Rational World Paradigm to a Narrative One

The rational-world paradigm to a narrative one which can be found in Chapter 23, is somewhat confusing to me. So I figured if I blogged about it, this might help me understand it better. Griffin (2009) defines rational-world paradigm as, “a scientific or philosophical approach to knowledge that assumes people are logical, making decisions on the basis of evidence and lines of argument. Fisher sees philosophical and technical discussion as scholars’ standard approach to knowledge” (p. 301). Griffin (2009) defines narrative paradigm as, “a theoretical framework that views narrative as the basis of all human communication” (p.302). The differences I see between these two paradigms are the rational-world people are rational and narrative people are storytellers. The rational-world people make decisions based on arguments and narrative they make decisions based on good reason. It is also important to note that fisher believed the rational-world paradigm is too limited. Another important thing to note is that the rational-world paradigm only experts are qualified to assess communication and the narrative is any one with common sense can assess communication. I guess that both paradigms would work for different research questions.

The Dramatistic Pentad

The Dramatistic Pentad is what stood out to me in chapter 22. The five crucial elements of human drama – act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose and the similarity of the writing practice who, what, where, when, why, and how made it easy for me to understand the concept of the elements of the pentad. These descriptions offer a way of determining why a speaker used a specific rhetorical strategy. The act is what was done, the scene represents where and when the act was done, the agent is the person who performed the act, the agency is the means used to perform the act, and the purpose is the goal of the act. I referred to these elements when watching the presidential debate. The act was the debate, the scene was Tuesday at Ohio State University, the agent was Obama or McCain, the agency as I saw it was media and the purpose or should I say goal of the act was to get the voters support. If you watched the debate let me know if you described the elements in the same way or if you interpreted them differently. I’d be interested to know.

Aristotle's theory of pathos

Aristotle’s theory of pathos, found in chapter 21, is intriguing. The fact that theory came about 2300 years ago is amazing. The theories consist of anger versus, mildness, love or friendship versus hatred, fear versus confidence, shame versus shamelessness, indignation versus pity, and admiration versus envy. When I read over the catalogue of opposite feelings, they are true to this day. For instance, love or friendship versus hatred is defined, “consistent with present-day research on attraction, Aristotle considered similarity the key to mutual warmth. The speaker should point out common goals, experiences, attitudes, and desires. In the absence of these positive forces, a common enemy can be used to create solidarity” (Griffin, 2009, p. 284). I experience this at work, at school, and life. The last sentence about common enemies used to create solidarity is so true at work. There have been numerous budget cuts yet they continue to hire administrative positions. The classified staff has found solidarity in our common enemy administrators.