Anytime anyone anywhere begins an argument or uses the word “narrative” my bullshit detector goes off. Because it’s a nonsense construct.
My suggestion is to follow French philosopher Jean-François Lyotards definition of “narrative.” He said: “Simplifying to the extreme , I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives.”
So, if you hear someone use the term in a conversation, one of three things can happen: you can choose to remain willfully ignorant (I doubt many in this crowd would pursue this course), two, your bullshit detector can go off, like mine and you can begin an argument or three you can simply sit with a Cheshire cat grin and be skeptical.
But chose one, please.
Carborundum
That said, we’re definitely living in the “you may not be interested in the narrative, but the narrative is interested in you” age. Understanding the narrative being pushed is an extremely useful analytical tool. In the modern, social-media soaked environment, a large majority of what’s being communicated is pretty much pure, unadulterated narrative. The notion that Iranian enrichment is about nuclear medicine? Narrative. That Fordow was destroyed / badly damaged / unscathed? At this point, narrative. The performance / non-performance of ABM systems? A significant narrative component.
bruce wilder
Are you riffing off Freedland’s History of Strategy, where he identifies the neoliberal era beginning in the 1970’s with an emerging conception of strategy as a specialized kind or use of narrative, that is, a framework for the persuasive interpretation of events?
Sean Paul Kelley
Bruce,
No, I was just re-reading Lyotard last night (I couldn’t sleeep). He was discussing the epistemological closure of certain traditons and predicting others and how they would be hi-jacked by meta-narrtives instead of a true search for the origins of knowledge.
Bill H.
I have been [i]”simply sitting with a Cheshire cat grin and being skeptical”[/i] for somewhere near a decade now.
Soredemos
Yeah, no, I’m not inclined to listen to any 20th century Frenchman on this kind of subject. ‘There are no metanarratives’ is itself a metanarrative.
Modernism was various fundamentally constructive visions of the world and a belief in actually making things. Post-modernism amounts to very pretentiously going ‘nuh-uh, you’re stupid’.
Post-structualism is agnotology and worthless for even tactically understanding anything that is going on in the world.
Mary Bennet
Anytime anyone anywhere begins an argument or uses the word “narrative” my bullshit detector goes off. Because it’s a nonsense construct.
I have the same reaction whenever I hear anyone use the word ‘model’, and they aren’t talking about toy airplanes.
‘Agnotology’ Soredemos? Like, oh, advertising and about 90% of what comes out on TV over the last half century or so?
Gaianne
A nice nugget of an essay, Sean!
When I encounter the word “narrative” it seems it seems a plain giveaway that they have no interest in the truth. (and i don’t mean THE truth, I mean any truth.)
–Gaianne
Soredemos
@Mary Bennet
If you want to talk about crafted propaganda drives, simplistic stories, usually with some sort of designated villain, meant to manipulate the public towards some policy goal or to buy crap, sure.
But the idea that there aren’t actually fundamental underlying forces unxergirding most events, that isn’t bullshit. To get lost in the details and pretend that aren’t basic reasons many things, especially things on the scale of entire nations, are happening, is to lie. I’ll echo Adolph Reed Jr who said something to the effect that vulgar Marxism explains about 90% of events in the world.
Sub-Boreal
Agree about “narrative”. Other red flags are “guardrails”, “adults in the room”, and “balance”.
All of these are flowing freely – and totally predictably – among those who OD’d on hopium, voted for Carney, and now are in various stages of denial and detox.
Definitely sticking with Cheshire Cat mode.
bruce wilder
If we are cataloging red flags, I nominate, “signal” and “will”.
mago
I’ll choose door number three please.