Thursday, February 16, 2012
Another Stab at Defining Metanarrative
After refining. And re-refining. And... I'm toying with the following as a definition for metanarrative (or worldview - holding that metanarrative and worldview are talking about the same thing - the former from the perspective of form, the latter from the perspective of function). This definition is a "take-off" of one used for worldview by Worldview Resource Group (www.wrg3.org). Anyway, here is the proposed definition: Metanarrative is the perceived reality in which a community lives - that perceived reality being formed by a story-grid through which the community interprets and interacts with all reality. This definition highlights the fact that metanarrative/worldview is primarily a communal as opposed to an individual affair. The community size is not stated. It might be the community of secular-humanists in North America, or the community of Plains Cree of Canada, or the community Punjabi immigrants in Vancouver, BC, or the community of north-eastern Montana ranchers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You have a great way of communicating Mike. I very much enjoy your blog - keep it up!
ReplyDeleteCan someone in the community perceive the the metanarrative or does it take an outsiders "eyes" to see the story that defines their "perceived reality"?
ReplyDeleteTo quote a book title by R. C. Sproul, "Now That's a Good Question." Now to try and find an equally good answer. Let's look at an example: A community lives in a particular perceived reality - let's say, the world/metanarrative/perceived reality of animism. They live in this "reality," but they live in it tacitly; that is, it is not thought about or analyzed - particularly at the presuppositional level. It is also lived in holistically - held with deep emotion because of the way the metanarrative was formed in the first place. Because of this tacit and holistic nature of metanarrative (or worldview) it is easier for someone from "outside" (another metanarrative) to see/perceive the animistic metanarrative objectively.
ReplyDeleteThose are some of my initial thoughts. What are your thoughts, Valen/Carol?
I have found that I can see the results of a different metanarrative, but having a person express why they think or act that way is somewhat difficult. Just keep asking questions, I guess. It's hard to determine if actions are bade on world view, or just the easiest choice to make at the time.
ReplyDeleteI like the definition Mike!
ReplyDeleteAnother dimension of the definition is that it uses the metaphor of "living in" prior to "seeing." That seems to me to be fairly significant - emphasizing the wholeness of life as opposed to (merely) seeing, which can be so easily presupposed to be an individual and intellectual interaction and interpretation.
ReplyDeleteValen & Carol: Yes, having a person express WHY they think or act a certain way is really very difficult. Sometimes even unfair. It seems to me that we really do need to listen, truly befriend, and earn the right to be told things. Through such relationship and doing the "heavy lifting" of culture and worldview analysis and discovery we come to see patterns of words, thoughts, and actions (that previously did not make a lot of sense) that truly betray (and portray) the metanarrative in which the person (and their community) is living.