Walter Fisher

Class notes from Ron Wright's COM 300 (Group and Public Com. Theory course), University of Arizona, including a PP slide show.

1. That narrative is what makes reason and values meaningful. Man becomes Homo Narrans.

The base: Toward a Logic of Good Reasons.

There is logical reasoning much as it has been treated historically. Such considerations include questions about:

• the reliability of facts; the completeness of facts;
• the soundness of reasoning patterns;
• the relevance of arguments to the issue;
• that judgments are based on the real issues.

Then there is reasoning with values, or good reasons. Such reasoning, when added to traditional considerations of logic, requires that arguers:

• identify the values at risk in (or at the base of) their arguments;
• justify the relevance of those values to the issue;
• examine the effects of applying the values to the case at hand;
• check the consistency of values with the values of the universal and particular audience;
• look for transcendent effects which would negate applications of the values.

Fisher argues that human communication must be considered in more than its rational argumentative/logical form; that its historical and value aspects are every bit as important.

However, presentation of the logic of good reasons was inadequate, as it failed to address questions such as: how does one present values in argumentation? Once presented, how can one evaluate the "relative value" of one value from that of another? How does one tell which value should win out?

In response, Fisher proposed the narrative paradigm, the idea that man is a story telling animal at heart, that human communication, especially argumentation, is largely a storytelling process, and that one should test the narrative rationality of stories as a way to further test argumentative grounds. After testing for the logic of good reasons (by examining factors of traditional rationality and the values orientations inherent in the arguments), advocates and audiences should test the narrative rationality of the stories told.

Narrative rationality has two major aspects: narrative probability and narrative fidelity.

• narrative probability: that the tale hangs together as a good story (it is well told, believable, credible and the like)
• narrative fidelity: that it meets the tests for reason and values proposed in the logic of good reasons; that the story "resonates" with soundness.

Main criticisms: There are many complaints/arguments against Fisher's ideas, including:

• That not all human discourse takes the story form;
• that Fisher hasn't specified how critics make choices as to what to stress: narrative probability or fidelity?
• that Fisher hasn't provided criteria/standards for testing narrative probability.
• that the critic becomes "a standard unto himself"
• that traditional rationality is thrown over in favor of little to replace it.
• that storyteller as expert overthrows the notion of expert witnesses

back to lecture note index