The idea of using the theories of literature to examine social and cultural phenomenon - Essay Example

? One of the significant values of narrative methodology for explaining social or cultural phenomenon, is the universal nature of a story. Every human life tells a story, and like a work of fiction there are universal qualities to any given life like, conflict, peaks, valleys, beginnings, endings, emotional elements, character development and so forth. The idea of using the theories of literature to examine social and cultural phenomenon, is a novel one and has its origins in the latter half of the twentieth century. This essay will examine the use of narrative methodology for analyzing social and cultural phenomenon. This paper will begin with an outline of what this method involves, how it has evolved from its early phases, the context of social construction which is the background, and examine too, some applications of it in the field of social research. It will be argued that there are significant values to using narrative methodology for looking at society and culture, but there are also some important limitations with it as well. It will be argued that the problem of induction that limits all qualitative, as opposed to quantitative research, is one of the key limitations for narrative methodology. The foundations of narrative methodology are important for understanding its value and use. Before examining some of the ways in which this methodology functions, and in turn, analyzing some of the merits and limitations, some remarks on the origins and foundation will be outlined. Narrative methodology which is often referred to as 'narrative inquiry' or 'narrative analysis, has its beginnings in what was known as the “linguistic turn in social theory” (Fairclough, 1992, p. 2). Further, the linguistic turn is inseparable from the concept of the social construction of reality. One of the core tenets of the social construction of reality, is that language is a form of universal representation. That is to say, all knowledge, all beliefs, all opinions and ideas have a connection to language. Concerning the social construction of reality, Judith Butler points to an interesting “paradoxical condition” (Butler, 2005, p. 10) concerning the relationship of an any given individual to society. Most regard individuals as autonomous or separate agents, however, as Butler argues, any given individual in order to express their individuality, must necessarily use the concepts and ideas of the community. No one is born with a working ability to use language, and it is therefore a skill that is acquired through the social nexus of the family and institutions like school, and of course, other social factors like media, friends, and so forth. So, as an individual expresses themselves as individual, they must necessarily do so with a language that is not actually their own which she terms as the “normative horizon” (Butler, 2005, p. 24). To express ones individuality, we are tethered to the language of the community. Moreover, the very acquired knowledge that one uses to form an idea of oneself, is likewise a product of the community both of which are tied to language. The 'linguistic turn' mentioned above, points to the centrality of language as that which mediates and shapes our beliefs, knowledge and opinions, and this lies at the heart of the theory known as the “social construction of reality”, which is a theory made “influential” in the mid 1960's by the sociologists, Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann (Packer, 2011, p. 159). Rather than viewing reality as either “objective” or “subjective”, Berger and Luckmann maintained that it was “inter-subjective” (Packer, 2011, p. 159). As with Butler's example of a self note above, which can only be defined through the language of a community, inter-subjectivity represents a socially conditioning factor for both how we interpret ourselves, but also the world around us. For social theory, some form of linguistic medium has become central to both constructing and interpreting reality, and 'narrative' as we shall see is one of the most universal forms of this very expression. Further, and as far as the emergence of narrative methodology, it is important to note that seeing the self as situated in a web of social relations was perceived as more accurate or empirical than more conventional or positivist approaches to social theory: “the resurgence of narrative inquiry is due to a disenchantment with theories that portray the self as a mere point that is acted upon by external forces” (Wells, 2011, p. 9). Prior social theory placed far too great an emphasis on 'external' social forces that caused patterns of behavior. In a world more mediated by language, there is a dynamic or dialectical relationship that is fundamentally more holistic. As 'inter-subjective', narrative methodology as based on social construction, does not isolate the individual from the external world in a cause and effect relation, but integrates the individual so that they both act and are acted upon. So far, the value or use of narrative methodology has been looked at in terms of the foundations and some of the general premises of this approach. This analysis will now turn to the actual praxis of it, beginning with some of the earlier theories that informed this method. In general, there are two general methodological approaches to narrative methodology. One approach focuses on the 'structure' or the 'form' of