Talk:Metanarrative
From Academic Kids
| Contents |
Totalizes
totalizes the world? Please speak english. This is an encyclopedia, I am supposed to learn something. This from a college professor in social sciences.
- Try a dictionary. Totalize: "to add up" or "express as a whole" [1] (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=totalizes). Hyacinth 23:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have added some stuff to what was already contributed. Dunno if this makes things any better? Personally I find the whole "incredulity toward metanarratives" a bit passe. Postmodern nonsense.
Narratology
Is the concept of metanarrative used in narratology? Hyacinth 03:29, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Yes. Hyacinth
Chinese
WTF??? Metanaratives are thought to prevent narratives deemed "marginal" from upsetting or subverting the cultural order. I'm sorry, but this page might as well be written in Chinese. Can someone rewrite this page in English, and give a concrete example of a metanarrative? Richard W.M. Jones 08:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- There already is an example given and the page is already in English. Hyacinth 01:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
---
Vague description of the vagueness of the article
This is an interesting topic. I am still confused however (as it seems other are). Nothing wrong with what's written here, but it is too brief and assumes prior knowledge. Concepts need to be expanded on and explained and examplified beyond the one or two sentences and key phrases. Language needs to be simplified. I realize it takes a lot of skill and understanding of the topic to make it understandable to %99 of the world, hope someone can do it. Stbalbach 21:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I broke down meta+narrative and added an example. Hyacinth
---
Is wikipedia a metanarrative?
Is Wikipedia a metanarrative? Or, is this article about metanarrative a metanarrative? Not to be wise, just trying to understand what is meant by it, and what it means to move beyond it in the context to postmodern. Stbalbach 07:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I would say that wikipedia is not a narrative, and thus incapable of being a metanarrative. Wikipedia is a collection of stories, many of which are metanarratives, but is not itself a story. Hyacinth 23:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What to do with some POV, misplaced, and generally misleading text.
I temporarily removed the following text, which is quite POV and not entirely accurate. I think there are nuggets of good material here, but maybe they belong on the postmodernism page, as they don't quite relate to metanarratives. Really, this is just a criticism of postmodernism (actually, not even postmodernism, but relativistic and nihilistic modernism).
- Postmodernists, on the other hand, seek to establish an orientation towards history and knowledge that denies both the existence of a universal truth as well as evolutionary narratives. This is because metanarratives are thought to embody unacceptable views of historical development, in terms of progress towards a specific goal. It is thought that metanarratives necessarily dismiss the naturally existing ‘chaos and disorder’ of the universe. Postmodernists seek to replace such grand over arching accounts by focusing on specific local contexts as well as the diversity of human experience.
- By making this argument postmodernism borrows from perspectivism, as pioneered by Friedrich Nietzsche. Perspectivism asserts that there can be no single ‘perspective’ of reality that is objective and universal. Taken to its extreme this can have the ultimate consequence of undermining all notions of truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and bad, and so on.
- This postmodern conundrum leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of many commentators, from traditional Marxists like Alex Callinicos, to the defenders of modernity like Jurgen Habermas. Some have gone as far as to suggest that the postmodern frame of mind is socially irresponsible (and in its upshot, highly conservative). If every truth is essentially contestable, can we continue to make a stance against racism, sexism and homophobia? If there are no essential truths about human nature, is it not impossible to devise a universal ethical philosophy? Taken to its somewhat ugly conclusions: who is to say that racism, sexism and homophobia are universally wrong? The postmodern vision of a tolerant, pluralist society in which every political ideology is perceived to be as valid, or as redundant, as the other; may ultimatly encourage individuals to lead lives of a rather disastrous apathetic quetism. This reasoning leads Habermas to compare postmodernism with conservatism and the preservation of the status quo.
I wasn't happy with those changes
I think that the previous entry was pretty bad. Sorry. It wasn't clear and repeated itself on several occasions. In addition it seemed too biased in favour of the "postmodern condition". Nicholas Cimini
- I think we can work out a more NPOV compromise that both of us will be satisfied with. But I'm eventually going to ask you to justify some of your deletions, particularly the material I recently added about how Metanarrative was used by structuralists in the 1970s and early 1980s, before Jameson appropriated the word for post-structuralism. I also think that some of the added material is overstated, oversimplified, and POV. But I'm willing to wait to have these discussions until you have completed your edits. COGDEN 22:06, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
"A term of art"
What exactly is "a term of art"? That paragraph makes little sense. Additionally, I feel that the term metanarrative could be traced further back than the early 1970s. Metanarrative thought actually stems from the work of Plato and Aristotle. Their conception of a metaphysical world, as distinct and separate from the world in which we live, has had a lasting effect on the course of European philosophy and the social sciences. I suggest that we remove that paragraph and the beginning of the following paragraph relating to Lyotard. This section is neither necessary nor interesting. Cimini
- Maybe the paragraph could be rephrased, but I think it's important to note that before the post-structuralist usage, there was a brief structuralist usage as well--a usage I still see today, though rarely. And as to whether to cite the term back to Plato or Aristotle, I'm almost certain they didn't use the word. Certainly not in its structuralist or poststructuralist senses. COGDEN 00:35, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Explanation for deleted paragraph
Based on the following observations, I deleted this paragraph:
- According to postmodernists, metanarratives are the distinguishing feature of modernity, which is a period in time that is thought to begin with the Enlightenment. Although it is widely recognised that metanarrative thinking has a lineage that stems much further back - to the work of Plato and Aristotle. Their conception of a metaphysical world (see metaphysics), as distinct and separate from the world in which we live, has had a lasting effect on the course of European philosophy and the social sciences.
Explanation:
- It's not correct to say that "according to postmodernists, metanarratives are the distinguishing feature of modernity." That statement is far too broad, and it's not what Lyotard was saying. Metanarratives are just as characteristic of postmodernity as they were of modernity, the difference being that now we're skeptical of them, whereas in modernity, we were more gung ho about them.
- Metanarratives didn't begin with Plato and Aristotle. They're probably prehistoric. A metanarrative is not the same thing as metaphysics. COGDEN 18:33, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Habermas although disagrees.
For some reason, someone added a quirky little non-sentence at the end of the last section. It said Habermas although disagrees. What is that supposed to mean? If you think that Habermas should not be used as an example in this section, then please tell us what made you come to these conclusions. Otherwise I will remove this non-sentence very soon.
- First, I think with a sentence like that you may go ahead and be bold and remove it on sight.
- Second, please sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 19:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me not using my signature --CJ 20:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The latent diverse passions
"The latent diverse passions of human beings will always make it impossible for them to be marshalled under some theoretical doctrine ..."
Is this (POV) truth-claim taken directly from Hume? Aren't "human beings" "marshalled" all over the place, all the time? Of course, no narratives marshall the free spirits of those opposed to doctrine!
I claim that this claim is made by someone who prefers their own doctrines to those espoused by apologists for the order of things in the late USSR. I know I do.
Actually, that sentence was written by me. And I find the whole postmodern condition a bit passe. I actually think that the collapse of the USSR was caused by other factors - and not by some problematic theoretical doctrine. However, i think the sentence is good because it demonstrates what some people believe. The sentence is not a 'truth claim' it represents the opinions of some people. --CJ 16:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See the sentence said "The latent diverse passions of human beings will always make it impossible for them to be marshalled under some theoretical doctrine and this is one of the reasons given for the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s". Maybe the sentence could be rephrased. But removing it altogether is unnecessary.
