09.08.05
Posted in life at 10:14 am by
In a number of places, there’s been a discussion going on about the value of a story in understanding life. For example, Kristen McCarty–of McCarty Musings fame–wrote a nice piece on what ‘Christian fiction’ is all about. Also, Zalm, of From the Salmon, referenced the latest Sojourners issue. The last point raised in the piece by Brian McLaren was that we should be tellers of stories in order to bridge the gaps between individuals.
I think this is a fascinating thought. That we should be story tellers. I think that, quite often, we (or at least I) rely on our (my) powers of logic and persuasion to stir up passions in people. From an academic perspective of suasatory influence (persuasion), this just doesn’t make much sense.
For whatever reasons, the human mind is much more swayed (at least in some situations) by metaphorical evidence than it is by statistical evidence. (And, I’m refering to metaphorical evidence somewhat synonomously with storytelling in the sense that humans are likely to draw connections for themselves between the stories and life. That is, the story is a metaphor for reality.)
Now, that’s not to say that one should, in a truth-seeking dialogue, NEVER use statistical evidence to support one’s perspective. In situations where others are exceptionally knowlegeable about a topic, such statistical evidence can be effective. However, in colloquial situations such as blog-conversations, such statistical or logical evidence is oft tossed aside. (There’s a place for such support, but I’ll get to that in a paragraph or three.)
When people dialogue, it seems that the most fruitful dialogue happens when we tell stories, often times. They’re more persuasive to people who might be hostile to the opinions we espouse. Stories allow us to see the nuts and bolts of a perspective and then to draw our own conclusions about that perspective.
Stories allow us to venture into a world that might be foreign to us. We can, through that story, poke around a bit. Stories allow us to discover for ourselves what we might have otherwise been hostile to; we can explore at our own pace.
Interestingly, scientific results seem to back this assertion. In a 1968 study in the Department of Communication at Michigan State, experimenters found that arguments containing analogies were more persuasive than arguments that didn’t use any form of analogy in situations where individuals had both high and low initial credibility (McCroskey & Combs, 1968).
Now, I’m not going to argue that persuasion should be the dependent variable of interest in every dialogue. In fact, I don’t think it should. But, I do think that this result (and honestly, many other more recent studies that have found similar results) should signify something important about the use of metaphor. There’s something about the telling of stories that makes them pallatable. And, pallatability is what’s–sometimes–lacking in our blog-conversations.
We’re in a big damn hurry to make a judgement about the “other side,” and all to often, we use heuristic judgements to do it, I’d hypothesize. I think the story slows this effect down a touch. When we’re not given ‘the be all end all of ‘truth'’ from some ‘authority’ that percieves her or himself to be God’s gift of knowlege to the planet, we’re much more likely to observe a bit and draw conclusions about things that we might otherwise not do.
As I said before, statisical and logical evidence (particularly in academic circles) is valuable. But in such a mixed setting as a blog, they’re less helpful. And, frankly, I think we need all the help we can get.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/09/08/a_metaphor_for_life/trackback/
Posted in life at 10:14 am by
In a number of places, there’s been a discussion going on about the value of a story in understanding life. For example, Kristen McCarty–of McCarty Musings fame–wrote a nice piece on what ‘Christian fiction’ is all about. Also, Zalm, of From the Salmon, referenced the latest Sojourners issue. The last point raised in the piece by Brian McLaren was that we should be tellers of stories in order to bridge the gaps between individuals.
I think this is a fascinating thought. That we should be story tellers. I think that, quite often, we (or at least I) rely on our (my) powers of logic and persuasion to stir up passions in people. From an academic perspective of suasatory influence (persuasion), this just doesn’t make much sense.
For whatever reasons, the human mind is much more swayed (at least in some situations) by metaphorical evidence than it is by statistical evidence. (And, I’m refering to metaphorical evidence somewhat synonomously with storytelling in the sense that humans are likely to draw connections for themselves between the stories and life. That is, the story is a metaphor for reality.)
Now, that’s not to say that one should, in a truth-seeking dialogue, NEVER use statistical evidence to support one’s perspective. In situations where others are exceptionally knowlegeable about a topic, such statistical evidence can be effective. However, in colloquial situations such as blog-conversations, such statistical or logical evidence is oft tossed aside. (There’s a place for such support, but I’ll get to that in a paragraph or three.)
When people dialogue, it seems that the most fruitful dialogue happens when we tell stories, often times. They’re more persuasive to people who might be hostile to the opinions we espouse. Stories allow us to see the nuts and bolts of a perspective and then to draw our own conclusions about that perspective.
Stories allow us to venture into a world that might be foreign to us. We can, through that story, poke around a bit. Stories allow us to discover for ourselves what we might have otherwise been hostile to; we can explore at our own pace.
Interestingly, scientific results seem to back this assertion. In a 1968 study in the Department of Communication at Michigan State, experimenters found that arguments containing analogies were more persuasive than arguments that didn’t use any form of analogy in situations where individuals had both high and low initial credibility (McCroskey & Combs, 1968).
