Strong
people do not abuse, stronger people do not even respond to abuse… Self-restraint
is required - so that the discussion doesn't degenerate into mud-slinging. But
ideas and narratives need to be challenged.
We have to challenge the Muslim Narrative that all
is fine, even great, with Islam and everything wrong is America India
We have to challenge the Secularist's Narrative that
both Hindu and Muslim narratives are equally pernicious. No Sir. The
Islamic Narrative today is far more dangerous than any other.
Not a cinch of a doubt about that. Regards, Dilip [sbicitizen] RE: History and
Narratives 1:32 PM
There is the double-speak of the secularists that seeks to feel itself superior to the rest of the hoi-polloi by finding fault with Hindutva, but stays silent on Muslim fundamentalism. Or they construct false equivalence - equating the Hindutva and Islamic fundamentalism. It is this tribe that does the most damage 8:53 PM
How “narrative” moved from literature to politics & what this means
for covering candidates Poynter.org - by Roy Peter Clark Published Feb. 20,
2012
How narrative moved beyond literary analysis - John
Lanchester offers a brief take on this phenomenon in the London Review of
Books:
“Back when I was at university, the only people who
ever used the word ‘narrative’ were literature students with an interest in
critical theory. Everyone else made do with ‘story’ and ‘plot’. Since
then, the n-word has been on a long journey towards the spotlight – especially
the political spotlight. Everybody in politics now seems to talk about
narratives all the time; even political spin-doctors describe their job as
being ‘to craft narratives.’ We no longer have debates, we have conflicting
narratives. It’s hard to know whether this represents an increase in PR
sophistication and self-awareness, or a decrease in the general level of
discourse.”
In 1947 it was another Brit, George Orwell, who
posited a direct relationship between political corruption and the misuse of
language. But Orwell’s attention was fixed on language at the level of words
and phrases: the use of euphemism to veil unspeakable horrors; empty slogans
meant as a substitute for critical thinking; pretentious jargon designed to
lend authority to special interests. While Orwell wrote many powerful
narratives – fiction and nonfiction – he showed little interest in theories of
political narratives in the way Lanchester describes.
The use of narrative for political purposes was not
invented in this century or even the last. It is a standard lesson of
Shakespeare scholarship that the Bard’s history plays, such as the Richard and
Henry plays, tilted the historical record in favor of the Tudor dynasty (the
family that gave England Queen Elizabeth I), an act of political dramaturgy
that provided the playwright cover and, no doubt, financial rewards.
The long journey of narrative described by
Lanchester took many professional stops before it arrived so conspicuously in
the barrio of spin-doctors, speech writers, and other political handlers. For
decades now, narrative theory has wended its way through the worlds of medicine,
law, and business management, just to name the most obvious arenas.
[But I suppose
it sounds more sophisticated, more critical-analytical. from Object-Oriented Philosophy by doctorzamalek (Graham
Harman)]
No comments:
Post a Comment