I had the worst time getting through and understanding Fischer’s argument about Narration as human communication. Eventually, I broke it down by typing it out into my Blog. (I think I am beginning to understand?) Fischer begins his argument by describing the Rational World Paradigm as unsatisfying, and then recommending the Narrative World Paradigm. This is what I gleaned from the juxtaposition:
The Rational World Paradigm: argument as product and process is the means of being human
- Humans are rational
- Mode of decision making and communication is argument
- Conduct of argument is governed by influences of the situations (I.E. scientific, legislative, public)
- Rationality is determined by knowledge, argumentative ability, and ability to use rules of advocacy in relevant subject
- World is set in logical puzzles which can be resolved through appropriate analysis
The Narrative World Paradigm: homo narrans
- People are storytellers.
- The world is a set of stories, to live in continual recreation the individual chooses a narration that matches beliefs/values.
- People claim reasons (“production”) for their decisions: influenced by history, culture, and perceptions about, all reasons are subjective and incompletely understood.
- Rationality is determined by the nature of persons as narrative beings.
I am really playing around with the two types, and I find that neither paradigm is superior to the other, but then again I might still be playing around with his ideas.
Take William Faulkner’s novel Absalom, Absalom! : I believe that it emphasizes Fischer’s Narrative Paradigm. Essentially the structure of the whole narrative is either an eye-witness telling a story of what happened, or another person that heard the story is retelling the story. I believe that it embodies Fischer’s first point that people are storytellers because the whole of Faulkner’s text has characters telling the narrative of "what occurred with Supten", the main character.
As the whole novel is told by people in a story-telling format, the reader is completely dependent on the narrator for the “truth” in the story. The reader ends up reading parts of the novel that contradict themselves, and that are completely made up. Faulkner is emphasizing how story telling is very subjective, and that is what Fischer is arguing about how the recreation of the story is in the hands of the storyteller and their values.
If I am remembering Absalom, Absalom! correctly, then Rosa Cornfield is described to do strange things around the house because of a known “knowledge” of how things are. Each individual had their own “rationality” behind their actions.
The novel was the land of subjectivity, which is what I think Fischer is caught up in. (I know, I might be stretching "it" a bit:)
As a side note: In Wysocki-Eilola, I understand the versatility/redefining of literacy that is taking place. The argument that literacy shouldn’t be used to term efficiency in technology as “technologically literate” is understandable; however, at the end of the argument they state: “Articulation is only one among the many ways of re-presenting literacy” (368). His statement is a fallacy, and part of an argument he doesn’t help solve.
I am with you on your confusion about Fischer's 2 different paradigms. For me, the easiest way to think of it (although, I'm sure it is not the most correct way to think of it) is as the Real World Paradigm being almost the exact same as the Narrative World Paradigm, but attempting to strip away the human element. We talked a lot in class about how the Real World Paradigm uses logic and rules, but from my experience, everybody's rules and logic are never the same. This is where crime and discrimination come from. When you strip away the human element such as the Real World Paradigm does, are you left with anything? Can such a notion exist without a humanistic element? Probably not. But I think the Real World Paradigm is the closest thing Fischer could grasp at as being un-humanistic.
ReplyDeleteI'm still confused on the topic, and I am sure that this post doesn't help work through your confusion, but maybe we can struggle together.
Personally, my outlook on life aligns more closely with Fischer's description of the Narrative World Paradigm.
ReplyDeleteI believe that each of our perceived realities are colored by memories, experiences, upbringing, by our personal narratives. The Narrative Paradigm is the only paradigm that makes sense; even the act of supposing a Real World Paradigm is telling a story...
I see your confusion. This article was also very ---ing perplexing to me. But then again, questions of how we think, interact and perceive our world always are...
(PS: Sorry for the delay in commenting.)