What does the word "story" mean to a postmodernist?A story in postmodernist nomenclature means what we say about a thing's power and usage. A "story" is also called a narrative. He said/she said. They said, We said, etc. A story is of two kinds: big and little. For example, The American Dream is a meta-narrative. The Bill of Rights also is a meta (or mega)-narrative. There are competing and contradictory stories about any number of realities. A postmodern definition of a story is that it is the social construction of reality.
A meta-narrative example of the social construction of reality is poverty. What do you say about "the poor"? If you say they are lazy good-for-nothings you belong to one meta-narrative about the poor. If you say the issue isn't about being the poor but about poverty you are telling another meta-narrative.
Postmodern thinkers question assumptions about meta-stories. Who says still is the key question. Who is the who (Sorry Dr. Suess) speaking about the poor or poverty?Elected or appointed officials try to convince, control and to discount (even discredit) the others' story. A postmodernist expression is this: The ones who tell the story and control the story (of whatever reality is being promoted) have the power. The flip side also is true. Those who have the power control how the story is told. Those who control the telling of the story are said to be living the "predominant story". Meta-narratives/stories also are predominant stories.
Those not in power have a story called the alternative story or marginal story. Example: those in poverty have different stories than the mainstream middle class (who also have many stories about poverty or the poor).
Postmodernist frequently "side" with those who are not in power and whose story is not accepted by the predominant story tellers. They prefer to open the door to diversity by advocating many different stories. They want there to be social room for as many sides of a story as a society can or will tolerate. Variety, complexity, differences are their words. The latest example: gay marriage. (Differences is a topic unto itself and a challenging and controversial one at that.)
Remember the Button story? Button. Button,. Who's got the button? Now we can add power, power, whose got the power?
Another blog conversation below:
WHO SAYS WHAT IS REAL OR ISN'T REAL?
I remember when I was 12 years old and my mother asked me would I rather be smart or be well liked. I said both. She said I was being a smart ass. Obviously I gave the "wrong" answer. I still don't know which one is "better". I had challenged and disagreed with the who said "thus and so" is true. In my head I remember saying to myself, "Who said it is either/or?" That's the day I became a postmodernist thinker even though I didn't know it at the time. Ever since then I have questioned and asked, "Who is it that is saying this particular thing is "true"'?. Who do they represent? What are their bias, opinions, points of view? What "causes" them to believe a certain thing is true? What do their words mean? In other words, Who says so? And who gets to decide if I am a smart ass or not? Whatever that means.
What is important about who says? Who, after all, cares, who says? So what if a tree falls in the forest and does or does not make a sound? Who cares? A table is a table and let's get on with important stuff. Who cares what the American dream means positively and negatively? Let's live up to it the best we can. Will an oil spill in the seas hurt the seas and life within it? In the short and long term? Who says? Who says Adam and Eve and the world were created in seven days? Who says it was? Who says it wasn't? And what difference do different answers make? Or liberals are spend thrifts in favor of big government? What do they mean by that? Further who says a particular women is beautiful? (A postmodernist might say: beauty is in the eye of the beholder.) Who defines female beauty "itself". Is there really such a thing?
"What is real" is a real question. Scientific thinking is based on what is real, rational, logical, reasonable, provable, observable, and/or measurable. Postmodernists have a far different answer. Their answer: We are the who, who say what reality is not science (modern thinking).
Here are some thoughts: 1) Who says is speaking for a truth/the truth/their truth. 2) Who says will decide how much room there is for dfferences (races, customs, traditions, world views, diversity, etc.) in society. 3) Who says and who says will often be in conflict. How will they resolve or live with their differences? 4) Who says as a predominant story can offer great good or evoke great evil. Who says what is good or evil?
Does the "Who says" ever end? Yes and No . No because the possibilities for understanding socially contrusted stories are endless. Yes because society and in all its diversity will weave "agreed upon" sets of rules, laws, ethics, conduct, beliefs, values, etc. However, socially construsted realities/stories are not static. They are dynamic.
One example of what difference "who says"makes is the issue of "capitalism"? Does capitalism works "better" with fewer government regulations involved in the business world. Who decides what is better? Who agrees? Who disagrees? For whom is deregulation "better"? What is a "helpful" deregulation? Helpful to whom? Who benefits. How? Does anyone get hurt or have less power or authority because the others have more power and authority? Whose story about government and business should and will prevail? Now imagine all the various kinds of businesses. Who says which regulations will fit which business?
All fields of endeavor and pursuit ask Who says. From theology to medicine. From biology to geology. From education to prisons. In our public worlds and private ones. All fields have stories to tell about what is real (to them) .
If you like black and white questions, either/or, and right or wrong answers postmodern thinking is not for you. Better to "own" your mindset ( which ironically is a postmodern statement) .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW?
This is where modern thinking and postmodern thinking part company. Modern thinking is the type of thinking we take so for granted we aren't even aware we are thinking modern. Modern thinking is thinking the way science thinks. We know what we know because a thing is observable, provable, measurable. See is believing. What you see is what you get.
There is no debate that a clock is a clock, a computer is a computer, a traffic light is what it is, and all material things can be studied and/or something produced from them. If I look at the stars and say there are alien spaceships fixed in the sky I am not being a modern-scientific thinker. We are all modern thinkers weather we are scientists or not. If a thing is solid (matter/mass) or energy (like electricity) there is no debate. No questions asked. It is what it is.
Postmodern thinking completely and radically shifts the scientific paradigm just described. According to postmodern thinkers rocks, trees, and cars and (yes) tables are not real because science says so. Why? Because postmodernists answer the question of what is real differently. According to science: How do we know what we know? What is real? Through objective, rational, reasonable facts that we can prove. Post modernists instead say "Who says determines reality". This is where the two part company. To ask what is real is modern thinking. Postmodernists are more concerned how a thing gets "called" real in the first place. Who says what is real? Their answer: society who decides what is real.
Example: George Carlin was asked why is the sky blue? His postmodern answer? "Because we say so". Modern thinking would use science to answer the question. This is it in a nut shell. This is the big difference between modern and postmodern thinking. What is real? Let me consult my science book or my common sense. Who says so? Let me consult society about what is real.
A postmodernist example: Politics. Who says why the economy is in trouble. Economists, business people, and politicians all will have different answers. Not only that "liberals" (what is a liberal and who says so?) will define the problem and disparage the conservatives (what is a conservative and who says so?) Vice versa. Is there an objective fact or set of facts as to what the "real" problem is? Not according to postmodernists. The real problem is asked and answered by real people, real groups, with real opinions and biases. Again, postmodernists want to know, who decides what is "real" in any given situation. Even the words "opinion" "facts" bias", "objective" are socially determined. Behind every "what" is a "who" which proceeds it.
Postmodernists not only take everything that is called real with a grain a salt, they do so with a bottle of salt and assume nothing and question everything including their own opinions about "who says".
The next time someone asks you what time it is have some serious fun. Tell them Time is a social construction. Is it "really" 5:00 p.m.? According to commonsense and scientific thinking it is. According to postmodernists we have all agreed that in this time zone and and according to the official world clock in England it is 5:00 p.m. Are there other possibilities for "telling" time?
No comments:
Post a Comment