Talk:Metanarrative

Rewrite

• • • If we are skeptical of universal authorities such as "truth", "knowledge", "right", or "wrong", [how can we believe in the "truth" that the power of metanarratives is being undermined?]

The above sentence in [brackets] is very difficult to understand, and may be incomplete. As I am not an expert on postmodernism, I am here to learn from the article and not contribute to it, though I must say that the [brackets] portion needs clarification.

What "truth" does the last sentence refer to? It sounds as if it should say "the 'truth' that the power of metanarratives has undermined", meaning that the "truth" postmodernists believe is that metanarratives undermine the "truth". However, the sentence seems to suggest that the truth postmodernists believe is that the truth of metanarratives is being undermined. This would be paradoxical.

If you can understand MY jumble of words, you are surely qualified to clarify the article.

From someone else: Actually, it's pretty easy to understand as written (in my opinion, at least). He or she is saying (this is a paraphrase) that if we can't believe that there is such a thing as universal truth, and the idea that metanarratives are no longer relevant or possible to uphold is being presented as a universal truth, then why should we believe it? In short, if we're being told to question everything by the same people who are telling us that metanarratives are no longer relevant, why shouldn't we question that idea as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.4.202 (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Totalizes

totalizes the world? Please speak english. This is an encyclopedia, I am supposed to learn something. This from a college professor in social sciences.

Try a dictionary. Totalize: "to add up" or "express as a whole" [1]. Hyacinth 23:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Obviously one can look it up, and perhaps gain a better understanding... But this is the site people come to in order to look things up. And it's not pleasant to have the impossibility of meaning thrown in your face like that--like when you look up one word in a dictionary only to find another that you don't know. In any case, even though I no longer blink when someone says "totalizing," I can still see something very jargonistic about it. If we can find a way to replace it we should.

I think totalizing is among the least of the problems in an article about metanarrative. We're talking about something that's largely become a part of Postmodernism. I am no expert on Postmodernism, that's why I know it's not an easy topic. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, it gives names and dates, but there are limitations to the extent of understanding that it can give you in regard to a complicated subject. Totalize, in my understanding, is a word often used by postmodernists and their critics, I think it belongs. Robert Mason 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

i think the word totalizing is self descriptive, whats the problem here?

Yeah! A college professor who had to look up "totalize"? ...Must be the Clown Conservatory! --Plavalagunanbanshee (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not the word "totalizing" in itself. I think most would be able to deduce the meaning. The problem is the phrase "totalizing the world". In the context of the passage, it's extremely unclear. Marchfur (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Additions

I have added some stuff to what was already contributed. Dunno if this makes things any better? Personally I find the whole "incredulity toward metanarratives" a bit passe. Postmodern nonsense.

If you start off with an approach to postmodern philosophy as "Postmodern nonsense", than a definition of postmodernism will probably disagree with you no matter how its written. Rhennesy 18:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, any definition (being a narrative) of postmodernism that avoids membership in a totalizing metanarrative has to be contingent on particular categories of logic, so I'm not surprised that some disagree. --Matthayichen (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Narratology

Is the concept of metanarrative used in narratology? Hyacinth 03:29, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Hyacinth

Chinese

WTF??? Metanaratives are thought to prevent narratives deemed "marginal" from upsetting or subverting the cultural order. I'm sorry, but this page might as well be written in Chinese. Can someone rewrite this page in English, and give a concrete example of a metanarrative? Richard W.M. Jones 08:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There already is an example given and the page is already in English. Hyacinth 01:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think Mr Jones' problem, and now mine too, is that if you're not familiar with the basic terminology and simply want as uncomplicated a definition as possible - surely on of the best features of Wikipedia - this page can't give you one. While the concept of "a story about a story" appears simple enough, the examples complicate, rather than illuminate, the concept itself; are the six later examples descriptions of metanarratives, or metanarratives in and of themselves? Furthermore none of them, nor "the unique status of the individual, the boundedness of information, and the march of progress", as quoted earlier, appear to accurately fit the description of "a story about a story".

