Thank you @erh.germany. I do have my own personal perspective as a private citizen, but as a story teller, I like to shed light on the different facets of an issue. It's a juggling act between the two. :)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The moment you become a storyteller and inevitably take more than one point of view, there is really no way back to just one believable dominant one. The ability of storytellers, just like actors (which we all basically are if we want to be), to do multipolar viewing and framing is what makes us human. We are even capable of adopting deviant levels alongside the horizontal and vertical ones, commonly referred to as "meta". The storyteller learns through his creation that he cannot remain one-sided if he wants to illustrate a conflict.
I also agree with the experience that everyone, however, goes back to a certain position that is closer to him than another in moments where it matters in his daily interpersonal experience.
Here, everyone wants to be able to act according to their own conscience, because nothing is worse than having to act against oneself - the only real authority - and the outside world negates this. He'd hurt his human dignity and I think that is something not to be underestimated in its consequences of social matters.
From my point of view fiction and art are the most intelligent means to meet this issue, for it acts vicariously as an "as if" situation and supports to open minds and hearts.
I know this from my professional practice where I created with my clients "as if" scenes and we acted them out. That prevented us from having to take a firm stance without even having touched the deeper dimensions behind every humans soul.
Story telling is a wonderful creation. While we tend to think of it as entertainment, it goes beyond that, as you suggest. Even companies are now using the techniques of story telling to improve the processes and human resources necessary for more effective and efficient product development.
Every story teller is different and brings his/her own style to the mix. Of course, a story will align with the author's biases, though I prefer those stories that make you think about an issue instead of clobbering you over the head with propaganda.
I am unable to think of it otherwise :)
I don't think much of companies that incorporate the storytelling method for greater effectiveness. As long as that company is not an intimate part of those who work there, such methods are, for me, merely a means to an end to make employees believe that the company is something like family. Which it usually is not.
The very nature of employment relationships contradicts such methodology. Employees sign contracts and there the hierarchy is clearly regulated and the employee is bound by instructions and otherwise has no say in the running of the company, no share in its profits and of course no share in its losses. From this point of view, this existence contradicts the model of a family, where all profits and losses are shared or are the responsibility of the family. Where companies give themselves profiles and their corporate policy pretends to be a family environment, they certainly succeed in doing so, so people always like to identify with their employer, because otherwise they have few comparable identities that take up as much energy and capacity as work.
A shared enduring narrative is not authentic in this environment, as births and deaths within the workforce, for example, are basically just disruptive, as employers are not willing to compensate for such things, but it has economic disadvantages for them. However, a culture that cannot or does not want to absorb birth, death, illness is therefore not an authentic environment, so a company's story is only really of value if the company includes such things and really shows itself as a family. Where the management attends the funeral or welcomes children to the company, etc., where there is shared mourning for tragedies and shared celebrations for happy occasions, so everyone knows everyone well. But it is not like that and the concept of gainful employment and taxes and money-regulated professions with a strong division of labour has nothing to do with family, rather it has led to the destruction of the family or to its degeneration. At work you are an individual trying to assert yourself against other individuals who are in competition with you and where you submit to a leadership that gives you your tasks. Exceptions confirm the rule.
I have been a PR consultant for a long time and I know the methods of corporate and brand PR. They all live on emotional charges and the constant repetition of their "brand and corporate values" that you just made up. There is nothing behind it, people come and go and nobody stays anywhere for several years or even decades. Nothing can grow that could be called a really good narrative. They are decals of an era far in the past that are used for the present, the whole thing lives on nostalgia and the ideal. This can also be seen in classic product advertising. ... without the peoples, a narrative is not worth much.
But of course, for the banal everyday life, it is perhaps good to convince oneself that one is working in a working environment that offers some narrative instead of none at all.
In North America, story telling has taken on a more formal role within companies. Check out this article
How to Use Storytelling in Business to Build Captivated Audiences
Beyond business, story telling also has other functions in a society and has been a topic of research in anthropology. Story telling serves other functions in society besides entertainment. Wikipedia has a good run down on the topic.
Thank you for visiting!
Thank you for the source, I have read the article.
Yes, nice stories are made up and in particular the trend of "saving the world and being a do-gooder" is used. "Here a problem: there the solution." "Do you want to be one of the good guys or the bad guys?"
A cheap trick, in my opinion. But it works excellently and uses people's deep dependence on a social group. Which hardly exists as such in real, tangible life. The clan, the tribe, the extended family are a thing of the past. The mantra of collectivism has taken its place.
In this virtual advertising world, the view into the past is glorified just like the view into the future and the present is always something that has to improve, a promise of "more goodness, humanity, cleanliness, security and wealth".
However, the promises do not really materialise and remain as "yet to be achieved". Now merely with other guiding figures. Whereas it used to be the celebrity and superstar, now it is supposedly the girl, the man next door.
The stories themselves become humbler, in line with the zeitgeist they themselves have created, but it does not change the facts and functions of commerce.
The beautiful simple country life, the cosy business culture, it is only possible for a few who are classy as figureheads. The rest of us, who can't afford our own piece of land, cram ourselves into the big cities and talk ourselves into "staying away from nature" to protect it.
I just brushed upon the wiki entry, there is lot to be read of other aspects of storytelling which I began to prefer myself.
Looking back at ones own life, in particular when you get older, it's a form of becoming and staying real, if you have collected real time stories and adventures yourself. Just the imagination that my life would mostly consist of being in front of a screen, there would nothing be left to tell.
Greetings to you
Whether it's a cheap trick or not is irrelevant to me. I'm talking about story telling as an anthropological, psychological, and sociological process. For example, as an anthropologist, I can ask, what purpose does story telling serve a culture? As a psychologist, I could ask, what brain mechanisms allow us to produce a story? As a sociologist, I can investigate how the norms and behaviors of a culture are transmitted through narrative. It's quite a rich field of study. Take a look at this article for further reading- Anthropology: Storytelling and Narrative Anthropology.
Cheers!
I was responding to the first article you brought to my attention. I expressed a view on that.
What is it that you are getting at, can you put it in a question to me personally or clothe it in a view of yours without asserting to me the irrelevance of my view?
Can you give me personal examples so that I get the opportunity to even know what you are actually talking about?
I was addressing what you brought up in the second sentence of your comment to my initial response to your story above.
I had mentioned that I worked in the media sector and that public relations, just like advertising, thrives on narrative. I made various points of criticism about this.
The relevance of your thoughts and mine is there for me, otherwise we wouldn't have to be talking to each other.
However, I have difficulty engaging in a conversation that takes me from one link to another without getting your personal experiences and interpretations.
To the extent that you don't wish to share these, just say so and I'll back off. ... But maybe you already have? Not sure.