Power of Stories

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).

One example is seen in politics where everyone and anyone can express a political opinion about a topic. Politics, comes in many categories both formal and informal, official and unofficial, elected or not, public and private, governmental both local and national. In the broadest sense politics is power and power is political. Power suggests there are different spheres of influence among those who say what is to be. There are more and less powerful groups who vie for what is real. Persons "belong" to many micro(few to a few) and many macro (group to group) spheres of influence over time and simultaneously.

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?

What is a Paradigm?

When is a pair of dimes not 20 cents? When they are paradigms.

Another way to discuss postmodern thinking is to understand what paradigms are (besides a pair of dimes). A paradigm is a noun. Another word for this noun is "world view" or a certain way of looking at things. A synonym might be "perspective". It is usually a term used by academics to describe a "thought pattern" around certain concepts.


For example: There is a scientific paradigm through which the world is viewed. The paradigm is called the scientific
method. The scientific method views reality as something that can be "proven to be true" or "factual". All one has to
do is design a test that will prove or disprove a hypothesis.


Another example: My field of marriage and family therapy promotes the world view that the world is relational. So we design tests, theories, and techniques to counsel any one in a relationship: which we believe is everyone. Our paradigm is a relational paradigm: "everything is connected".


The world of business, government, education, religion all have their paradigms. Within and among these fields are numerous ways of viewing how the world works. These paradigms serve their fields to make sense of its world according to itself. Hence an expression like: Think global and act local is an economic/political world view or paragidm.


Postmodern thinking has a paradigm and is a paradigm. The world view is this: Reality is socially constructed.
To contrast this with the scientific paradigm we would say: Reality is that which is provable.The field of marriage and family systems says: Reality is relational.


Within each at of these paradigms the world "reality" often is used interchangeably with the word "true" or "truth".
One more point. Paradigms answer this question: "How do you know what we know?" Or put another way: "How do we know what 'reality' is?" The three examples above are different paradigms with different answers.
How do we know if reality is a) socially constructed? b) provable? c)relational?

Remember how in the first blog I said this stuff is too serious to be taken seriously? Have fun with this: Describe a table according to the major paradigms of religion, politics, economics, culture, education, science, etc.

Reality: Constructed or Made Up?

The postmodern question for today: Is there a difference between socially "constructed" realities and "made up" realities? The question has relevance far beyond itself. The answer has implications for personal values, religious truths, and social meaning.

I will answer the question through definitions, discounts, hidden agendas, and finally one "so what?"

Definitions of "construct" include create, describe, author, build, define, put together, and form or shape.
Constructed usually has a positive connotation in everyday language. (Society constructs, creates, and puts together,
"reality". Reality is constructed by, created by, and put together by society.)

"Made up" generally has a less positive definition. Made up includes fictitious, a lie, make believe, unreal, pretend, not true, and false. It is sometimes benign and sometimes negative and positive. Benign: Children playing make believe.
Negative: "That is a lie. You are making that up." Positive: "Even though movies are not real they can reflect reality."

Constructed and made up appear to be opposing words about what is real.

The reason for this discussion of definitions is the hidden (and sometimes not so hidden) agenda that arises when the two words are compared and contrasted by Christian thinkers. This is the audience with whom I will address the "so what?

Christian thinkers who do not like postmodern thinking make the word constructed synonymous with made up as if they are the same. Clearly from the everyday definitions they are very different words.

As I understand Christian anti-postmodern thinkers virtually everything theologically, Biblically, hermeneutically is at stake if the two words mean the same. Really? Really.

If reality (or truth) is socially constructed then what about the revelation of God? Aren't postmodernists saying that God is made up by society? What a jump in linguistics. This is not what postmodernists assert. What is asserted: Behind every reality there is a socially agreed upon set of beliefs and/or experiences. Those beliefs may be religious in nature. The Christian community has (and continues to) construct its beliefs and experiences about Jesus Christ.
Postmodernists agree Christians socially (the church) construct their theology, their Biblical hermeneutics, and Biblical beliefs and values.

There is much more that Christian thinkers are opposed to (and threatened in my opinion) about postmodern's worldview. This is one unapologetic "Apology".

Is it the Christians versus the Lions? Or is it possible for the lion and the sheep to lay down together?

The Truth is not What it Used to be

Today's postmodern topic is "the truth". As in: "I'm telling the truth". "Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" "The truth of the matter is water is made up of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen." Here are some more true statements. "It is true that two plus two equals four." "What goes up must come down." "President Obama's first name is Barack." The list of truths is endless. (And that is true also.) There are many "truths".