I'm perfectly willing to accept that they are correct and relevant, I just don't understand how, and I expect most laypersons would require a little more explanation. Perhaps a short description after each example to explain how these are "stories about stories"? YourMessageHere 02:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I would like to read these short descriptions as well. --86.56.50.184 (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Vague description of the vagueness of the article

This is an interesting topic. I am still confused however (as it seems other are). Nothing wrong with what's written here, but it is too brief and assumes prior knowledge. Concepts need to be expanded on and explained and examplified beyond the one or two sentences and key phrases. Language needs to be simplified. I realize it takes a lot of skill and understanding of the topic to make it understandable to %99 of the world, hope someone can do it. Stbalbach 21:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I broke down meta+narrative and added an example. Hyacinth

Is wikipedia a metanarrative?

Is Wikipedia a metanarrative? Or, is this article about metanarrative a metanarrative? Not to be wise, just trying to understand what is meant by it, and what it means to move beyond it in the context to postmodern. Stbalbach 07:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would say that wikipedia is not a narrative, and thus incapable of being a metanarrative. Wikipedia is a collection of stories, many of which may be or contain metanarratives, but is not itself a story. Hyacinth 23:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But one might argue that there's some sort of underlying metanarrative that structures this site... like it's all about the democratic accumulation of knowledge and consensus, or some such...

Indeed. Wikipedia is a totalizing modernist enterprise at its core, with a hegemonic ideal of universal consensus driving it. The metanarrative claims that Wikipedia is impartial, or can at least manage partiality with "neutrality disputed" signs, when it is actually a hegemonic projection of power by the literate and the computer savvy. A postmodernist purist would boycott such a hegemonic discourse as this. --Matthayichen (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What to do with some POV, misplaced, and generally misleading text.

I temporarily removed the following text, which is quite POV and not entirely accurate. I think there are nuggets of good material here, but maybe they belong on the postmodernism page, as they don't quite relate to metanarratives. Really, this is just a criticism of postmodernism (actually, not even postmodernism, but relativistic and nihilistic modernism).

Postmodernists, on the other hand, seek to establish an orientation towards history and knowledge that denies both the existence of a universal truth as well as evolutionary narratives. This is because metanarratives are thought to embody unacceptable views of historical development, in terms of progress towards a specific goal. It is thought that metanarratives necessarily dismiss the naturally existing ‘chaos and disorder’ of the universe. Postmodernists seek to replace such grand over arching accounts by focusing on specific local contexts as well as the diversity of human experience.

By making this argument postmodernism borrows from perspectivism, as pioneered by Friedrich Nietzsche. Perspectivism asserts that there can be no single ‘perspective’ of reality that is objective and universal. Taken to its extreme this can have the ultimate consequence of undermining all notions of truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and bad, and so on.

This postmodern conundrum leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of many commentators, from traditional Marxists like Alex Callinicos, to the defenders of modernity like Jurgen Habermas. Some have gone as far as to suggest that the postmodern frame of mind is socially irresponsible (and in its upshot, highly conservative). If every truth is essentially contestable, can we continue to make a stance against racism, sexism and homophobia? If there are no essential truths about human nature, is it not impossible to devise a universal ethical philosophy? Taken to its somewhat ugly conclusions: who is to say that racism, sexism and homophobia are universally wrong? The postmodern vision of a tolerant, pluralist society in which every political ideology is perceived to be as valid, or as redundant, as the other; may ultimatly encourage individuals to lead lives of a rather disastrous apathetic quetism. This reasoning leads Habermas to compare postmodernism with conservatism and the preservation of the status quo.

I will say this... the article seems to be mostly about Lyotard's highly-postmodern view of metanarrative, and badly needs to be expanded to reflect more thought on the subject. Not exactly a POV issue but an issue indeed. Awayforawhile (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with those changes

I think that the previous entry was pretty bad. Sorry. It wasn't clear and repeated itself on several occasions. In addition it seemed too biased in favour of the "postmodern condition". Nicholas Cimini

I think we can work out a more NPOV compromise that both of us will be satisfied with. But I'm eventually going to ask you to justify some of your deletions, particularly the material I recently added about how Metanarrative was used by structuralists in the 1970s and early 1980s, before Jameson appropriated the word for post-structuralism. I also think that some of the added material is overstated, oversimplified, and POV. But I'm willing to wait to have these discussions until you have completed your edits. COGDEN 22:06, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

