>>Someone want to explain to me what I am apparently missing because I
>>think the narrative idea is a bit disingenuous and I don't think that is
>>what others have in mind?
>>
>>John Thornton
>
>YOu are among the people on this list who I'd count has having the
>capacity to convey--even in e-mail--a genuine human concern and care for
>other people. There are plenty of people like that here, so I'm not
>dissing anyone, just don't have time to point it out and show you how I
>see it in your typings. But you sure as heck don't come off as some
>wonky number crucncher babbling on about logical fallacies, etc. (not
>that there is ANYTHING wrong with that).
>
>You so obviously care about injustice. Maybe it's just me, maybe I'm
>deluded, I don't know. But I see it in you. You tell a narrative about
>what it means to be a lefty in nearly everything you type, every emotion
>that leaks from your prose. It's a passion that pervades what you write,
>especially when you're really on fire about something. Same thing as Greg
>wrote last night. And jOanna wrote. I shouldn't pick out posts because
>I'll forget to list others, so don't be offended, but seriously a lot of
>us are like this already.
>
>
>At 01:57 PM 11/9/2004, Doug Henwood wrote:
>>People don't understand wonky stuff. They don't connect policy to party
>>or candidate in any detail. They need a one- or two-sentence story that
>>excites them about politics. "America is in danger and Bush can save us!"
>>Doesn't matter what the danger is - terrorism or lesbianism - it still
>>works. Things like that.
>
>
>The goal of any progressive narrative must be one which encourages us to
>side with the nurturer (not the punitive parent, not the victim). This is
>all related to cognitive psych stuff about frameworks since a lot of that
>draws on Freudian theory -- or it did last time I looked into it.
>
>Question is, as Wojtek suggests, can any such narrative be progressive at
>all? Is our goal to strip the world of all narrative, all myth, all
>symbolism? is that possible (i don't think so). Alas, don't many of us
>have that as our goal? We want facts, unadorned truth, bang bang bang,
>numbers, straight up no chaser.
>
>And don't forget, there IS a moral narrative that undergirds the wonk
>(liberal enlightenment).
>
>
>kelley
I guess one of the problems I see with narratives is that when someone like Kerry uses them they appear insincere and forced. More like pandering than anything genuine. I actually liked Dean because he was fairly successful in using this type of story-telling to get his point across and it was in his nature to do so. His narratives flowed naturally and appealed to many. He was a better candidate than Kerry because of it. Unfortunately we all know what happened to him. The Dems seem to prefer a smarmy Clinton type of narrative or else technocrats. How Clinton convinced anyone he "felt their pain" is a mystery to me. The other problem with narratives is that they work much better for ideas already held than they do in conveying new ideas. "Queers are trying to undermine marriage and I believe my marriage and yours are worth fighting for" is successful because it is overly simplistic. Left ideas tend to be more complicated and nuanced and don't lend themselves as easily to such. It is possible, but more difficult. Progressives also tend to attack those who use such devices. Again look at Dean. The reasons for the war in Iraq are not simple but that doesn't stop the right from saying "it is good vs. evil" as if that sums it all up. If you try to distill opposition to the war as "no blood for oil" you get all kinds of reactions from the "left" about how that is inaccurate because it is too simplistic. Look at the trouble stirred up by Deans narrative about the pregnant 12 year old he used to frame his opposition to parental consent for abortion. The truth of the narrative matters more when it is from a progressive position than when it comes from reactionaries. For some issues I understand the medias roll in this but for other I don't have an explanation. You can make shit up about welfare queens in Cadillacs and offer no proof for it and yet the image still sticks. You just don't get that kind of latitude when you use narratives from a progressive viewpoint. Narratives about crack babies are a lot easier to come up with when you can pull them out of your ass. I have the feeling that progressives would not be able to outdo reactionaries when it comes to narratives. I'm desperate enough to try almost anything at this point. Maybe the Dems should all be forced to listen to Johnny Cash albums to help them find narratives that will resonate with working people.
John Thornton