« Round Table Extras | Home | Aren’t All Stories Emergent? »
Story Musing for Monday
By Corvus | February 9, 2009
I’m going to jot down a few exploratory thoughts–actually a thought path I meandered down this weekend and I took a walk with (T.S.) Eliot, Poodle. I am not committing to my absolute belief in any of these statements, but I’m certainly curious about your reactions and thoughts.
Storytelling is not only a cultural tool, but a psychological need.
Or perhaps more accurately, storytelling addresses a psychological need.
Storytelling is the means by which we identify and explain patterns.
Patterns–meaning observable and repeatable interactions between people and things in our environment.
Patterns–meaning when the wind blows, the trees toss their branches about. When the air is warm, plants grow. When the snow falls, there are higher occurrences of sabertooth tiger attacks on the clan. When I hit Randolph on the head with a little stick he gets angry. When Randolph hits me in the head with a big stick, I black out and topple over. That sort of thing.
Patterns–meaning the evidence of not-always-immediately-obvious relationships between things.
So patterns are the evidence of relationships.
Storytelling is the means by which we explore relationships. [1]
Exploring relationships is vital to our survival as a race and development as a culture, and as individuals.
Storytelling is the foundation of spirituality, religion, entertainment, philosophy and science.
When storytelling is used to explore false relationships, it’s most often called lying.
Lying is the anti-storytelling.
Anti-storytelling is harmful to our survival and/or development.
Modern media is full of this sort of anti-storytelling.
Some anti-storytelling is overt. If you have dandruff, people won’t like you. These potato chips will make you more appealing to the opposite sex. Only expensive chemical products can really keep your house clean. Boys will be boys.
Some anti-storytelling is covert. Our company is as friendly as this picture of a puppy. The government, as an institution, cares about your welfare. The world is more dangerous today than it has ever been before. People can’t really change.
It’s time to take storytelling back from big business and give it to the people.
[1] Obviously I’m committing to this one since it’s essentially my definition of story–a shared exploration of a relationship over time. [return]
Tagged:storytelling. | 13 Comments »
February 9th, 2009 at 9:26 am
In the first half of the post, it seems as if you define “storytelling” as “identifying and describing patterns of causal dependence”; and then, in the second half of the post, you identify “anti-storytelling” with telling lies and (as a special kind of lying) with creating what Barthes would call “myths”.*
Some comments.
1. “Storytelling”, on your interpretation, is very broad–so broad that scientists are as much storytellers as writers of fiction.
2. Good storytelling, on your interpretation, would have to consist of identifying and describing as many patterns of causal dependence as accurately as possible. This is very, very different from how we normally use these words. (And it would make Newton a much better storyteller than Shakespeare.)
3. Anti-storytelling, on the other hand, is much more narrowly defined. All your examples are of a very peculiar kind; they all go in the direction of Barthesian myth-making. This makes for a strange opposition with the extremely broad definition of storytelling.
4. Equating lying with being harmful to our survival / development is bizarre. I wonder what your reasons for it are.
5. “It’s time to take storytelling back from big business and give it to the people.” I very much agree that people should be taught to see through the lies of big business; but storytelling is not a scarce good, and is not something that can be taken away from one person and given to somebody else. And why would we want to take from big business the ability to identify and describe patterns of causal dependence? If you take that away, all that remains for them is lying–which surely cannot be your aim!
Regards,
Victor
* A myth, for Barthes, is something that presents an ideological, criticisable idea as factual, natural, or otherwise un-criticisable. The image of a company is typically a myth: the company is careful not to build up its image out of statements that might be true or false, but of images and slogans, and feelings. These things cannot be evaluated for truth value; and yet they covertly imply propositions, such as “our company is as friendly as this puppy/clown”.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Thanks for your thoughts, Victor. Like I said, these are idle musings from an afternoon walk. But let me respond to you thoughts item by item (so you so helpfully numbered them for me).
1. For the purposes of this post, that is correct.
2. Accurately? Not exactly what I said or intended. Try… compellingly. And not just for casual dependencies, but relationships in general. Some stories focus on human relationships, others on casual dependence. Some storytelling attempts to describe casual dependence by was of human relationships (that would be the myth-making).
3. I don’t think anti-storytelling was the strongest choice of terms. What I’m intending to summarize is storytelling where relationships are intentionally misrepresented.
4. Really? Categorizing as harmful the people who act against the best interests of the tribe by misrepresenting relationships is bizarre?
5. I confess that my history of anti-corporation and anti-consumerism led me to really shorthand my intent here. Again, for the purposes of this post, I’m contending that big business cannot be trusted to tell stories responsibly and that storytelling is better off being practiced at the tribal level, rather than the national or international level.
