Narrative means Using the model of the story as apposed to philosophical, abstract-reason etc. The reason for using the story is because human life is a narrative. Narrative means a succession of events. one event leading to another. which is always contextual. It captures human life in all its limitation, in its critical turning points, and it is concrete. narrative seems to be the closest model to human life's concreteness. Abstract reason tends to be abstract and removed from real experience thus not really getting to the heart of an experience.
Christianity as a whole is constituted through the story of its history more than proposition. Communities of the early church were in themselves narrative in nature, sharing and making the creeds.
Since it is contextual you can only understand things when you are in "the shoes' of the one experiencing . Thus One of the weaknesses of narrative theology is that it can create a collective-subjectivism where no one can critique your experience unless they experienced what you experienced.
however by far (up to this point in my study) this is my favorite mode of theology.
5 comments:
Nice summary of narrative.
I was with you until - “where no one can critique your experience unless they experienced what you experienced..”
I think I know what you mean in general. Granting favorable inferences to your gist, there’s a subjective perspective where perceptual judgments of experience don’t tract to comprehension by those outside a shared narrative. To an extent.
But, isn’t this problem with all of life in general? And what correlation exists between the kind, degree, and magnitude of special claims in a given narrative ("we crossed the Red Sea") provoking a degree of external skepticism by outside observers – with external skepticism provoking reciprocal denial or defiance among those inside the narrative ("you don't understand")? -- are all narratives equally immune to outside critique?
Toward common ground, don’t we trust ordinary juries to “critique” the contrary and antagonistic narratives of witnesses on the stand in court cases, despite normative rules requiring that jurors not be participants or eyewitnesses to the very narratives they judge? Or, to the extent that we humans observably share moral intuitions and moral sentiments owing to our larger (not meta: just larger) shared biological history, just how far insulated and immune from critique are local-special narratives, given long evolved and now shared common sentiments involved in "outside critiques"?
What’s the jumping-off point demarking where you tell me, or I tell you, that we can no longer externally critique each others’ experiences and narratives? When does outside criticism actually enrich our coordinates in our local narratives?
Not that I disagree with your point about immunity to critique, because I do see divorcing husbands and wives “narrate” this claim intractably (“you don’t understand me”), despite a shared intimate history.
Jim
Critique is a problem with a narrative hermeneutic in general, as to say... a philosophical hermeneutic, here it is much easier to critique without the reply being "well obviously you don't understand because you weren't there..." and yes it can easily be reciprocal. The problem often comes when people offer a philosophical critique to a narrative hermeneutic. because the intention in themselves between the two hermeneutics are different.
i think one can cross critique narratives. In fact i think its ability to be critiqued is what adds value to narrative. Court and jury are a great example (thanks for that).
I think that criticism actually does "enrich our coordinates in our local narratives" we becoming richer in all forms of sharing even in my opinion through disagreement and criticism. It is what allows me to think through and understand narrative to a greater depth. (Ie the gospels or any form of communal experience)
thanks for your critique, it was very helpful
i love that you are a lawyer standing up for the down and out. I also am impressed with your breadth of interest and expertise.
what do you think about american poverty in the age of globalization? what can we do to remedy the vast growing problem that will make a real difference?
You wrote - “The problem often comes when people offer a philosophical critique to a narrative hermeneutic. because the intention in themselves between the two hermeneutics are different. “
Exactly. Well put.
I’m enjoying a bric-brac exchange between two other guys on another blog concerning Frei’s sense of narrative, and, how/whether Frei established coherency criteria between narratives themselves and the rules for interpreting narratives. It’s tempting to import non-narrative criteria for coherency into interpretation. As you said – “intention” – makes a huge effect.
I know that I usually shut down and then invent justifications for my immunity to outside critique when even a friendly accountability-partner calls me to account – even in agreed and covenantal sessions of mutual accountability! I don’t have any magic handle on the number and weight of forces in me and in others that motivates me to shut down in immunity to outside critique and protect my own narratives (your earlier point). But, I can usually sense that I want to shut down - intention. No brainer. Until I justify it.
My strongest hunch as to why narrative is such a favorite mode of theology is because we feel and experience ourselves interacting in the narratives we read, and then, when we’re in faith-families where we interact and relate with others who value the same narratives, then factors that economists call the “tree of experience” take over. The “tree of experience" simply means that it's objectively measurable that shared experiences in which we experientially learn interactively with each other are far more weighty and powerful in driving home deep lessons and lasting values, in contrast to learning “information” about the same content (learning about values, etc) by reading narratives for “information,” or by sit-down learning in didactic settings. These results are confirmed in our own common sense and introspections, but they are measurable and in social science disciplines, biological sciences, and especially in economics (see e.g., Simonsohn, Karlsson Loewenstein and Ariely, “The tree of experience in the forest of information”).
You noted philosophy - yea, people who get excited about formally precise ontologies (Metaphysics Project, at Stanford) also interact with each other; and in a sense, their metaphysical work is a part of their narratives. But, narrative seems more easily accessible, common, understandable, common-sensical to a wider group of people.
The reason for noting all of this stuff about narrative reinforced through personal interaction to make “the tree of experience” drive home narrative’s lesson – is because I think that’s the answer to your question about poverty in America, even globalization – namely, if larger numbers of people can learn by interaction (not just didact) that their own narratives are affected by poverty, then this interactive learning is our best shot - the “tree of experience” can become a “Tree of Life.”
Theologians like yourself can play a part in this learning curve: helping build bridges between classic narratives, woven into local testimonies (extremely important), then by adding even very simple action-interaction stuff tied to narratives, simple acts like I note on my blog, say picking up trash in the desert.
The whole host of sciences and science findings can both be criticized by theology (post-mod) and also incorporated into “practical” theology, like noting econometric measures of “the tree of experience” as confirming our need to act-interact – at a risk, of course, to our own narratives. But, I don’t have any magic formula for how to do all this. My knowledge and feelings are limited, scaffolded, messy. Just on the Way ...
Jim
You said,"The reason for noting all of this stuff about narrative reinforced through personal interaction to make “the tree of experience” drive home narrative’s lesson – is because I think that’s the answer to your question about poverty in America, even globalization – namely, if larger numbers of people can learn by interaction (not just didact) that their own narratives are affected by poverty, then this interactive learning is our best shot - the “tree of experience” can become a “Tree of Life.”"
this paragraph is profound. it is in finding our "interconectedness" that any true resolution can be found. Dr. Min one of my professors argues that this is why there must be a prophet to wake up the lethargy of the middle class. To awaken them to the recognition of how all consumption and commerce, effect the global community. And speaking more locally directly connects "us;" those stricken by poverty by those who believe themselves to be outside the realm of poverty.
I find the metaphor of the tree of experience to be very enlightening and must read more about it. I am often afraid to broach the world of economics due to fear of numbers... :) but i will abandon those fears to learn.
"act-interact" is an important concept to and i appreciate your call for us to engage. Our pastor this week began a cheesy set of sermons this week engaging Oprah's big give. while cheesy they are helpful in doing just what you recommend. He challenged us by connecting the narratives of Christ with the narratives of our lives, and compare to how they match up when it comes to service and meeting others needs. then he called us all to acts of giving in our daily lives. not just with those that we know but also with those that we do not.
i find all this to be even more intersting as i watched the big give with my wife this week and it was clear how each of us come into even our acts of service with our own narratives and we must be careful that our power does not override the dreams of another. we must become willing to make sacrifices for the good of the whole.
well enough ranting..
thanks again for the conversation. any more you have on the tree of experience would be greatly shared.
rustin
Post a Comment