than themselves.

After the facilitator lays out the rules, takes questions, and shares the prompt, we sit in silence until someone starts sharing a story, then we go around the circle starting with that person. Once the stories begin, participants listen intently, each story informing the next. The goal is not to agree but to acknowledge and respect each perspective. Even conflicting experiences contribute to a richer understanding of the community’s story.

Whatever story you think about when you first hear the prompt, the facilitator encourages you not to tell that one—because you’re meant to share a story that somehow responds to the stories you’ve heard before you. It could contradict, complement, or complicate those stories—it doesn’t have to agree but in some way it has to respond. Through doing that, we start getting a sense of the story in the center of the circle, the story we all share. We start to learn what we have in common, irrespective of all the complexities.

With the prompt regarding rural people’s perspectives on the future of the economy, we told folks to interpret the prompt any way they want. It could be focused on a change that’s positive or negative or ambiguous, that happened in a second or in years.

After everyone has shared, there’s an opportunity for reflection and discussion. This post-story circle dialogue (often called “cross-talk”) uncovers deeper insights and connections. Some people might consider story circles touchy-feely, but they have been instrumental in laying the groundwork for powerful people’s movements.

What have you witnessed in your experience conducting story circles?

Dee: In the story circles I’ve participated in, there’s been a genuine sense of solidarity. People from diverse backgrounds, like a man in Wisconsin who grew up in poverty and others in Kentucky facing dire poverty, found empathy and connection through shared experiences.

One memorable story from Kentucky involved a woman whose economic situation changed dramatically when a friend helped pay off her debts. Each story was unique, yet they all honored each other’s experiences.

I also recall a session in Kentucky where we expected 10 participants but ended up with over 20 due to the promise of $75 Walmart gift cards. Irrespective of what got them there, these individuals were genuinely interested in sharing their stories, highlighting the resilience and determination of those facing adversity.

Ben: In story circles, there’s a surprising mix of laughter and tears. It’s a cathartic experience where people get to share, speak, and be heard in a way they often crave but rarely get access to. Despite the often heavy topics, there’s a sense of camaraderie and hope.

For instance, in a recent poll of swing state voters, there was a prevailing sense of despair. Yet, in our story circles, while the challenges were acknowledged, the overwhelming ethos was one of unity and determination. Many expressed a desire to strengthen connections with their neighbors, even across party lines.

Story circles offer an avenue for allowing multiple truths, solutions, and perspectives to exist all at once. Unlike traditional formats, they allow for both profound exploration of important issues and casual conversations about everyday matters. Participants can find common ground while also respecting the diversity of experiences. They provide a space for both reflective meditation and practical problem solving.

Dee: It’s about the civic impulse to show up for each other. One participant captured it perfectly by saying, “I don't have much, but they don’t have anything. How can I take stuff when they’re in such need?” It’s generative in the sense that people naturally respond to others in peril.

How do you recruit participants for story circles, and how do you navigate compensation?

Ben: Normally, I don’t compensate people for participating in story circles because they’re usually part of an organizing project where communities come together to build power on their own terms and in their own interest. Participants recognize the value and benefit from it. It’s crucial to be transparent about intentions and the exchange involved. For the Rural Strategies story circles, we recognized that we wouldn’t be part of an ongoing organizing process that’s owned by the community. So, we provided gift cards to acknowledge their contribution and make the exchange fair and equitable.

In terms of recruitment, we worked in communities where we already had relationships. For example, in East Kentucky and Minnesota, we worked with organizations we had long standing connections with. Similarly, in Ohio, we partnered with organizations aligned with our goals, leveraging their trust and networks to reach participants. This approach ensured mutual interest and trust. It was a deliberate aspect of our methodology, as outlined in our report.

How do you build trust with community members and ensure you have a representative sample of the community?

Dee: The idea was not to capture everything in one group but to create a diverse mix. We wanted people from different backgrounds, perspectives, and cultures to participate. We aimed for an honest representative sample of the community’s stories and issues, rather than a statistically perfect random sample.

Ben: We emphasized the need for a diverse set of relationships to the economy, encompassing race, class, gender, age, occupation, and economic status. The goal was to include laborers, entrepreneurs, small and big business owners, government officials, policymakers, the unemployed, and those struggling to find work. This diversity was crucial in capturing a comprehensive understanding of rural people’s perspective on the economy.