From what I’ve read of Barthes so far, I disagree with him on many things. His categorization of myth sounds like yet another idea of his I’m not going to fully agree with. However, I’m going to reserve arguing about him until his books I’ve requested from the library arrive and I’ve had a chance to read him directly.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Hi Corvus,
I think Bartes’ idea is quite helpful; though you certainly shouldn’t read it as an attempt to analyse “myths” in the usual sense of that word (i.e., stories about divine beings told by ancient or primitive peoples, or something like that).
Lying can be quite beneficial. Those who lie need not be acting against the best interests of themselves, their friends, their tribe. Indeed, your own anti-consumerism and anti-corporation ideas should lead you to classify some acts of lying–for instance, filling in false personal information in your Google account–as good actions.
I don’t think you accurately pinpoint the problem with corporations if you say that they “lie” or that they “distort the truth”.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:21 am
I actually quite like a lot of these thoughts. Some questions I’m left pondering are as such:
Which is more important in storytelling: objective truth, or aesthetic beauty? Or are they both equally important?
Would you consider Santa Claus a story or an anti-story?
To what extent would you consider modern-day spirituality, religion, entertainment, philosophy, and science to be anti-stories?
February 9th, 2009 at 10:25 am
@Victor I understand that Barthe’s definition, I’m just not sure I like it. I think culturally we have come to regard “myth” as meaning something untrue and I feel his definition could easily support that perception. I don’t feel it’s the best use of the word.
I also disagree that lying is beneficial to the tribe. I particularly disagree that the type of lying I’m talking about here–the misrepresentation of relationships–is beneficial to the tribe.
Additionally, if I were to desire not to provide Google, or any other corporation with access to personal information, this should lead me to leave the information blank, or not utilize their services.
But I do agree that “lying” may very well be least of our worries in regards to corporate behavior.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:36 am
@Deirdra My immediate reaction to the term “aesthetic beauty” is negative because I imagine something more concerned with being pleasing than being honest. So, I’d have to go with objective truth as the more important component… unless you’d care to clarify?
Growing up, I was told that Santa Claus was a representation of the spirit of giving. That was good storytelling. Many of my friends had Santa held over their heads to coerce them into behaving in a manner acceptable to their parents. Regardless of the resulting behavior, they usually got lots of presents and stockings full of toys. I’d characterize that as harmful storytelling.
I believe that any spirituality that involves buying the right props is suspect and should be subjected to rigorous examination. I believe that any religious institution where the leaders live in luxury while their constituents struggle to get by is suspect and should be subjected to rigorous examination. I believe that any entertainment funded by advertising revenue is suspect and should be subjected to rigorous examination. I believe that any philosophy that upholds the status quo (as it exists now in the world) is suspect and should be subjected to rigorous examination. I believe any science funded by big business is suspect and should be subjected to rigorous examination.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:13 am
By “aesthetic beauty”, what I meant was something along the lines of what you clarified to Victor when you said good storytelling was “compelling” rather than “accurate”. Literary devices — the use of metaphor, irony, structure, etc. It’s not just recounting facts, but the style in which they are expressed. Maybe “beauty” is the wrong word, because “ugliness” can be used effectively to a similar extent.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Ah, I see. Hm… I suppose that depends on the idiom and personal relevance of the message.
Actually, I think answering that question to my satisfaction is going to require me to do so “not on this post.” Perhaps I’ll turn it into a blog post at some point.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
I was amused at how often I could replace storytelling with gaming and have it make just as much sense.
February 9th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Justin … damm you, now I’m amused too =)
February 10th, 2009 at 6:03 am
“Storytelling is the means by which we identify and explain patterns” – it is certainly not the only one.
“Lying is the anti-storytelling” – certainly not true. Most of the great stories of our civilization are, in one sense of the term, lies, as they lack factuality. I see lying as a necesarry tool for the survival of the human individual and the species as a whole.
Otherwise, nice thoughts. And you can also substitute “storytelling” with “playing” and it seems a bit more sense than “gaming”…
February 10th, 2009 at 6:14 am
@Moromete I don’t claim it’s the only one!
And I don’t consider the great stories to be lies. They may not be factual, but they were honest efforts to understand a relationship within the context of the culture’s knowledge base. That’s very different thing than a lie.
And I agree that “playing” might be a better substitution here, although game have certainly played an important role in our cultural development as well.
February 10th, 2009 at 9:17 am
I consider stories to be the reflection of experiences, which are central to the meaning of life. That is, without experiences, people are little more than bio-physiological machines. You can probably drag that out into a philosophical discussion about “souls” and whatnot, but that’s a separate topic.
Lying is a little bit odd–I haven’t fully thought that one through yet. Normally I would equate it with misinformation (which is bad), except that you also have to factor in things like fiction, which fulfill a useful role in society.