In reading Fisher's piece on the narrative paradigm and the real world paradigm I was struck by how my I saw the intertextuality between those two concepts and the idea of homo seriosus and homo rhetoricus. With the theory of homo seriosus and homo rhetoricus, I feel that the concept of having two different types of people ignores the fact that we are inherently creatures of many different sides, therefore, I find it impossible for a person to be fully one thing or another. In that same fashion, with the two proposed paradigms, I think that Fisher ignores that humans cannot simply be one thing or another. The real world paradigm suggests that all human communication is sparked by man's need to rationalize and argue everything in his environment, while the narrative paradigm suggests that all human communication is sparked by the need to tell a story (no matter whether that story is one of the living or one of the imagination).
Now, I am the type of person that heavily believes in grey areas, and that things simply cannot
always be black and white. Therefore, it is easy for me to say that I cannot fully agree with Fisher in the complete separation of these two proposed paradigms. I do not believe that all conversation is sparked by the need to rationalize and argue, nor do I believe that all conversation is sparked by the need to tell a story. I think that people can very easily differentiate when they want to or need to rationalize from when they want or need to tell a story. I think that in some situations we need to do one and not the other, yet at the same time I believe that in some situations we need to both rationalize and story-tell at the same time. I think that these two paradigms cannot be totally separate and that one cannot exist without the other--hence the grey area. I personally believe that no story is complete without rationalization, otherwise the story would make absolutely no sense (think about living in a world like that of Alice in Wonderland)
and no rationalization is complete without a story (think about living in a world where everything is strictly fact driven and there is no imagination).
A world without stories is a place in which no one really lived, and a world without rationale is a place in which nothing can be made sense of. I believe that the two paradigms are co-dependent and must coexist in this world. Hence the title of this post--Narrative Rationality, Rational Narrativity--either way I look at it, narrative needs logic, and rationale needs the human element of a story.
Now, I've gone on and on about what I think about Fisher's piece, which means I've neglected the Wysocki piece, and in all honesty, that is simply due to the fact that the Wysocki piece really didn't strike me. I may have some different thoughts on that front after discussion tomorrow, in which case I can add those in, but for now, the piece really didn't spark any sort of super cool, share-worthy thoughts for you all.
Grey areas! I agree. I mean... In my blog post(s), I've been tending to accept what some of the authors are saying and just going with it, but it really is important, as with all things in life, to practice moderation. Buying into a concept too heavily is a bad thing, and I like your points about narrative needing rationality, because I was pretty much ready to jump right into a world of happy go lucky storytelling without any rationality.
ReplyDeleteI have to say I really enjoy reading your posts - so far you have managed to show me a completely different perspective for each of the readings you talk about, which I thank you for. While I agree that not all conversation is sparked by the need to rationalize, argue, or to tell a story, I don’t know if I agree that these two paradigms cannot be completely separate. I feel that in some cases they are definitely intertwined, but in other cases they can exist separately. For instance, when my roommates and I have a conversation it is usually because we enjoy each other's company and feel the need to simply talk and interact - I don’t think that we have a story element to any of our chitchat. The same goes for my very slow days at work - we talk to each other because it makes the time go by much faster, but only every so often does it include stories. For both of these cases I feel that there is only rationalization behind them, either the rationalization that we need to strengthen our friendships, avoid long silences, or something else entirely.
ReplyDeleteI think Fisher's need to strictly define and compartmentalize made it a difficult piece for me to read. I also tend to think in grey areas, so when an author says, "this is this" my immediate reaction is to ask, "But, what about...?"
ReplyDeleteI think you're right: it's not so much one paradigm or another. In reality it is a more fluid mix of the two.