"A term of art"

What exactly is "a term of art"? That paragraph makes little sense. Additionally, I feel that the term metanarrative could be traced further back than the early 1970s. Metanarrative thought actually stems from the work of Plato and Aristotle. Their conception of a metaphysical world, as distinct and separate from the world in which we live, has had a lasting effect on the course of European philosophy and the social sciences. I suggest that we remove that paragraph and the beginning of the following paragraph relating to Lyotard. This section is neither necessary nor interesting. Cimini

Maybe the paragraph could be rephrased, but I think it's important to note that before the post-structuralist usage, there was a brief structuralist usage as well--a usage I still see today, though rarely. And as to whether to cite the term back to Plato or Aristotle, I'm almost certain they didn't use the word. Certainly not in its structuralist or poststructuralist senses. COGDEN 00:35, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

You can't remove Lyotard, he invented the word. Plato and Aristotle, in your interprestation , may have had similar meanings but Lyotard phrased it in his 1970's essay written for the Canadian province of quebec for an anthology they were puttting togethor on technology.(i think this is correct anyhow)

Explanation for deleted paragraph

Based on the following observations, I deleted this paragraph:

According to postmodernists, metanarratives are the distinguishing feature of modernity, which is a period in time that is thought to begin with the Enlightenment. Although it is widely recognised that metanarrative thinking has a lineage that stems much further back - to the work of Plato and Aristotle. Their conception of a metaphysical world (see metaphysics), as distinct and separate from the world in which we live, has had a lasting effect on the course of European philosophy and the social sciences.

Explanation:

• It's not correct to say that "according to postmodernists, metanarratives are the distinguishing feature of modernity." That statement is far too broad, and it's not what Lyotard was saying. Metanarratives are just as characteristic of postmodernity as they were of modernity, the difference being that now we're skeptical of them, whereas in modernity, we were more gung ho about them.
• Metanarratives didn't begin with Plato and Aristotle. They're probably prehistoric. A metanarrative is not the same thing as metaphysics. COGDEN 18:33, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Habermas although disagrees.

For some reason, someone added a quirky little non-sentence at the end of the last section. It said Habermas although disagrees. What is that supposed to mean? If you think that Habermas should not be used as an example in this section, then please tell us what made you come to these conclusions. Otherwise I will remove this non-sentence very soon.

First, I think with a sentence like that you may go ahead and be bold and remove it on sight.

Second, please sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 19:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me not using my signature --CJ 20:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The latent diverse passions

"The latent diverse passions of human beings will always make it impossible for them to be marshalled under some theoretical doctrine ..."

Is this (POV) truth-claim taken directly from Hume? Aren't "human beings" "marshalled" all over the place, all the time? Of course, no narratives marshall the free spirits of those opposed to doctrine!

I claim that this claim is made by someone who prefers their own doctrines to those espoused by apologists for the order of things in the late USSR. I know I do.

Actually, that sentence was written by me. And I find the whole postmodern condition a bit passe. I actually think that the collapse of the USSR was caused by other factors - and not by some problematic theoretical doctrine. However, i think the sentence is good because it demonstrates what some people believe. The sentence is not a 'truth claim' it represents the opinions of some people. --CJ 16:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See the sentence said "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". Maybe the sentence could be rephrased. But removing it altogether is unnecessary.

Examples Toward the End

The extra examples (tagged on, at the end) look a little unprofessional. Maybe some of them could be better integrated into the body of the text, in the appropriate section, or deleted altogether?--Nicholas 11:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Examples are helpful and needed. Im not sure what "look a little unprofessional" means in the context of Wikipedia. Stbalbach 14:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I just meant that, maybe those examples could be better integrated into the body of the text?--Nicholas 14:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thats fine, but dont just delete entire sections of text on stylistic grounds! Feel free to integrate it if you want. The section was created in the context of a community project so other editors could add their own ideas to this list. Stbalbach 14:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

