Stories, pt. 2
Nov. 30th, 2008 04:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
franceslievensOn Friday evening it's that time of year again when Belgian and Dutch kids put their little shoes by the chimney, fill it with sugar lumps, carrots, a drawing... and hope to find it in the morning filled with sweets and presents. On December 6th it's Sinterklaas' birthday. The tradition is remarkably the same as that of the American Santa Claus (even their names sound alike): parents (and nowadays grandparents and godparents as well) give their children toys and pretend some special person has given them. Because the children allegedly will only receive presents when they've been good, the Sinterklaas-story is also a way to get children to behave in the period towards the actual celebration.
It is of course a story that's not true, but generations of parents have been telling it to generations of children. And generations of parents will keep on telling it, because of the "magic" that surrounds Sinterklaas- or Christmas-morning. Retelling the story is recreating the magic for yourself, as it were.
Telling stories, whether they be true or untrue, is taking part in creating a magical myth that gets people going. Every movement for change (or conservation for that matter) is based on a story, told by a great voice, someone who voices opinions in a passionate way.
In politics it is important to be passionate about what you tell your potential voters. Passion works contagious. When you're passionate, your voters will be passionate for you.
Story telling in politics, isn't new for that matter. The Greek sophists taught this kind of story telling. It was part of their democracy, and is still a big part of, for example, the American democracy. It's what Barack Obama has done during his successful presidential campaign: he is one hell of a story teller. For that matter we shouldn't forget that Obama was a teacher before turning to politics. And what is teaching more than telling stories? A teacher wants her students to move towards learning, to get involved in something. When you wrap your lessons in a story it's easier to digest and retain, and it's a way of showing the kids and students something. Haven't we all vivid memories of things that were shown to us, where we struggle to recall those things that we took to us as dry slices of toast to be reproduced on tomorrow's exam?
Viewed this way stories can't be or go wrong. They tell us about real things in an engaging and easily remembered way. Most of all, we know it's storytelling. That's the big difference with children being fed on Sinterklaas or Santa Claus. We have an understanding about what is real and what isn't. We have learned to search for clues and proofs to check up on a story. The kids still need to grow out of their beliefs: when they're six or seven the difficult questions begin. First they want to know all there is to know about Sinterklaas, and suddenly they see through the false beard and Piet's black make-up. But that doesn't mean we don't need or want stories anymore. People like to be fooled and it's so much easier to be fooled than it is to search for truth underneath a story.
A critical stance towards what is told, is something that can be learned. It is important to know how one can use stories – as was known by the sophists already. Maybe this knowledge might even help in fully appreciating the scope of the story: not only do we understand the truth underneath, but also the second layer of watching a great story teller. I do not believe it is wrong to use stories when telling truths. It is part of my job to get kids involved in what goes on in the world, to make them think about it, and I have discovered the easiest way to do so, is to tell them a little story. They know we are working with stories, and images, and in the process they also learn how to react on stories, how to analyse them.
Is it thus wrong for a person like Barack Obama to tell stories up on a stage? Of course it isn't. He's a public speaker.
Should we call him out on it? We can, especially when working with people who haven't had the opportunity to learn about the use of stories. On the other hand: we all would have done the same, probably not that well though. Not everyone is a great orator.
It is of course a story that's not true, but generations of parents have been telling it to generations of children. And generations of parents will keep on telling it, because of the "magic" that surrounds Sinterklaas- or Christmas-morning. Retelling the story is recreating the magic for yourself, as it were.
Telling stories, whether they be true or untrue, is taking part in creating a magical myth that gets people going. Every movement for change (or conservation for that matter) is based on a story, told by a great voice, someone who voices opinions in a passionate way.
In politics it is important to be passionate about what you tell your potential voters. Passion works contagious. When you're passionate, your voters will be passionate for you.
Story telling in politics, isn't new for that matter. The Greek sophists taught this kind of story telling. It was part of their democracy, and is still a big part of, for example, the American democracy. It's what Barack Obama has done during his successful presidential campaign: he is one hell of a story teller. For that matter we shouldn't forget that Obama was a teacher before turning to politics. And what is teaching more than telling stories? A teacher wants her students to move towards learning, to get involved in something. When you wrap your lessons in a story it's easier to digest and retain, and it's a way of showing the kids and students something. Haven't we all vivid memories of things that were shown to us, where we struggle to recall those things that we took to us as dry slices of toast to be reproduced on tomorrow's exam?
Viewed this way stories can't be or go wrong. They tell us about real things in an engaging and easily remembered way. Most of all, we know it's storytelling. That's the big difference with children being fed on Sinterklaas or Santa Claus. We have an understanding about what is real and what isn't. We have learned to search for clues and proofs to check up on a story. The kids still need to grow out of their beliefs: when they're six or seven the difficult questions begin. First they want to know all there is to know about Sinterklaas, and suddenly they see through the false beard and Piet's black make-up. But that doesn't mean we don't need or want stories anymore. People like to be fooled and it's so much easier to be fooled than it is to search for truth underneath a story.
A critical stance towards what is told, is something that can be learned. It is important to know how one can use stories – as was known by the sophists already. Maybe this knowledge might even help in fully appreciating the scope of the story: not only do we understand the truth underneath, but also the second layer of watching a great story teller. I do not believe it is wrong to use stories when telling truths. It is part of my job to get kids involved in what goes on in the world, to make them think about it, and I have discovered the easiest way to do so, is to tell them a little story. They know we are working with stories, and images, and in the process they also learn how to react on stories, how to analyse them.
Is it thus wrong for a person like Barack Obama to tell stories up on a stage? Of course it isn't. He's a public speaker.
Should we call him out on it? We can, especially when working with people who haven't had the opportunity to learn about the use of stories. On the other hand: we all would have done the same, probably not that well though. Not everyone is a great orator.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-12-02 05:50 pm (UTC)I don't think there's anything wrong with story-telling and its use in politics, but I can understand why people feel uncomfortable with it.
The stories aren't enough by themselves - and sometimes the story is substituted for actual political ideas or proposed policies. You might be able to identify with a story, especially a well-told one, but the actual politics take a back seat. You can use one and the same story and come to different conclusions about what needs to be done in the future.
If a political campaign hinges on the personal story of a candidate and that story becomes the deciding factor for the voters, it might obscure the political realities and processes needed to make actual policy decisions.
And these questions need to be asked: What does the person telling the story want to achieve? What conclusions does that person draw from the story?
If these questions aren't answered, we're only voting on the ability to tell a good story and that isn't enough.
The abstract ideas behind the story matter.