Social constructionists (those who believe "reality" is socially constructed) agree. They say, and I agree with them, there is no single truth. There certainly is no The Truth. What the social constructionists say is that it is only since the beginning of Western science and philosophy that society has sought to discover something called objective truth. The scientific method "proves" its hypothesis and this becomes "fact" or truth. Science can prove there is such a thing as gravity. Science can prove mathematical formulas based upon other mathematical formulas. Science can prove how plants and animals grow. Science can even prove for a fact that a table is a table. All these are examples of objective truths.


Scientific thinking is modern thinking. That which is reasonable, rational, factual, provable, doable, etc. is a modern phenomena. Postmodernists say the exact opposite. Truth of all kinds is socially decided. Not only is there no so called objective truth, there is a way of looking at reality as "subjective". This is truth socially made. For example, when two people disagree about politics who is right? Which one holds the truth about the Wars? When it comes to abortion which position is right or wrong? Religiously speaking who's truth about God is the truth? Is Allah a different God than Christianity's God. If so whose is The True God? Who says?



In "fact" social constructionists would say that there is no objective reason why a table is a table. In another culture it may be turned upside down, straw put on it, and animals eat from it. We would call that some kind of trough not a table.
And if we call it a table turned upside down and being used improperly we reveal our own society's agreed upon usage.


Truth, all truth, even this truth, is that truth is socially perceived by human beings. We say, "Reality is perception." Truth also is perception. REALITY IS (OUR) PERCEPTION. AND SO IS TRUTH.


It is by means of mutual agreement that we say a thing is what it is. We decide what is right and wrong. What is moral and immoral. Ethical and Unethical. We decide what is the truth of a matter. We the people socially construct what is. And what we say it is, it is.



When we disagree with a fact, or a truth, or what is reasonable, we enter into the world of power.
Power is how we mitigate between opposing and conflicting truths about reality. Not just political power in the formal sense. But power as who gets to have the say about truths. He, She, They, Us...whoever controls the "story" about what is the truth controls "truth". Stories are not novels to postmodernists. Stories are subjective world views. Stories about reality are subjective truths. And how are these stories formulated? Through words.


What does all this mean? Many things. For one thing, postmodernists like myself, look at reality and see both/and sides of issues and opinions and so called truths. Modernists tend to view reality as either/or. Either this is right or that is wrong. Social constructionists say there are many stories about truths being worked out continuously within society. Stories may or may not change (Slavery changed. Pedophilia does not).But they will "storied" in the world's we occupy. Stories tend to be open ended and complex with many possibilities.


Pontius Pilate, of all people asked, "What is truth?" The answer for Pilate was different than Jesus Christ's and his followers. What is truth? Postmodernists say, "It depends. It depends on whose story or perception you accept.''


Jack Nickolson, in the movie "A Few Good Men" said to Tom Cruise, " You can't handle the truth." What Nickolson was revealing was that his own version of the truth was not only "the" truth but Cruise would not be able to handle it.


When I was a boy, we used to play a game called "Button. button. Who's got the button?" The object was to discover who held the button in their closed hand. Today we would say, "Truth. Truth. Who's got the truth? The social constructionist's would say everyone has a "button".

The Social Self

Today's blog features "the Self". Postmodern thinking posits that there is no such thing as a "self". I hope that got your attention. It is an amazing proposition. It goes straight to the core of what it means to be a person. Another way to say this: How does a person get to be (called) a person? By the use of language. Words describe what a person is.


Illustrations. Psychology and before that philosophy and religion have had and do have many definitions of what a person is. Each field of study reduces humanness to its essential being. Christianity, for one says, we are created in the image of God and that we are sinful beings made just a little lower than angels. Psychology may say we are psycho-social-sexual beings (Freud). Philosophy may say we are in our essence a "superman" whose primary claim to person hood is in our "will to power" (Nietzsche). Science also provides many descriptions of humans.


The people of the land (us and others) use words to define the Self. We grow up seeing ourselves through words. There are countless examples: complimentary and negative. Transactional Analysis ("I'm OK-You're OK") calls such defining words "Warm fuzzies" and "Cold pricklies".


"You are lovable." "You are a good person." "You are smart." "You are stupid." " You are just like your good for nothing cousin." "You'll never amount to anything." Boarden these parental words attributed to us to include, teachers, other authority figures, gender statements, age,race, weight, height, looks, etc. and you have a multitude of words to "create" a person. In the Western world, we even says a person is a person because they have the choice to choose who they are from among innumberable descipters. Sociology is the field that defines person hood by describing "roles". We become our roles. Our roles are us.


