Re: Narrativomania

David Dirlam (ddirlam who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu)
Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:28:51 -0800 (PST)

Eugene and everybody:
At the end of your comments, you ask your typical sign off what do
you think? I think this is one of the best I've seen of narrative
descriptions of practices competing with each other, one replacing the
next and in turn being replaced, leap-frog style. That is often the result
of adamant loyalty to one strategy. Allowing two strategies to co-exist
results in a much more stable system, but you are right in suggesting that
stability and diversity themselves are also values. But I guess nobody who
has been reading this discussion would be surpised to learn that in this
case, I value the stability and diversity.
David

On Sat, 15 Nov 1997, Eugene Matusov wrote:

> Hello everybody--
>
> Currently the field of psychology (and probably some other social science
> fields) is under the reign of numbermania. Many US psychology journals are
> full with "thick numbers." Often there are very little in-depth discussions
> of the patterns these numbers represent. Also, there is often a very little
> attention is paid to situations when numbers are impossible due to
> uniqueness and non-repetitive nature of events. In these cases, the verdict
> is strict: if there are no numbers there is no science; if there is no
> science, there is not phenomenon.
>
> However, there is a new ghost looming on the horizon -- narrativomania. The
> new reign promises to be more pluralistic, meaningful, and human. It
> doesn't have arrogant zeal of numbermania to divide people on right and
> wrong but provides basis for peaceful co-existence for different ideological
> systems in science. "Each narrative has its right on existence." Nurturing
> rather than competing is on the new agenda. However, as any reign
> narrarivomania forces on participants to adopt its values and norms.
>
> Take for example writing grant proposals. The paradox essence of grant
> proposal was nicely capture by Plato who wrote something like that. If you
> know what you are trying to find in your research -- why bother to do that
> (you already know the answer)? However, if you do not know you are trying
> to find in you research -- what are you trying to find? In short, grant
> proposal is not a narrative but unfinished action (using Bakhtin's term).
> In my view, Bakhtin ("Art and answerability") knew perfectly well the limits
> to narratives and he knew that deeds (especially ethical deeds) can't be
> captured adequately by narratives that have essence to perfect unfinished
> actions in some gestalt. Latour ("Science in action") also knows that as he
> shows double nature of science (double-faced practice) as an unfinished deed
> and as a narrative. He also discusses the third face of science: metrics
> and incriptions.
>
> So as to writing grant proposal, it is much better (for $$$ outcome) to
> write a nice narrative than to mumble about your
> unperfected-action-in-action. Of course, after getting money, your research
> won't remind your proposal but it is another "narrative"...
>
> So, when the king of numbermania will be dead, should we claim, "Long live
> the queen of narrativomania?!"
> It is funny but true that we see the world through tools we use (e.g.,
> numbers, narratives)...
>
> What do you think?