narrative, and the other is focused on 'content'. The first that will be looked at in this analysis is the form approach. The American born sociolinguist William Labov was the first pioneer of employing narrative in a wider or broader context to include social phenomenon as an object of explanation. His particular focus, was establishing the structures or the forms that can or could be said to be inherent in all types of narratives. In the mid 1960's, Labov started utilizing narrative to capture or describe the relationship between social events: : "one method of recapitulating past experience by matching a verbal sequence of clauses to the sequence of events which (it is inferred) actually occurred" (Labov, 1972, p. 359-60) . The primary sequence for Labov, was the relationship between two events where by one thing happens followed by another in what he termed as a temporal sequence. While this generally a linear form of describing events from one to the next, he included or incorporated the notion of a free clause which could basically occur anywhere in the entire narrative. These sequences he further categorized into six basic types of structures. The first of which is the “abstract” and this is the clause that provides or gives a brief overview of what the particular narrative is about (Toolan, 2001, p. 151). The “orientation” is about how the people are represented within the narrative, and in terms of the very basics of structure such as time, setting, and location or place and so forth (Toolan, 2001, p. 152). The “complication” is the central feature of the narrative that explains, sets up or establishes the main outcome of the story in question (Toolan, 2001, p. 152). It is one of the more difficult to discern, but also one of the more fundamental concepts for Labov within his narrative schemata. Following the 'complication', is the category or the component of the “evaluation” (Toolan, 2001, p. 153). The evaluation is the component that describes the succinct but also related nature between one sequence or clause and the next, and it incorporates, of course, the notion of an evaluator or participant that can be either external to the narrative. Or, it can be someone who is situated within the narrative. Finally, Labov's sixth component in his schemata and structure for narrative analysis is the “coda” and this is considered the relational aspect of the narrative – that is, how it relates to the individual interpreting the narrative, and how it can be said to relate to other narratives along with the internal relations that can be discerned within the given narrative (Toolan, 2001, p. 157). What is important for approaches like the pioneer of narrative analysis, William Labov, is the structure of the story. He is more interested in discerning the actions or activities that transpire than the content or the meaning: “Labov works on the broad assumption that what is said ... will not be the core of the story; that rather, what is done” (Toolan, 2001, p. 157). While Labov championed a structural or formal approach to narrative, much of the theory and methodological approaches conversely approach this through the content. In a social context, much of the content is shaped or understood through some of the basic principles that are employed in literary theory. The following will look at content analysis with attention paid to the basic elements that can be found within any given narrative. The first basic element is “setting”. The setting represents the physical backdrop of a narrative, so would include the time, location and aspects that are indicative of any backdrop. The next key element of content focused narrative, are the characters involved. Just as any analysis of fiction, within a sociological framework the characters are the key figures within the narrative, and their basic demographic backgrounds along with their personality qualities or attributes are focus of this particular element. The narrator is also a key element for content analysis. The narrator shifts in terms of the particular context, and in some situations the narrator is the observer of the narration in question, and in other forms of analysis the narrator might be the actual participant or one of the characters (Cortazzi, 1993, p. 33). For instance, narrative methodology has been used extensively in medical research and in particular, with regard to the process of diagnosis. In such instances, the patient is the character and narrator. For example, in a study using narrative analysis Borges and Waitzkin (1995) were able to discern specific issues in the primary care treatment of women that were gender marked in a way that would not have been otherwise discernible. In other words, just as a work of fiction might have a first person perspective or a third person perspective, the narrator's role is different within varying social contexts, and these contexts shed light on research issues such as problems of gender. Events or “episodes” (Cortazzi, 1993, p. 75) make up the key units within a narrative, and are an important element that describe the actual single scenes that make up the entire plot. The plot too is an element. A plot is composed of events, and can follow a linear or chronological sequence, or it can be non-sequential. For instance, in contexts where someone is reminiscing there might be what can be described as a backward rather than a forward sequence of events. The plot is that which unifies events, and explains in turn, the causal relationships