There are two references given at the end of the article, Hope (1976) & Prince (1982), which are not cited in the body of the text. Will i remove them? Or does somebody want to add some information regarding these publications?--Nicholas 20:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Freudianism

Freudianism is a fantastic example of a metanarrative, simply because it purports to be able to incorporate/explain all human behavior. I vote for adding it back to the list. -Seth Mahoney 16:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would agree. The entry was pretty self explanatory on why it is a metanarrative (unlike the Christian entry which needs a lot more explanation or re-phrase). Stbalbach 17:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

However, "it purports to explain all human behaviour" - isn't enough. How, exactly, does Freudianism purport to explain all human behaviour? Just saying so isn't enough, you'll need to explain what Freudianism says and why that is open to metanarrative interpretation. If you can summarize that, then, sure ... add it to the list. --Nicholas 13:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

William James

I would not doubt that postmodern theory and William James' pragmatism share several common characteristics, or even that some postmodernists have borrowed from James; however I do feel that (if the article is going to refer to James and pragmatism) then it will be necessary to illustrate, as succinctly as possible, how and why the connection can be made between the two schools of thought. I don’t think internal links are enough on their own in this instance. Otherwise, we could potentially add a thousand internal links to people such as Nietzsche, Bakhtin, Wittgenstein and even Adorno, because each of these people had a nascent influence on postmodernism. In that case, this page just becomes a big long list. I propose that we either delete all references to James or we add further information on the relationship between pragmatism, postmodernism and metanarratives. Probably the latter of the two options would be preferable because the article is relatively short at the moment and could be improved by the addition of further material.--Nicholas 18:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

On a different note, how does everyone feel about the most recent additions to the list of 'example metanarratives'? Do you think that they contribute towards the article? Personally I'm not sure, although I'm willing to be persuaded.--Nicholas 18:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just read this article for the first time today, so am totally unfamiliar with its history. Yet, it seems to me the list of "example metanarratives" is pretty good -- in that it did a fairly good job of helping me understand what a metanarrative is. Is it appropriate to try to create a longer list? As in, are there only a few dozen well-known MNs, or are there too many to list? --David.alex.lamb 01:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias?

This article seems to me to have more anti-metanarrative than "pro" (or just "explanation of"). Is it really balanced enough? --David.alex.lamb 01:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This "bias", I think, accurately describes the conception of metanarratives. Hyacinth 11:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The term "metanarrative" has negative connotations - it is something like a philosophical slur, or a derogatory term used to ridicule someone's beliefs: "They cannot account for individual experience because they adhere to the principles of metanarrative thought". I doubt that anyone would positively embrace the term "metanarrative" as a way to describe their own beliefs. Marxism is sometimes referred to as a metanarrative, although Marxists would probably reject such a label, and Marx himself situated his own ideas in opposition to the grand, utopian philosophies of people like Robert Owen. So, the term "metanarrative" is a term that is steeped in negative connotations. Thus explaining why the article seems to have more of an ‘anti-metanarrative’ slant - it is a derogatory term.--Nicholas 10:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

actually, i've used metanarratives to explain my own beliefs. It very much depends on the person,their theoretical position, and mode of analysis/description in a specific situation. I don't view the term as derogatory and i don't know anyone else that does. I also don't think the article is antimetanarrative, though it certainly is critical of metanarratives. Marxism, depending on your variety, has a few separate metanarratives embedded in it. For instance, it might have metanarratives like teleological liberation, progressive development of the state, or revolutionary change. From the position of the article, we should be skeptical of these, and that doesn't seem to me to be an issue. is it? --Buridan 13:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The term can be used rhetorically in that way, but that doesn't mean metanarrative is a pejorative term. One can call someone a "clown" with negative connotations, but not all clowns are evil. -- Stbalbach 16:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

--Nicholas 10:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)::::I'd argue that Lyotard's criticism of "metanarratives" is an example of the straw man fallacy. In other words, he misleadingly represents particular ideas in order that they may be easily refuted.--Nicholas 16:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No, they are. All of them: Evil. -Seth Mahoney 16:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

