Dangerous Stories: Narrative Theory and Critique in a Post-Truth World

Narrative Works Pub Date : 2024-01-30 DOI:10.7202/1108957ar
Jason E. Whitehead
{"title":"Dangerous Stories: Narrative Theory and Critique in a Post-Truth World","authors":"Jason E. Whitehead","doi":"10.7202/1108957ar","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Political and legal scholars use narrative theory to study everything from the framing of policy arguments to the telling of tort tales to the construction of political consciousness. Such scholarship often relies on post-positivist theories that problematize the empirical validity of narratives. But the stories told by many recent movements in American politics—such as Christian nationalism, “the Big Lie,” and Covid-19 conspiracy theories—so distort empirical reality that they endanger liberal norms and values, not to mention human lives. Scholars who ordinarily eschew objective narrative validity may nevertheless want to critique and challenge such stories on empirical grounds. This article investigates the options available to narrative scholars studying these types of stories. First, I survey different approaches to narrative, drawn from philosophy, rhetorical studies, critical feminist theory and critical race theory. Second, I highlight the resources and strategies devised by scholars who use these approaches to analyze other empirically problematic and socially dangerous narratives, especially how they have combined post-positivist commitments with concerns for truth and justice. Finally, I make suggestions for how scholars can better study and critique the political and legal narratives associated with the Trump era.","PeriodicalId":501346,"journal":{"name":"Narrative Works","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Narrative Works","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1108957ar","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Political and legal scholars use narrative theory to study everything from the framing of policy arguments to the telling of tort tales to the construction of political consciousness. Such scholarship often relies on post-positivist theories that problematize the empirical validity of narratives. But the stories told by many recent movements in American politics—such as Christian nationalism, “the Big Lie,” and Covid-19 conspiracy theories—so distort empirical reality that they endanger liberal norms and values, not to mention human lives. Scholars who ordinarily eschew objective narrative validity may nevertheless want to critique and challenge such stories on empirical grounds. This article investigates the options available to narrative scholars studying these types of stories. First, I survey different approaches to narrative, drawn from philosophy, rhetorical studies, critical feminist theory and critical race theory. Second, I highlight the resources and strategies devised by scholars who use these approaches to analyze other empirically problematic and socially dangerous narratives, especially how they have combined post-positivist commitments with concerns for truth and justice. Finally, I make suggestions for how scholars can better study and critique the political and legal narratives associated with the Trump era.
危险的故事后真相世界中的叙事理论与批判
政治和法律学者使用叙事理论来研究从政策论据的框架到侵权故事的讲述再到政治意识的构建等各个方面。此类学术研究通常依赖于后实证主义理论,这些理论对叙事的实证有效性提出了质疑。但最近美国政治中的许多运动--如基督教民族主义、"大谎言 "和科威德-19 阴谋论--所讲述的故事扭曲了经验现实,危及自由主义准则和价值观,更不用说人的生命了。通常回避客观叙事有效性的学者可能也想根据经验对这些故事进行批判和质疑。本文探讨了研究这类故事的叙事学者的可选方案。首先,我从哲学、修辞学研究、批判性女性主义理论和批判性种族理论等方面考察了不同的叙事方法。其次,我强调了使用这些方法分析其他存在经验问题和社会危险的叙事的学者所设计的资源和策略,特别是他们如何将后实证主义承诺与对真相和正义的关注结合起来。最后,我就学者们如何更好地研究和批判与特朗普时代相关的政治和法律叙事提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信