between the events and incorporates within this explanation another basic element which is the 'theme' (Herman and Vervaeck, 2005, p. 11). Themes are the guiding meanings that make the interpretation of events possible with respect to the entire plot. The theme itself is key for content focused analysis as it is different from form or structural analysis. That is, where the form or structural approach will taken into account the events in relation to plot, the focus is not driven toward an interpretation of the meaning of it which is a component of 'content' rather than just a formal feature of the narrative (Herman and Vervaeck, 2005, p. 12). Finally, within content focused narratives, the audience is taken into consideration. Like many of the other elements, the audience can shift accordingly in terms of the context. Some observational analysis situations might have the audience as the observer, where other contexts the audience might be included within the narrative. In keeping with the example of observing patients, the audience are the medical professionals involved, and this does have some impact in terms of the overall understanding given that in this instance, the audience has significant influence over the narrative itself. That is, a medical professional, for example, is going to make decisions as an audience which in turn has an impact on the narrative. In short, there are some contexts where the audience has to be understood as a participant rather than strictly being an observer in a passive sense and that narrative analysis: “must critically identify and analyze narratives through qualitative means that examine closely their divergent content, point of view, purpose, audience and functions within cultural contexts and personal activities” (Daiute and Lightfoot, 2004, p. 185). Having looked at the 'content' and 'structural' approaches to narrative analysis or methodology, some remarks will be made with respect to the evaluative aspects whereby a narrative becomes explained. Again, many of the questions posed by sociologists in the narrative analysis of social phenomenon, are the very questions that get framed by a literary theorist when examining, for example, a work of fiction. Emphasis is one of the key aspects posed. So, once the observational data has been collected, and in turn, it has been categorized according to the structural features or the content, the sociologist in turn looks at what were the elements that stood out as the most significant. These can be ascertained from aspects such as how frequent something might occur, or how the impact of one element has as measured against other elements. For instance, it can be said that some social situations could be described as character focused as opposed to being focused on the events that occur within the narrative. It is up to the evaluator to discern what elements are more prominent than others. Likewise, with the notion of frequency. Are there events that are recurring and therefore more prominent than other events that have little impact or a relatively smaller rate of occurrence. The impact of the narrative too has a place or role in sociological observation as it does with fiction or literature. It has to be asked what impact a given narrative has on an audience or what feelings or emotions can be said to elicit an effect worthy of further consideration? In turn, narrative analysis compares and contrasts the evaluative aspect of a narrative with either other narratives, or other means of examining a particular issue. For instance, how would a particular narrative reflect or conflict with a social statistical survey of a given situation? Can it be said that a narrative reinforces what is already known about a subject, or is it a narrative that challenges some of the existing knowledge of any particular area? Thus, like the analysis of a novel, the overall picture of perspective of a narrative analysis is one that measures a story against reality, so to speak. In an article titled “Narrative Analysis – Or Why Sociologists Should be interested in Narrative” (1998), Robert Franzosi goes far in explaining through examples, the value of narrative methodology. Franzosi both draws on much of the literature on narrative analysis in theory, but his main focus is toward discerning the value of this methodology in practice. He raises the example of the narrative of a homeless man named “Neville” and effectively contrasts positivists methodologies in explaining the type of poverty faced by the homeless (Franzosi, 1998, p. 449). Where conventional approaches in social theory work from the general facts to explain the particular – that is, where we might explain Neville's homelessness in terms of economic variables or what we know about the social cycle or inter-generational causes of poverty, Franzosi makes a case for moving in the opposite direction. He argues that narrative methodology allows for making a fairly accurate assessment of the general problem, using the particular as a focus for analysis. And, the particular in this instance, is the homeless man that he focus' on: “narrative understanding quickly leads us away from Nevilles microcosm to the macrocosm of British society ... from Neville's particular to the universal” (Franzosi, 1998, p. 550). What Franzosi demonstrates, are how some of the linguistic and social subtleties of Neville's situation speak to more general societal problems. For example, through a linguistic analysis of the types and forms