Metanarrative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In critical theory, and particularly postmodernism, a metanarrative (sometimes master- or grand narrative) "is a global or totalizing cultural narrative schema which orders and explains knowledge and experience".^[1] The prefix meta means "beyond" and is here used to mean "about", and a narrative is a story. Therefore, a metanarrative is a story about a story, encompassing and explaining other 'little stories' within totalizing schemas.

The term is best known for its use by Jean-François Lyotard in the following quotation: "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards metanarratives".^[2] By this, Lyotard meant that the postmodern condition is characterized by an increasingly widespread skepticism toward metanarratives, such as the unique status of the individual, the boundedness of information, and the march of progress, that are thought to have given order and meaning to Western thought during modernity.

Contents 1 The meaning of metanarrative 2 Examples of metanarratives 3 Postmodern skepticism toward metanarratives 4 Replacing grand, universal narratives with small, local narratives 5 Is postmodernism a metanarrative? 6 References 7 Further reading

[edit] The meaning of metanarrative

A metanarrative can include any grand, all-encompassing story, classic text, or archetypal account of the historical record. They can also provide a framework upon which an individual's own experiences and thoughts may be ordered. These grand, all-encompassing stories are typically characterised by some form of 'transcendent and universal truth' in addition to an evolutionary tale of human existence (a story with a beginning, middle and an end).

[edit] Examples of metanarratives

• Many Christians believe that human existence is innately sinful but offered redemption and eternal peace in heaven - thus representing a belief in a universal rule and a telos for humankind. See also Universal History.
• The Enlightenment theorists believed that rational thought, allied to scientific reasoning, would lead inevitably toward moral, social and ethical progress.
• Marxists believe that in order to be emancipated, society must undergo a revolution. Just as the bourgeoise (whose living depends on the control of capital or technology) took power from the noble class (whose wealth was based on control over land), they believe that the present system of capitalism will fall and the proletariat (who live by selling their labor) will take over. This change will be driven by the unstable and cyclical nature of capitalism, and by the alienation felt by the laborers who keep the system working.
• Freudian theory holds that human history is a narrative of the repression of libidinal desires.
• An uncritical belief in the free market is a belief that, through humanity's acquisition of wealth, all who work hard and are afforded the right opportunities will succeed materially.
• Categorical and definitive periodizations of history, such as the Fall of the Roman Empire, are rejected by postmodernism. Other periodization schemes include the Dark Ages and Renaissance.

[edit] Postmodern skepticism toward metanarratives

According to Jean-François Lyotard, a defining condition of postmodernity is a widespread skepticism or "incredulity" toward metanarratives.^[3] Lyotard and many other poststructuralist thinkers have viewed this as a positive development for a number of reasons. First, attempts to construct grand theories tend to dismiss the naturally existing chaos and disorder of the universe. Second, metanarratives are created and reinforced by power structures and are therefore not to be trusted. 'Metanarratives' ignore the heterogeneity or variety of human existence. They are also seen to embody unacceptable views of historical development, in terms of progress towards a specific goal. The latent diverse passions of human beings will always make it impossible for them to be marshalled under some theoretical doctrine and this is one of the reasons given for the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

[edit] Replacing grand, universal narratives with small, local narratives

Metanarratives have lost their power to convince, according to the advocates of postmodernism, – they are, literally, stories that are told in order to legitimise various versions of "the truth". With the transition from modern to postmodern, Lyotard proposes that metanarratives should give way to 'petits récits', or more modest and "localised" narratives. Borrowing from the works of Wittgenstein and his theory of the "models of discourse"^{[citation needed]} Lyotard constructs his vision of a progressive politics. He envisages a progressive politics that is grounded in the cohabitation of a whole range of diverse and always locally legitimated language games. Postmodernists attempt to replace metanarratives by focusing on specific local contexts as well as the diversity of human experience. They argue for the existence of a "multiplicity of theoretical standpoints",^{[citation needed]} rather than grand, all-encompassing theories.

[edit] Is postmodernism a metanarrative?

Lyotard's analysis of the postmodern condition has been criticized as being internally inconsistent. For example, thinkers like Alex Callinicos^[4] and Jürgen Habermas^[5] argue that Lyotard's description of the postmodern world as containing an "incredulity toward metanarratives" could be seen as a metanarrative in itself. According to this view, post-structuralist thinkers like Lyotard criticise universal rules but postulate that postmodernity contains a universal skepticism toward metanarratives. Thus, the postmodern incredulity towards metanarratives could be said to be self-refuting. If we are skeptical of universal narratives such as "truth", "knowledge", "right", or "wrong", then there is no grounds for believing, the "truth", that metanarratives are being undermined. In this sense, this paradox of postmodernism is similar to the liar's paradox ("This statement is false."). Perhaps postmodernists, like Lyotard, are not offering us a utopian, teleological metanarrative, but in many respects their arguments are open to metanarrative interpretation. They place much emphasis on the irrational, though in doing so apply the instruments of reason. Postmodernism is an anti-theory, but uses theoretical tools to make its case. The significance of this contradiction, however, is of course also open to interpretation. "Incredulity towards metanarratives" does not mean a denial or abolishment of them. Rather, postmodernism involves a critical and skeptical attitude towards these totalizing schemas rather than a blind, unquestioned faith.

[edit] References

1. ^ Stephens, John (1998). Retelling Stories, Framing Culture : Traditional Story and Metanarratives in Children's Literature. ISBN 0-8153-1298-9.
2. ^ Lyotard, Jean-François. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1984, reprint 1997. Translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi.
3. ^ Lyotard, Jean-François. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1984, reprint 1997. Translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi.
4. ^ Callinicos, Alex. Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991.
5. ^ Habermas, Jürgen. "Modernity versus Postmodernity". New German Critique, No. 22, Special Issue on Modernism, pp. 3-14. 1981.

[edit] Further reading

• Lyotard, Jean-François. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1984, reprint 1997. Translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi.
• Stephens, John and Robyn McCallum (1998). Retelling Stories, Framing Culture : Traditional Story and Metanarratives in Children's Literature. ISBN 0-8153-1298-9.