There is a close relationship between metanarrative and worldview: Metanarrative deals with form, process, a story-grounding, and is diachronic; worldview deals with function, product, a story-grid, and is synchronic. Metanarrative is the story one lives in; worldview is the grid through which one interprets.
The relationship between the two can be diagrammed like this (note: the Metanarrative is formed by the many, many small stories/experiences of life)
Worldview
(Product, Function,
Synchronic, Story-Grid)
ßsssssssssssssssssssssssssssMetanarrativessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssxsssssssssssssssssssssssssssà
(Process, Form, Diachronic, Story-Grounding)
If the above is true, the implications are significant: Worldview change does not occur without metanarrative
change, and the order is critical. Worldview change calls first for conviction of need and understanding of implications of a “better” metanarrative.
Likewise, the interpretation of life (and texts) is impacted most powerfully by
the interpreter’s awareness of metanarratival concerns and personal change at
that level.
When we remplace a truly biblical metanarrative with our default one. It leads to transformation of our worldview at the core level. It is a challenge to let this take place because we hold many aspects of our old metanarrative dear.Sometimes we would rather squint and feel sorry for ourselves because we can't see than to get new glasses.
ReplyDeleteYes. We all have our "societal squint." New glasses are not even deemed necessary. We don't know we are squinting. Thanks for the comment, Apraxis.
ReplyDelete