Chapter 3 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making describes how people make sense of argumentation. It focuses on several key patterns that show up in situations such as good reasons, storytelling, science, feminist theory and alternitive dispute resolution. Storytelling definitely stands out among the rest to me because it seems counterintuitive. Personally, I associate storytelling with fiction which makes me think that it could be used to create unreasonable arguments. However, the authors claim that it is important for a sensible argument to have a good story. They say that people make sense of their social situations through storytelling and that an argument is more likely to withstand criticism if the person’s story is believable and their actions are justified by logic. They write that “people judge the rationality and truthfulness of human behavior in terms of what actions make sense” (39) In other words, if the story is coherent and does not contradict itself, it is more likely to be believed. And if the story is believed, then the argument is sensible and more likely to get adherence.
Applying this concept to the real world, this principle plays out quite a bit in our court system here in the United States. During trial, each opposing side makes their argument to judge and jury and in order to gain adherence. They often do so in the form of a story. For example, where someone was at the time of the event or how things played out and why they made certain decisions. The Judge and jury are then tasked with making sense of each of those arguments and they do so by dissecting the stories provided to see if they actually make sense. The story that is the most logical and believable is the one to gain adherence and therefore win the trial.
Storytelling appears to be an especially powerful concept because it is a way to connect with the decision makers emotionally. If a narrative is presented correctly, it can place the decision maker in the arguer’s shoes and make them better understand where the argument is coming from. Unlike the other four concepts in the chapter, storytelling can give a much more human side to the argument and spark sympathy for the cause which can become very persuasive and help the argument gain adherence.
Rieke, R. D., Sillars, M. O., & Peterson, T. R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. Boston: Pearson.
I love this post, and I appreciate that you were compelled to touch upon such a vital component of Chapter 3. Storytelling is probably one of the most common ways that an ordinary person makes sense of argument in their everyday life. Your example of the principle’s role in our judicial system was excellent, but we can also find this concept commonly in television.
ReplyDeleteIn television, storytelling is omnipresent whether you are watching your local news, sports, or fictional shows. News agencies often will try to sway your opinion about a current controversy by giving you a detailed account of the events surrounding it. Sports commentators also attempt to elicit certain emotions in their audience regarding a team or individual athlete by telling stories about their hardships and describing the team or athlete's hard work they did to prepare for a certain game. In fictional television shows, the writers of shows advance their ideologies through the stories they write for their characters and the circumstances they put the characters in.
Storytelling is definitely an interesting and common way to approach argument. We can also see it through a variety of examples that don't include our judicial system and the television we watch, but I feel the two are some of the more powerful instances where storytelling can play a pivotal role in argument.