of his speech – that is, literally his choice of words, Franzosi demonstrates how an overall sense of “powerlessness” (Franzosi, 1998, p. 142) is the basic mental condition of Neville. Likewise, the cycle of poverty is articulated in the vicious circle of needing a job to get out of being homeless, but needing housing in order to be clean and stable enough to participate in a job interview (Franzosi, 1998, p. 142). There are countless examples raised about Neville, where Franzosi shows how valuable narrative analysis is with regard to ascertaining some universal problems from one particular instant. Further, he points to the importance of the reader of the narrative in this instance as far as contributing to a broader awareness of the issue of homelessness. One of the interesting points that Franzosi stresses, is that the interpreter of the story functions in this instance, in terms of creating a bridge between “qualitative” and “quantitative” analysis (Franzosi, 1998, p. 549). The assumptions that are brought to the table by an observer or interpreter play a key role in the “construction of meaning” argues Franzosi. The basic knowledge and awareness of some of the social conditions, both in terms of causes and consequences, is an awareness that brings the particular condition into the light of the more general problem. Neville's story reinforces and legitimates some of the broader understandings of homelessness, and in this sense: “Our ability to understand and fully grasp the meaning of even such a simple text as Neville's story is inextricably linked to a wealth of background knowledge that readers ... bring to the text in the construction of meaning” (Franzosi, 1998, p. 545). In other words, moving from the particular to the universal through the knowledge of the reader, represents a powerful attribute of narrative methodology. The readers assumptions are tested against the particular narrative, and in turn, a broader perspective is confirmed or denied through the contrast of assumptions with narrative. This is one of the core strengths of narrative methodology according to Franzosi. It is an approach that is not solely a qualitative method, but one which brings qualitative analysis and findings to bear on existing quantitative understandings. Like Franzosi, Terry Orbuch (1997) writes explicitly on the value of using narrative methodology in sociological research. One of the distinguishing elements of this presentation, is a focus on how narrative accounts can make sense of a social phenomenon in a way that conventional interviewing cannot. Orbuch presents an argument that maintains that narrative provides the structure that effectively allows a researcher to understand “causal” relationships between events: “the story is more likely to be comprehended and accepted if a sequential plot exists and if order is evident” (Orbuch, 1997, p. 467). Where, Franzosi focus' on the content of the narrative in order to make generalizations about social phenomenon, Orbuch examines the structure more than content. The structure, is precisely what legitimates a narrative account which lend credibility or empirical soundness to a cultural or social phenomenon. Without, for example, understanding the relationships between events, there is no causal explanation and as they maintain no “plot” in which a framework can provide an explanation (Orbuch, 1997, p. 467). For Orbuch, such a structure is what differentiates a “narrative” from just an “account” (Orbuch, 1997, p. 464). In other words, where an account can be said to describe a particular social or cultural phenomenon, a narrative goes further in so far as it represents an actual explanation of it. Like Franzosi, much of the article in question is focused on providing the background to narrative methodology, and in turn, some concrete examples of the application of it, the value of narrative is more narrowly framed as the means of explanation. It is argued that without a framework of narrative elements, the best that an account of a social or cultural phenomenon can hope top achieve is a mere description. The structure imposed by narrative goes further toward explaining the underlying causes of social and cultural phenomenon, and in turn, provides a foundation for recommended changes. That is, there is a direct relationship between the causal explanation of a problem and in turn, how it is the problem can be addressed or changed in some senses. This represents the primary strength of the narrative as it anticipates some of the means by which a solution can be focused on. As qualitative as opposed to quantitative research, narrative methodology falls prey to some of the same problems that all qualitative theory often faces. The most general way of dividing quantitative from qualitative is the method of “deduction” against “induction” (Kalof, Dan and Dietz, 2008: 78). Narrative methodology cannot avoid induction or making inferences, and there are some important limitations in this regard. An inference or inductive methodology moves as we saw with Franzosi's argument above (1998), from particular instances to a general theory or a general observation. This is the “interpretive approach” (Kalof, Dan and Dietz, 2008, p. 80) that involves some plausible situations where the interpreter involved can misrepresent their data. The notion of “credibility” is that which defines the relationship between the data collected, and the reality being observed: “credibility is how accurately the data reflects