Summary. Society creates many realities of what each person is. Society says who we are. In literature and movies there are examples of society shaping our essence. "Tarzan and the Apes" defined each other. In the movie "Cast Away", Tom Hanks and Wilson (the volley ball) shows Hanks identifying with a ball that floated away from him in the ocean. It almost cost him his life to see himself though Wilson and to "need" Wilson for his very being.


The Self (our self) is socially constructed. There is no self outside society. There is only a social self! We are as busy defining ourselves and others as they are defining us. There is no essential self except in so far as we say it is essential.


We "make up" who we are by what others think we are. It is impossible to have or be a self without society's input. Thus say the postmodernists. The implications of this is food for another social constructionist* meal.

*another word for postmodern

If a Tree Falls...

If a tree falls in a forest does it make a noise if no one hears it? According to reason, logic, and the laws of physics the answer is obvious. Of course it does. Now watch this. I can show you how postmodern thinking disagrees by asserting, "If there is no one to hear the sound the sound does not exist." (I told you this stuff was too serious to be taken seriously.)

This is so serious it gets at the heart of what postmodern thinking is about. Ready?

Post modern thinking has many components. No one definition can serve as the definition. Here is one description. Reality is socially constructed. That means in a nutshell: we define, we perceive, we create what we decide "reality" to be.

Illustrations. My Dad was color blind. Red was green and green was red. For most of the population red is red and green is green. Chicago built the famous (at the time infamous) "Picasso" sculpture over 30 years ago. For the majority it was either an oddity or an absurdity. Today it is a cultural icon and landmark. An old movie called "The Gods Must be Angry" was about a coke bottle that fell out of an airplane and hit an African woodsman. He and his companion, not knowing what a coke bottle was, decided the gods must be angry and that this "thing" needed to be given back to the gods in the nearest holy city.
What do all three stories have in common? Perception. Socially constructed perception.

Put another way: society (us and a whole lot of other "us"es) over time and space make decisions about what is real and what is truth. Is there anything wrong with this? Not necessarily. Though in another post I'll show how controversial,political, and powerful the social construction of our (and others') truths can be.

Back to the noiseless falling tree. Science, medicine, and biology all agree that we hear sounds through our ears. Therefore, no ears to hear it fall means it made no sound. Silly you say? Right you are. It is only because we have "proven" that ears are a means to an end namely hearing, we cannot conceive a "thing" can make a sound without ears. Even if we are not there in the woods when the tree falls we still "hear" the crash in our ear's "eye". It is inconceivable to imagine a soundless tree falling. Unless someone turns down the sound.
It is inconceivable because we socially believe ears and sound are synonymous. No ears therefore no sound. No sound therefore no ears to hear.

So when a tree falls does it make a sound? Science says yes. Postmodern thinking says it depends upon where you stand. If we all (or most) agree ears and hearing belong together then we have socially constructed a truth using science to do so.
I told you this is a serious game. This is serious play.

Welcome Postmodernists

Welcome postmodernists to my blog. Welcome to our blog of postmodern conversations.

It is my blog when I'm sending. It is your blog when you read it.

Of course, for those of you who have some understanding of postmodern thinking already know that my opening paragraph has a modernist meaning. In our modern days (or ways) of thinking we would view this blog as having two opposites: senders and receivers. Not so simple with postmodern "logic".

There is no true blue blogger (or author) without simultaneously having implied a receiver (or reader). Modern thinking separates "either/or" (or binary thinking) into categories of opposites. I'll elaborate on this at greater length latter. For now, know that modern thinking (also called Western reason or science) divides reality into two parts or more and they each stand independent of one another. We know oil and water don't mix. Neither do good or evil. Neither do bad or good. Neither do right or wrong. Modern thinking is about categories of correctness. Ethics, truth, theology, religion, philosophy each have a modernist way of interpreting reality in dualistic/binary terms with a versus often between them.

Back to the original point. As I sit here and write I am not an objective interpreter or author of my words. I bring my history from other writers whom I have read. Neither are you simply a reader. You are also an author with your own history of how you perceive these words. Author and reader are also reader and author. We are both-and not either/or. So as you read you are doing several possible things at once.

You could be trying to comprehend and say, "This fellow doesn't make any sense". You could be comprehending and say, "This fellow could have done a better job of explaining himself "You could be saying, "So where is this guy going with all this? What's his point?" You could say, "What has this got to do with postmodern thinking?"

Or another possibility: "Who cares?" At which point you may have moved on to some other website, link, blog, twitter, facebook, etc.

Since you made it this far I will redo the opening from a postmodern perspective.

A blog about postmodern thinking is much too serious to be taken seriously.

So I purpose we (interpreters of reality) enjoy blogging our hearts out.

The word games have begun. Tag we're it.