While yes, all clowns are evil, lyotard's presentation and further arguments about metanarratives is not a straw man fallacy, we can safely assume that it it isn't given the amount of scholarship in that arena that treats it otherwise. If it was a straw man, then I doubt habermas would have even addressed it, at length. Indeed, straw men are usually dealt with by releasing a seminal paper showing the failures of the argument, yet there is no seminal paper that argues that it is a straw man fallacy that I know of, but if you do have one in mind, I'd very much like to see it. --Buridan 18:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So, if I understand all of the above, then "metanarrative" is a term introduced by postmodernists to refer to something they don't like? But a few people like Buridan sometimes use it in a positive sense? And people like Stbalbach don't think it has to be pejorative? If all this is true, then the article clearly violates NPOV. But it may not take a whole lot to fix it up -- the postmodernist attitude can remain the "dominant" interpretation, but the intro and brief description need to be fixed up a bit. I think I know what to do, but would appreciate confirmation or denial of my very brief argument. --David.alex.lamb 18:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC) --Nicholas 10:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Habermas responds to these debates because, in The Postmodern Condition, Lyotard accuses him of being open to metanarrative interpretation. Habermas replies by illustrating how this criticism is both empty and circular, because every idea is potentially open to metanarrative interpretation. As for the straw man argument, Lyotard suggests that Kantianism and a belief in Reason are both open to metanarrative interpretations. However, this accusation is based on a misreading of Kant - who did not condone a blind faith in Reason. Likewise, Lyotard posits that marxism is open to metanarrative interpretations. However, Marx formulated his ideas in direct opposition to the grand, idealistic, utopian ideas of people like Robert Owen. Of course, Marx's telos for humankind did envision progress,. However, Marx was purposively vague and contradictory when it came to describing the specific nature of that progress, because he rejected idealistic visions of progress. So, more or less, I think you've got it right David.alex.lamb: postmodernists use the term "metanarrative" to refer to ideas that "they don't like". What do you think the article requires to bring it up-to-date with the current consensus? --Nicholas 19:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

which postmodernists are these? do you mean lyotard, because he does not seem to being evaluative in that way?--Buridan 19:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lyotard would be the first person to acknowledge that all utterances are "evaluative".--Nicholas 19:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that the introduction begins "in critical theory". This indicates that the term was coined and used critically. This doesn't mean the concept is inherently critical, and many people would defend metanarratives, as many people defend modernism, with or without disagreeing with the definition. The most reasonable stance would be to realize that stories about stories are ubiquitous and unescapable and thus adopt an ambivalent or suspicious attitude towards metanarratives (one book I looked in suggested building "mutual trust" between metanarratives or their tellers rather than suspicion). Hyacinth 11:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am suspicious about meta-metanarratives, or stories about metanarratives. Any meta-metanarrative is totalizing--including those that seek to incorporate a global suspicion of metanarratives into a coherent perspective. I think the post-postmodernist view is not well-represented in this article. --Matthayichen (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Free Market & Trickle Down Effect

I removed the reference to "blind faith in free-market economics and the trickle-down effect" from the section on metanarrative examples. This appears to have simply been an inclusion to counterbalance that of Marxism. I have never heard of anyone's regard for free-market economics approaching blind faith or anything so dramatic, especially not with something as modern and relatively specific as the trickle-down effect. Capitalism is not a creed; it should not invite comparison as metanarrative to the quasi-religious nature of communism, or Christianity and the like for that matter. It does not attempt to account for the entirety of human history, nature, or existence itself the way these other do. --gikar, 3-30-06

I would disagree. The trickle down effect has a very distinct, all-encompassing, telos (it argues that even the poorest people in society will benefit from free market economics). I've reverted your edits and I await comments from other editors.--Nicholas 10:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that I have oversimplified the trickle-down effect; it is, as you say, an important aspect/tenet of market capitalism. However, it, combined with belief in capitalism as a viable form of political economy, does not constitute a metanarrative per se. Capitalism is more of an operating principle than anything as grandiose as an account of the whole of human history. Perhaps it could be replaced by something like social darwinism, which does seem to make a start at accounting for the historical record. --gikar, 4-6-06

