2.4: Narrative Paradigm- Challenging the Rational Paradigm

Usually, when one thinks of rhetoric, the Aristotelian pillars of persuasion come to mind: ethos, logos and pathos. Western rhetorical thought and practice operated on the assumption that humans are rational beings and when presented with complete data (evidence), humans will make a rational decision. In the late 70’s, Walter Fisher challenged that assumption with the introduction of his narrative paradigm.

The narrative paradigm is a theory that rests on the assumption that all meaningful communication happens through storytelling or first-hand accounts. This was already a stunning proposition, but Fisher went further to propose that humans are essentially storytellers and that stories – narratives – are more persuasive than arguments. Talk about a paradigm shift! Fisher posited that narrative is a more compelling and intriguing tactic that is naturally persuasive because it invites and encourages connection between people and the issue(s) involved. He summarized this new paradigm as follows:>

1. Humans are…storytellers.
2. The paradigmatic mode of decision making and communication is “good reasons," which vary in form among situations, genres, and media of communication.
3. The production and practice of good reasons are ruled by matters of history, biography, culture, and character…
4. Rationality is determined by the nature of persons as narrative beings - their inherent awareness of narrative probability, what constitutes a coherent story, and constant habit of testing narrative fidelity, whether or not the stories they experience ring true with the stories they know to be true in their lives….
5. The world as we know it is a set of stories that must be chosen among in order for us to live in a process of continual re-creation. (Fisher 5).

Holihan and Baaske make the following observation: “Virtually all arguments can be understood and evaluated as stories” (31). But how do we evaluate these stories? Fisher maintains that decision making is based on “good reasons." What does that mean?

There are a few considerations to keep in mind when evaluating persuasive stories. The first is narrative probability. This concept explores the coherence and consistency of the story or persuasive message. A few questions that one may ask in assessing a narrative argument could be: is the story complete? Does the story make sense? Are the characters involved credible and do they act realistically? These are just a few of the questions that “test” the reliability and probability of the argument.

The second consideration is narrative fidelity. Narrative fidelity examines whether or not the story aligns with social reality. Does the story ring true for what we know about history or what we know about natural law or according to our experience? This second evaluative measure allows for us to assess the values embedded in the argument. As mentioned earlier, Fisher claims that people make their decisions based on their own values. These values are the basis of the “good reasons." If the story makes sense in terms of narrative probability and in terms of narrative fidelity then we have “good reason” to make a decision.

The other consideration is the credibility of the storyteller. Is the speaker a person of character? Can we trust the story they are telling? The integrity and character of the speaker is another important element when evaluating the persuasive story.

Fisher’s narrative paradigm expands our understanding of persuasion and how it can work in our everyday experiences. By understanding how we, as humans, use story to advance our arguments, perspectives, and values, we can examine and gain insight into how some stories can persuade us, and others do not.