Narrative Paradigm - Discussion

Discussion

The way in which people explain and/or justify their behavior, whether past or future, has more to do with telling a credible story than it does with producing evidence or constructing a logical argument. The traditional paradigm of the rational world, which is seen as a scientific or philosophical approach to knowledge that assumes people are logical, and make decisions on the basis of evidence and lines of argument, claims that:

• people are essentially thinking beings, basing their reasoned decisions on the merits of discussion and evidential reasoning;
• what is judged rational is determined by the knowledge and understanding displayed, and by how the case is argued, i.e. the way in which the argument is made will determine the outcome so long as the form matches the forum which might be scientific, legal, philosophical, etc. This presupposes that life is a set of logical puzzles that can be solved through the application of rational methods.
• rationality is determined by how much we know and how well we argue.
• the world is a set of logical puzzles that we can solve through rational analysis.

Fisher reacts against this model as too limited and suggests a new paradigm of "narrative rationality", which views narrative as the basis of all human communication. He begins with the proposition that:

• people are essentially storytellers;
• Making decisions depends on judgments about “good reasons”. Although people claim these reasons for their decisions, these reasons include history, culture, and perceptions about the status and character of the other people involved (all of which may be subjective and incompletely understood);
• the test of narrative rationality is based on the probability, coherence and fidelity of the stories that underpin the immediate decisions to be made. Narrative coherence asks if the story hangs together. We often judge if the story has coherence by comparing it to another story that we have heard that falls along the same lines. For example a story line which presents the notion that a man loves his wife but depicts him abusing her and contrasts with a scene in which he is committed is not totally consistent or coherent. It does not make sense that a man who loves his wife will abuse her. To Fisher, the ultimate test of narrative coherence is "if we can count on the characters to act in a reliable manner." Because of this we seem to trust characters to show continuity throughout the thought, movie, and actions. Otherwise we become suspicious when the characters behave "uncharacteristically." Narrative fidelity states that if the story matches our own beliefs and experiences, we will accept it. Fidelity determines how the story plugs into the background of the world as a person has known it. For example someone who does not believe in God and just believes in natural laws is listening to a story of someone being healed by a miracle. This person might not be persuaded because there is no fidelity for this story and his experiences do not fit to the story. Fisher also believes that a story has fidelity when it can be seen as a guide for our own actions. We buy into those characters values, which set narrative paradigm's logic of good reason apart from the rational-world paradigm's logic of reason. The logic of good reason is centered around five issues. According to Fisher we are concerned with (1) the values within a message, (2) the relevance of those values to the decisions that are made, (3) the consequences of believing in those values, (4) the overlap of the world view of the audience, and (5) the conformity with what the audience believes is "an ideal basis for conduct". When we deicide a story has fidelity we are not just affirming our shared beliefs, but opening up ourselves to the thought that these values will ultimately influence our beliefs and values (Griffin 304)
• the world is a set of stories that must be chosen among in order for us to live life in a process of continual re-creation, from which each individual chooses the ones that match his or her values and beliefs.

This does not deny that there is a system of formal logical reasoning. But, following Michel Foucault, such systems are formed through the savoir and pouvoir (knowledge and power) of the hierarchies that control access to the discourses. Hence, criteria for assessing the reliability and completeness of evidence, and whether the pattern of reasoning is sound are not absolutes, but defined diachronically by those in positions of authority. This will be particularly significant when the process of reasoning admits values and policy in addition to empirical data.

Fisher proposes narrative rationality and coherence (fidelity and probability) as an a priori basis upon which to decide which are good or bad stories. He argues that human communication is something more than its rational form; that its cultural context, and the values and experience of the audience are as important. Perhaps the most meritocratic, democratic or subversive implication of his ideas has to do with who is qualified to assess the quality of communication. In the traditional model, expertise as defined by the power hierarchies is required to present or judge the soundness of any formal arguments. Fisher maintains that, armed with common sense, almost any individual can see the point of a good story and judge its merits as the basis for belief and action.

So, to Fisher, narration affects every aspect of each individual's life and the lives of others in every verbal and nonverbal bid for a person to believe or act in a certain way. Even when a message seems abstract, i.e. the language is literal and not figurative, it is narration because it is embedded in the speaker's ongoing story that has a beginning, middle, and end, and it invites listeners to interpret its meaning and assess its value for their own lives.