The trickle down effect argues that if the rich become richer, then the poor will eventually benefit - in the long term. Thus, it is a metanarrative, which has an all-encompassing telos (everyone - rich and poor - will eventually benefit through the gradual trickle down effect, according to this theory). I reckon that this example should stay, unless other editors object. On a separate note, feel free to add social darwinism to this list, if you can summarise why and how it is applicable in this context. --Nicholas 15:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand the importance of the trickle-down effect, make no mistake; however, you will not find any reputable scholar of history who views his subject simply through the lense of the trickle-down effect. No one tries to explain the Punic Wars or the French Revolution or World War I in terms of the trickle-down effect. If you can find me some such scholar and supply a reference, then I should apologise profusely. Certainly there are Marxist scholars who approach these things from an economic angle, but these scholars are already represented in the list under communism. The article gives this definition of metanarrative: "In critical theory, and particularly postmodernism, a metanarrative is a grand overarching account, or all-encompassing story, which is thought to give order to the historical record." I understand that the trickle-down effect does impact everyone (the rich and poor), but it is not a comprehensive account of all of human history. If you can demonstrate how the trickle-down effect purports to explain all of history, then I'll leave the subject be; until then, I think it ought to go. I'd like to hear someone else weigh in on the question. --gikar, 4-6-06

It does seek to explain the history of development: it argues that the rich should be allowed to make money because this will eventually help the poor. Please can we have a third opinion on this.--Nicholas 21:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Blind faith seems extreme language, and the rest of it seems simplistic. Can you find a quote or citation as example of the trickle down effect explaining history? Hyacinth 21:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It does NOT seek to explain history, and certainly not in what you have just said. You said "it argues that the rich should be allowed to make money because this will eventually help the poor." That's not an explanation of any kind, that is an argument, guideline, tool, principle, and/or plan for action, not an account of any kind. All it does is say how in the future we might use free-market economics for the benefit of the entire population. --gikar, 4-7-06

I don't see why one couldn't look through history and explain events through the trickle down effect. Are you saying this is impossible?

Don't worry, if it is possible that doesn't make the theory a metanarrative. Comparing the trickle down effect to the other items on the list of examples makes me doubt that the effect could be a metanarrative. It doesn't explain all of history as a whole, as it depends on a free market and "the consensus among economic historians is that the free market economy is a specific historic phenomenon, and that it emerged in late mediaeval and early-modern Europe." Thus it can't explain or order all of history like Universal history.

On the other hand, it does seem to provide telos (philosophy) such as the Christian sin/salvation narrative (though not in the same way).

My guess, then, is that the trickle down effect is one component of a larger theory or philosophy that is a metanarrative (this theory, capitalism?, would, for instance, explain the (inevitable) transition to free markets). Hyacinth 09:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Trickle-down economics" or supply side economics, to use a less loaded term, can be statistically proven and represented graphically. Ask any economist. Period. - <unsigned comment>

How does that point relate to this discussion? Hyacinth 22:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't possible to look through history and explain events through supply-side economics, one can look through history from any vantage point one likes; all I'm saying is that is not the function and purpose of supply-side economics. The trickle-down effect was not created for such an explanation of history as, say Marxist historical materialism or other sociological models (feminist or queer theories, for example). --gikar

You might like to read Adam Smith's 'The Wealth of Nations'. In that book, Smith develops the notion of "trickle down" and he argues that free market economics will contribute towards "progress" and benefit the overall development of social relations. --Nicholas 09:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither was that the "function" and "purpose" of Marxism--the purpose there, of course, was to create a utopian communist state. True, Marx looked back at history and tried to explain it, as part of his argument, but many supply-side economists have done the same. (If you need of examples, think of all the claims economists give us about why the USSR collapsed, or the troubles of Germany in the Weimar period--and I bet there have even been a few who've applied modern economics to the ancient Greeks and Romans.) Anyway, the point is that capitalism, like communism, tells us a grand story, which we can apply (and a lot of people do apply) to the whole of humanity and the entire course of human history. I actually agree that the "trickle down" effect is not central in this narrative. Rather I'd say the metanarrative of capitalism is one of rational self-interest and its benefits to society. I mean this is the basic premise of the free-market economists, right (and maybe the whole discipline of economics)? That there are these rational individual agents walking around, who are naturally free to act in their own personal best interest and, in fact, always do act rationally to their own benefit. Once you've got this picture, it's only natural to think that the more we impede this natural process, the worse our society and economy will function.