In terms of building trust, while some participants already knew us or knew of us through mutual connections, the methodology of the story circle itself played a significant role. It effectively flattened out inequalities by giving everyone an equal opportunity to share their story, regardless of their background or level of education. The format ensured that each person had the chance to share a story, avoiding speeches or talking points.

I’ve observed that folks with more formal education or privilege sometimes struggle the most to share a story in this format, which can challenge the usual power dynamics within the group. Clear expectations were set from the outset, with facilitators refraining from speaking unless absolutely necessary once the story circle starts, except when it’s their own turn to share a story. In cases where someone attempted to assert dominance or monopolize the conversation, facilitators intervened to uphold the agreed-upon rules of engagement.

What are some of the tangible outcomes that come from a story circle?

Dee: We utilize the approach not to directly alter policies but to enrich our understanding of the responses obtained through polling and foster a sense of camaraderie. The intention is to stimulate discussions that had previously overlooked certain perspectives. While our primary goal was to produce reports for a foundation, we also aimed to disseminate these conversations to a broader audience, recognizing the potential for indirect influence on hearts and minds, akin to the transformative effect of literature or art. Therefore, rather than viewing it solely as a political instrument, I see it as a tool to deepen our insights and connections.

Ben: I’d like to expand on that. In community organizing, we often refer to the cycle of research, action, and evaluation. Story circles can serve as tools at each stage of this process: research, action, and evaluation. The story circles we conducted were primarily tools for research, aimed at gathering information, knowledge, and diverse perspectives. Our goal was to share and publicize this information, which we are currently in the process of doing. For example, our report on the story circles includes key observations and suggestions, such as the widespread distrust of government and big institutions we heard across party lines in rural America. Conversely, trust in community is highly valued across party lines and places. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for effective organizing in rural communities.

Moreover, we uncovered disparities in resource distribution, where certain areas receive more attention and resources than others, even within specific rural areas. For instance, in Letcher County, Kentucky, story circle participants suggested the resources after the flood disproportionately went to the county seat, Whitesburg, neglecting smaller communities like Hemphill—and similarly in Athens, Ohio, versus the surrounding areas. Recognizing these divisions is essential for targeted and equitable support initiatives.

In addition to research, I’ve also utilized story circles as tools for action. In my current organizing work in the Naugatuck Valley of Connecticut, story circles have been instrumental in organizing efforts, bringing together diverse groups to address housing policy, zoning laws, and government accountability.

Story circles are most effective when they’re part of years-long processes where people in the community were running them. I think it’s important that you do not want to just drop in and do a story circle as a one-off, when you want to use them as an organizing tool. Your first meeting with a group of people ideally should not be a story circle. It’s a tool that needs to be used at specific times and in specific moments.

It’s a hugely valuable tool at the right moment in crafting a common agenda. When we’re talking about canvassing, it’s like seven minutes of time with people. In a story circle, you’re together with people for two hours, and it’s a whole other level of depth.

Dee: I’m good with everything. Any quibbles are small. For Ben, I’m not sure the post-flood resources went disproportionately to Whitesburg, but there was a perception from a lot of people in other parts of the country that they did. I’m dealing with conspiracy theories about the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other government efforts. My instincts are not to add to suspicion by saying these poor, harmed people got more than these poor, harmed people.

Ben: At the same time, it’s a common theme that we heard in Ohio and Minnesota, too, and I’ve also heard it while organizing in Alabama. Here’s how we put it in the report:

“Don’t focus on the rural metropole to the exclusion of the rural hinterland. A recurring theme was the often-overlooked class and geographic divide that separates a rural area’s bigger and more central towns, which often get more attention and more resources, from its smaller towns and more remote areas, which often get overlooked. Resources and attention directed solely toward Whitesburg (KY), Grand Rapids (MN), Reedsburg (WI), or Athens (OH) do not necessarily improve the lives (or sway the votes) of residents of nearby places like Hemphill (KY), Virginia (MN), Plain (WI), or Glouster (OH).”

We would like to thank Ben Fink and Dee Davis for their incredibly helpful comments and editing support. Thank you also to Kelley Gardner and Maika Moulite for their communications support. This would not have been possible without them.