reality” (Kalof, Dan and Dietz, 2008, p. 162). As an interpretation that aims to establish credibility, there are always some important considerations regarding the “observer bias” of the interpreter which is one of the most consistent problems with qualitative research (Mitchell and Jolley, 2009, p. 133). Observer bias is where the interpreter is making conclusions based on their own “expectations” or: “recording what they expect participants will do rather than what participants are actually doing” (Mitchell and Jolley, 2009, p. 133). The second problem concerning the inductive or inferential reasoning that characterizes narrative methodology, is the sample base used for making generalizations. When moving to a general observation, it is important that a solid sample base of data be collected. This is fundamental for making accurate or 'credible' judgments. With narrative methodology, the problem arises as to how many narratives are needed to make a general theory or depiction of reality? Moreover, how is that the researcher is able to accurately make the parallels in question work? That is, in cases where the narrative is nuanced and particular, what means of quality assurance are maintained such that one can say that a certain type of narrative is occurring under different circumstances? It can be said that of all forms of social behavior, there are a multitude of variables that go into constructing a basic causal chain explaining patterns and behavior. Under some instances of behavior or social phenomenon, there can easily be different variables working where others are absent. When we consider the homeless person that was used as an example above in Franzosi (1998), it has to be considered how well this one particular individuals narrative fits in with the narrative of others. A simple consideration of demographics, for example, would yield potentially very different results. That is, in Franzosi's case (1998), the individual was a white male in his thirties, and we can easily infer that this is not the demographics for all homeless people. Thus, while a narrative that might fit his particular demographic might not so easily fit with a woman of color in her fifties, and so on. Thus, as with all qualitative or inductive/interpretative approaches, a strong consideration of establishing a solid research base for data poses some problems or considerations. While one narrative might fit as an explanatory model that would reflect the reality of a white male in his thirties, can the very same narrative as an explanation serve to fit an individual with significantly different demographic variables? Moreover, what qualifies as a good sample base or number of cases such that you can utilize narrative methodology as an effective tool for explaining social or cultural phenomenon? Narrative methodology is invaluable as an interpretative approach to human behavior and social and cultural phenomenon. Lives are stories, and narrative analysis is beneficial to both put form and structure for explanation, but also content analysis such that themes and meaning can be better understood. As a qualitative approach to culture and society, this analysis has examined some of the benefits of this methodology, but also some of the limitations. All qualitative analysis relies on induction, and narrative methodology is no different. As with interpreting a literary text, the interpreters subjective experience unquestionably has bearing – that is, observer bias is a potential problem. Likewise, as a qualitative method, narrative analysis relies on inductive reasoning which brings with it, problems as far as sampling enough instances or data to accurately paint an accurate general theory. How can one narrative, or one narrative structure, account for the multitude of variables that consistently construct a context for any social phenomenon? While narrative methodology can go far to explain a causal nexus, it has to be argued that it is also best if this approach were supplemented with alternative theories of explanations. Bibliography: Borges, S., and Waitzkin, H. (1995). Women's Narratives in Primary Care Medical Encounters . Women & Health. 23, ( # 1). 29. Butler, J. (2005). Giving an Account of Oneself. New York: Fordham University Press. Cortazzi, M. (1993). Narrative Analysis. London: Palmer Press. Daiute, C., and Lightfoot, C. (Ed). (2004). Narrative Analysis: Studying the development of individuals in society. London: Sage Publications. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Franzosi, R. (1998). Narrative Analysis – Or Why and How Sociologists Should be Interested in Narrative. Annual Review of Sociology. 24, 517-554. Herman, L., and Vervaeck, B. (2005). Handbook of Narrative Analysis. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Kalof, D., Dan, A., and Dietz, T. (2008). Essentials of Social Research. New York: Open University Press. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Mitchell, M.L., and Jolley, J.M. (2010). Research Design Explained. Belmont CA: Wadsworth. Orbuch, T. (1997). Peoples Account Count: The sociology of Accounts. Annual Review of Sociology. 23, 455-479. Packer, M. (2011). The Science of Qualitative Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Toolan, M.J. (2001). Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction. London: Routledge. Wells, K. (2011). Narrative Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Value of Narrative Methodology for Explaining Society and Culture. Read More