Now, I’m not going to argue that persuasion should be the dependent variable of interest in every dialogue. In fact, I don’t think it should. But, I do think that this result (and honestly, many other more recent studies that have found similar results) should signify something important about the use of metaphor. There’s something about the telling of stories that makes them pallatable. And, pallatability is what’s–sometimes–lacking in our blog-conversations.
We’re in a big damn hurry to make a judgement about the “other side,” and all to often, we use heuristic judgements to do it, I’d hypothesize. I think the story slows this effect down a touch. When we’re not given ‘the be all end all of ‘truth'’ from some ‘authority’ that percieves her or himself to be God’s gift of knowlege to the planet, we’re much more likely to observe a bit and draw conclusions about things that we might otherwise not do.
As I said before, statisical and logical evidence (particularly in academic circles) is valuable. But in such a mixed setting as a blog, they’re less helpful. And, frankly, I think we need all the help we can get.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/09/08/a_metaphor_for_life/trackback/
Audrey said,
September 8, 2005 at 11:37 am
Brandon,
We are story-telling creatures from way back …
Kierkegaard said, “Life can only be understood backwards, but must be lived forwards.” In this view, we necessarily use narrative to make sense of the chain of events that have brought us to our current state.
One of the mistakes we make in scientific writing is papering over the power of narrative. Research is really mostly stumbling around in a dark room. Once we’ve found a treasure, we then make up a tale that shows how necessary and inevitable the treasure was.
Even mathematics is not immune … proving textbook theorems is one thing, because you generally have historical sources to follow. But proving something new is a completely different kettle of fish.
Audrey — hoping y’all notice that I didn’t make any sort of statistical argument in this narrative, and demanding credit for my restraint.
Brandon said,
September 8, 2005 at 12:01 pm
You’ve got credit from me, Audrey.
Oddly, and humourously enough, I actually made an appeal to a quantitative empirical study in my plea for metaphorical communication. *sigh*
I’m a loser.
Audrey said,
September 8, 2005 at 12:28 pm
Brandon,
I noticed … but you knew that.
And you’re not a loser, you’re human.
Nevermind, we’re both losers and human.
Audrey
P.S. Thanks for deleting the duped comment.
Kent said,
September 8, 2005 at 12:43 pm
(Note: I’ve decided it’s wiser to post without my last name, I’m not always the sharpest cookie about protecting my privacy.)
Analogy and metaphor are often much more effective than facts. This understanding fits very well with George Lakoff’s arguments about ‘framing’ (see ‘Don’t Think of an Elephant’)
Storytelling is critical to effective communication and to understanding ourselves. But our stories are not only “metaphors for reality”, it’s also important to tell our ‘true’ stories.
Are you familiar with Stanley Hauerwas? In “A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic” he discusses the importance of narrative to the community of the church. He says:
“…Jesus cannot be said to have a social ethic or have implications for a social ethic but his story IS a social ethic…”
zalm said,
September 8, 2005 at 12:49 pm
Okay, now that you’ve used it twice, I know it’s not a typo, even if I can’t find it in any dictionary or any search engine.
Suasatory?
I realize that you academemics like to make shit up to keep the rest of us guessing, but I would have thought that folks in the Communications field might know better.
Brandon said,
September 8, 2005 at 2:56 pm
Suasatory: as in the effects of persuasion.
Audrey said,
September 8, 2005 at 3:53 pm
You know, on further reflection, I wonder if this doesn’t go some distance to explaining the success of the freeper wing in grabbing the reins of power, and holding on to them.
Gore v. Bush — Gore had virtually every fact and statistic on his side, but he didn’t frame the message (it could have been laissez le bon temps roulez) very well at all. Bush had less than no facts on his side. The facts that existed (his DUI, drug use, deserting the National Guard, driving three or four business into the ground, etc.) were unrelentingly negative. And yet, with the help of Rove and Lutz, he framed the issues in a way that his manifest inadequacies didn’t matter to enough voters that he was able to win election with the help of his Daddy’s consiglieres.
Bush v. Kerry was a repetition, except that Junior didn’t need Daddy’s help to get the result thrown into the Supreme Court.
Maybe the Democrats better find someone as good at narrative as Bubba in ‘08.
Audrey
Kristen said,
September 8, 2005 at 4:30 pm
I learned a new word today! Thanks, Brandon.
zalm said,
September 8, 2005 at 4:46 pm
If one of the ways to bridge the differences between individuals is to encourage empathy (or, more broadly, “openness“) on both sides, then it seems to me that this might begin with storytelling.
In some respects it goes back to the idea that for a lot of people, pathos trumps logos. Metaphors and stories appeal to us emotionally and engage our imaginations. And without those, empathy is impossible.
Another way of looking at it is that stories appeal less to what we think and more to who we are.
