The "Narrative" Narrative
Or:
Why "Narrative" is Bullshit
Terminological atrocities abound, but one of the ickiest among the current crop is "narrative." So far as I can tell, the term first gained popularity in the weaker reaches of the humanities, roughly among LitCritters and suchlike. It was fashionable among such folk to assert that everything was a "text," that "interpretation" was the fundamental cognitive act, and that "theory" (meant to be ambiguous as between literary theory and all other kinds) was somehow paramount. Good terms can have shady pasts, but it's hard to see any good coming out of these origins. Eventually 'narrative' caught on in the political reaches of the chattering class, and now we seem to be stuck with it. Narrative, narrative, narrative. Try to read about American politics, and you'll trip over this irritating term right and left, but mostly left. Even the sober Kevin Drum has to use the term, at least when discussing one of the newest non-issues, whether or not Obama can craft a "narrative," and whether or not his inability to do so is his biggest failing.
Please, oh please, stop using this annoying term. It does little more than give small, relatively clear assertions and questions an air of profundity...and to obfuscate them. A narrative is a story. Is Obama's biggest problem that he cannot tell a story? No, it is not. Nobody should care about whether or not Obama can tell a good story about our current problems. What he really needs to do is tell the truth about them. Sidebar: they're mostly the GOP's fault, though, of course, not entirely. The GOP created most of the debt, was in the vanguard of crashing the economy, and now, through a combination of (a) accepting bad economic theories and (b) putting politics over policy, they are hellbent on keeping the crisis a crisis, at least until November 7th, 2012. But that's a side issue here.
The awfulness of 'narrative' is not innocuous. The term arose for a reason, and it continues to do the job it was coined to do: blur the line between facts and fictions. The term encourages people to believe that telling stories alters the facts, and/or that stories are more important and facts less so. If we want to talk about our current problems, why not talk about them clearly and plainly? It's not about "constructing" a "narrative," it's about confirming and disconfirming economic theories, about identifying the consensus of economists, and about true and false accounts of history. It's also about getting true or at least well-confirmed theories and accounts to the voters. Screw the "narratives"--just give 'em the essential facts, clearly stated. If we could do that, we'd take a giant step toward solving our problems...as well as toward a Democratic victory in 2012.
Or:
Why "Narrative" is Bullshit
Terminological atrocities abound, but one of the ickiest among the current crop is "narrative." So far as I can tell, the term first gained popularity in the weaker reaches of the humanities, roughly among LitCritters and suchlike. It was fashionable among such folk to assert that everything was a "text," that "interpretation" was the fundamental cognitive act, and that "theory" (meant to be ambiguous as between literary theory and all other kinds) was somehow paramount. Good terms can have shady pasts, but it's hard to see any good coming out of these origins. Eventually 'narrative' caught on in the political reaches of the chattering class, and now we seem to be stuck with it. Narrative, narrative, narrative. Try to read about American politics, and you'll trip over this irritating term right and left, but mostly left. Even the sober Kevin Drum has to use the term, at least when discussing one of the newest non-issues, whether or not Obama can craft a "narrative," and whether or not his inability to do so is his biggest failing.
Please, oh please, stop using this annoying term. It does little more than give small, relatively clear assertions and questions an air of profundity...and to obfuscate them. A narrative is a story. Is Obama's biggest problem that he cannot tell a story? No, it is not. Nobody should care about whether or not Obama can tell a good story about our current problems. What he really needs to do is tell the truth about them. Sidebar: they're mostly the GOP's fault, though, of course, not entirely. The GOP created most of the debt, was in the vanguard of crashing the economy, and now, through a combination of (a) accepting bad economic theories and (b) putting politics over policy, they are hellbent on keeping the crisis a crisis, at least until November 7th, 2012. But that's a side issue here.
The awfulness of 'narrative' is not innocuous. The term arose for a reason, and it continues to do the job it was coined to do: blur the line between facts and fictions. The term encourages people to believe that telling stories alters the facts, and/or that stories are more important and facts less so. If we want to talk about our current problems, why not talk about them clearly and plainly? It's not about "constructing" a "narrative," it's about confirming and disconfirming economic theories, about identifying the consensus of economists, and about true and false accounts of history. It's also about getting true or at least well-confirmed theories and accounts to the voters. Screw the "narratives"--just give 'em the essential facts, clearly stated. If we could do that, we'd take a giant step toward solving our problems...as well as toward a Democratic victory in 2012.
posted by Winston Smith at
8:51 AM
3 Comments:
Hi WS, been a while...
You're just peevish about this. I don't know, maybe you have good reason to be in the academic world, but those reasons don't hold in politics, nor in much of the rest of the world.
Narrative in politics is story-telling or allusion to representative stories. It's a useful form in history, too. There's a big difference between Inventing America and Ratification. Wills is essentially doing secular philology on Jefferson's text of the Declaration of Independence, while Maier is telling the story of the ratification of the Constitution after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. Wills is dry and hard (though still worthwhile). Maier is accessible and has a drama missing from mere statement of facts teased out of well-analyzed evidence.
Narrative has a critical function to play in persuasion. Humans relate much better to stories than to statistics. You may ignore this a irrational or arational, but you do that at the peril of losing many elections.
This is in fact what Democrats have done for three decades. This didn't start with Obama. Think Carter, Dukakis, Kerry. They've been more interested in technocratic appeals above the neck, while Republicans have aimed straight at the viscera. As a result, voters agree with Democrats but react in favor of Republicans.
This dominance of narrative by Republicans could be the reason you're reacting to the word narrative, but if so, that's a mistake. We on the left to whatever degree don't need more facts. We need better stories to tell to communicate those facts, to put flesh on those cerebral bones.
Of course, stories should be compared with reality to see whether they are lies or truth. Historians do this. Fiction writers do this. Neither is always successful.
Republicans practice corrupt narrative all the time. Democrats will never compete with them by offering more recitations of fact.
We need to make our persuasion personal, not abstract. When Warren Buffett says it's wrong that his total tax rate is the lowest in his corporate offices, that's a narrative that could gin up the outrage we need.
And every single word of it is true.
'It's not about "constructing" a "narrative," it's about... true and false accounts of history.'
well, it would be about true and false accounts, if any of the major players could be counted on to act in good faith.
Hey, WS, did Blogger's spam filter flush my long comment on this?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home