So, I was listening to this podcast about how we are story interpreting and story telling creatures, a subject I've addressed a bit before when writing about Will Storr's book The Science of Storytelling. I was listening to it and thinking, 'Well, maybe, but, come on - a little simplistic, no?' because it seemed to me that the guy had found a hammer and saw nails everywhere.
Part of my scepticism comes from reading Galen Strawson who is highly critical of this conception of the narrative self. You can read his critique of the story thesis here - and this article provides an interesting discussion of his view in a wider philosophical context.
In my reading, I've previously been persuaded by James Pennebaker's research which strongly suggests that writing about an emotional experience can improve mental and physical health. The details are here. The claim is that through writing, for five minutes a day, over three days, about some emotional upheaval, we seem to make it coherent and it ceases to have debilitating effects. This is good news. It's a short, practical and eminently do-able intervention.
Jordan Peterson expanded on this for his Self Authoring programme. As an advocate of an existentialist form of self-creation, Peterson's project is aimed at enabling users to forge their own destiny. I think it has strengths, certainly, but I think it might fail to take account of contingencies, real injustices and roadblocks and thus can lead to a feeling that those who 'make it' are in some sense better or stronger than those who don't - which is my criticism really of both Stoicism and existentialism as 'self-help' programmes (very much focused on the self).
It might seem that my advocacy for Virtue Ethics and projects of self-improvement that aim at some kind of transcendence could thus be contradictory. But I would counter that these projects are outwardly focused to a greater extent. Sure, with Virtue Ethics one is seeking to make the self more virtuous, but not through focusing on the self: instead one's focus is on the projects themselves which tend to have a wider remit - education, being a better friend or daughter, considering ideas for social benefit on a wider scale. In line with what both Susan Neiman and Martin Hagglund explicitly state, there is no guarantee that one's projects will come to fruition. One has hope but not certainty, in the face of what can seem dispiriting odds.
I have some other issues with the story-idea, which are connected to some of what Strawson says. I have known people who have created a fantasy and live in this fabricated delusion. This can be empowering, but seems likely to be ultimately destructive.
One person I am thinking of maintained pride and self-respect in the face of extreme financial hardship and some alienation from family and former friends. I respected her ability to retain her mojo in incredibly tough circumstances, but the scale of the delusion expanded over time. It was hard to have a conversation with her because her utter belief in what appeared incredible and her claims that seemed entirely unsubstantiated gave me a constant sense of unhappy dissonance. When reality crashed, smashed and confounded the fantasy, the result was horrific. I feel guilt that I did not try harder to help.
Others persist in telling themselves, in writing for themselves, narratives that are profoundly disempowering - one could cruelly call them victim narratives - in a way that appears to self-destructively limit their opportunities for growth and flourishing. I have some tendency to do this - but fortunately have a good friend and a father who shock me out of it by condemning my self-pity. At the time, I don't appreciate it, but constant commiseration can lead one to find solace in sympathy rather than in striving. I mentioned something similar to this in the post on games.
Stories are in a sense rather like games: they impose a structure on inchoate, chaotic reality.
My friend told me of some research in which people were asked whether they considered themselves lucky or unlucky. This could well be determined by the story they told of their lives. Anyway, then they had to do a task which involved counting photographs in a newspaper. In the paper, in a small box, was some text reading something like, if you read this you can stop counting and get your reward.* Only some of the test subjects found it. Which ones? Of course, the ones who considered themselves lucky. I don't know if this has escaped the replication crisis, but it's interesting. My friend heard an author who cited it as evidence that if one has a positive attitude, one sets oneself up for opportunities. Personally, I think he reads rather too much into the results to add to the force of a self-help book on empowerment. But. To me, it demonstrates the value of engaged exploration - that outward looking state.
It's not about thinking of 'your' opportunities; it's about being curious and interested. Sure, that might lead to opportunities - and experiences of wonder - but it might, more importantly, help make you less narrowly egoistical. Please, people: don't expect opportunity. Just look at the world and appreciate it. Maybe (if you're lucky!) opportunities will come your way. But maybe they won't. Yet, if they don't, at least you've lived this finite life a little bit outside your bone-skull cage.
NOTES
*Here is a full piece expanding on this research... I haven't read it all, but actually it seems rather convincing. You might want to make up your own mind.
留言