Leighton said,
September 8, 2005 at 6:32 pm
I’m part of a minority of people for whom numbers, statistics and obscure exercises in epistemology are really, deeply comfortable–they’re what I’d like to spend most of my time talking about, if the universe tailored itself according to my whims. I can hear and tell and immerse myself in stories as well as the next person, but I have to stop and try hard in order to do so. If I don’t, I instinctively tune out the pathos in rhetoric. I suspect that this tends to happen to anyone who spends enough years reading mathematics.
The problem with insisting on “just the facts” as I and the reality-based community like to do is that critical thinking and empirical methodologies are essentially a second language with which most people never become comfortable, let alone fluent; it’s not that people don’t believe it works (though some might not), it’s that it just doesn’t communicate most of the time unless you’re a really good author like Brian Greene or Lewis Carroll or Richard Feynman. On the other hand, almost everyone without some kind of social disorder understands stories. (Not all, though; I’ve had drinks with brilliant mathematicians-in-training who can’t parse Aesop’s fables, let alone more complex stories like those found in the sutras or the gospels or Dostoevsky.)
So if you want to communicate with people, you’ve got to touch them where they are, and for most, that means use stories.
On the other hand, if you want to educate people (this sounds coercive, and it is, but things like energy crises and vancomycin-resistant bacteria and planetkiller asteroids won’t go away just because we create a beautiful new way to live together), you’ve got to use the unfamiliar language and paradigms of the empirical sciences. It sucks, but there you have it. Two approaches for two different goals.
Jacob said,
September 8, 2005 at 8:45 pm
Not to push too much of the academic stuff around here, but those of us on the rhetorical side of Comm. Studies would also look to Walter Fisher for confirmation regarding narratives as the natural mode of human understanding. Everyone can relate to stories, everyone naturally does relate to the world through stories, and only by acknowledging the importance of narratives can we create space for broad participation in public life.
Of course, Goodnight says that we have a public sphere that encourages the participation narratives enable, and also a technical sphere where the statistics and empiricism Leighton discusses become important. The goal of such empiricism, however, should be to shrink the technical sphere in favor of the public sphere, rather than increasing the hegemony of technical debate which excludes anyone who isn’t an expert. Two goals indeed, but the important question is which goal is generally given primacy.
Brandon said,
September 8, 2005 at 9:50 pm
Ah, yes, Jacob. You rhetoricians, you’re a crazy bunch.
Indeed, multiple methodologies have converged on the idea that the narrative is a helpful tool in discourse. (And, damn, is it ever hard to admit that as a ‘quantoid’.)
Oddly enough, I find myself at a land grant institution whose stated goals are to benefit the public sphere (that’s why we’re state funded); and yet, we adhere to a strictly quantitative methodology to study Communication.
I think, though, that the goal of such diligent quantitiative empiricism is ultimately to arrive at broadly applicable truths which, theoretically, more roundly benefit the public. A noble goal, I think.
The irony is that by strictly employing such a methodology, we can be in jeopardy of alienating the very same public we’re trying to serve so broadly.
Brandon said,
September 8, 2005 at 9:55 pm
Oh, and one other thing.
Suasatory may well not be in any dictionary. It is however acceptable within the current dialogue. I would appeal to the Persuasion Handbook by Dillard and Pfau. It’s used routinely in that setting.
zalm said,
September 9, 2005 at 12:47 am
Well, my friend, you’ll be happy to know that you are now the one and only Communications academic (or any other kind of person for that matter) who has used that word on either Yahoo or MSN search engines.
One can only assume that Google will catch up to them in time. For now, Google thinks that maybe you meant to use the word “suposatory.”
But that would have sent your post in a wholly different direction, dontcha think?
Jacob said,
September 9, 2005 at 1:01 am
I think quantitative methodologies are both good and necessary provided the results of those methodologies are used to expand the public sphere rather than decrease it. That’s why I like teaching the basic course, despite its basic-ness. I get to take the best research in the field and tell my students what it means to them, how they can use it. That’s cool as it gets.
As for “suasatory”, it probably comes from “suasory” which Google recognizes 958 times.
Jacob said,
September 9, 2005 at 1:03 am
Oh yeah, for more stuff on narratives and homo narrans check out Walter Ong, Technologizing of the Word.
Jeremy said,
September 12, 2005 at 10:26 am
What does science have to do with academic Departments of Communications?
Oh, I get it: You’re one of those poor souls who doesn’t understand that ’social science’ has nothing to do with real science.
Kristen M said,
September 12, 2005 at 8:26 pm
And one more thing…Mary Doria Russell, one of the authors I like (who has a background in social anthropology, linguistics, archeology, and biological anthropology) said in a recent interview, “Neurobiologists have found that learning is easier when the emotions are in play. If information comes through the limbic system, the connections are much faster. That’s why you can remember things about movies so much easier than you can remember geometry formulae. With a movie, ideally, you’ve not only got a ton of sensory data, you’ve also character, plot, drama, surprise, humor — all limbic system stuff. So as I read, I pay close attention to the moments when I was surprised by something, or moved, or stopped to imagine that event, or otherwise had my own emotions triggered. Those are the elements of the background reading that I try to incorporate into the novels.”
Interesting, no?