Is metanarrative allowed on Wikipedia?

Anyone else notice that objections seem to be raised whenever metanarrative is used in any other Wikipedia article? Hyacinth 07:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Hyacinth, I'm interested to see some examples. --Nicholas 09:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The last one I noticed: Talk:Music#Start of this article too abstract?. Hyacinth 10:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that this has any ramifications in terms of the metanarrative article? Nicholas 12:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Where would be the appropriate place to discuss this then? Hyacinth 21:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not on the same wavelength. Discuss what?--Nicholas 23:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Metanarrative is a word most people would have to look up, if they came across it... So it's probably inappropriate in articles that aren't directly related to metanarrative.

Removed

The following paragraphs were removed a while ago:

• "Metanarratives justifies stories and determines which other (non-meta) stories are 'central' and acceptable, and which are 'marginal'. Metanarratives are thought to prevent narratives deemed 'marginal' from upsetting or subverting the cultural order; they prevent (certain) stories from proliferating. According to Jean-François Lyotard (1984), postmodernism is defined 'as incredulity toward metanarratives' and thus represents an openness to 'marginal' narratives."
• "For example, the history of mental illness, from the perspective of mental health institutions, gathers together and gives meaning and value to the many individual stories and texts which comprise this history, and it does this, possibly entirely, through devaluing other stories and texts, for instance the writings of the mad are most often discounted in favor of writings about the mad. Michel Foucault shows incredulity towards this history in his book Madness and Civilization (1961)."

Any objections to their reincorporation? Hyacinth 12:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Postmodernism a metanarrative? removed

This was blatant point of view and did not help explain metanarrative in anyway. A discussion of the logical inconsistencies of postmodern philosophy is possible, but a wikipedia article isn't the place for it. Does anyone disagree? Rhennesy 19:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This section was both relevant and necessary. I'll restore the section. I await comments from other editors.--Nicholas 20:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a nice little section, but it doesn't really belong in this article. Cut it.

I think its fine, but it needs to be explicitely sourced to some book or article or whatever. If that can't be done, it needs to be removed. -Smahoney 15:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added some references. Dunno if someone would like to format these references using the wiki system? I aint sure how to do that. --Nicholas 16:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I can go ahead and do that. Done, and that's a good start on the references. What I was hoping for was that the specific arguments rather than general themes could be referenced. Is there anything you can pull out of your hat for those? -Smahoney 22:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Metanarrative as literary technique

Isn't there also a sense in which metanarrative is also a literary technique?

I think when metanrrative is defined as a story about storytelling it may be confusing to see this as synonymous with "grand narrative": narratives which attempt to explain everything (to "totalize") with reference to a single idea. Admittedly, this is how Lyotard uses it in the quotation from The Postmodern Condtion but within literary criticism I think there is also another meaning.

Here, meta (meaning beyond or above not "about") suggests a narrative that draws attention to another, subordinate narrative. Within literary criticism I think this is often used to describe a textual narrative that comments on the act or the art of storytelling in order to undermine the idea that narrative is natural or immanent. These narrators highlight the process of narrative within the text to show how it is constructed, how it is actively created by a narrator.--Lefteye 15:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Examples of Metanarratives

The fifth item under the heading Examples of Metanarratives is unclear and requires editing. The item as worded is a tautology given the connotation of "material success" as wealth. The example metanarrative itself, "An uncritical belief in the free market...", is an incorrect construction as well. I would seem that the intent of the author is something along the lines of "Unwaivering faith in the power of free markets...". If this is the intent of the author, this item would be best consolidated with the Enlightenment item, as it is so closely related to the application of rationalism to the study of economics. I suggest either the fifth item be deleted, and the second item edited to read "...moral, social, economic, and ethical progress.", or the fifth item be replaced with a more genuine metanarrative. Thank you, Dave 68.33.7.4 03:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Necessary Improvements

I feel like this article needs some improvements, but I do not have enough expertise to make them myself. Here are what seem to be the most important issues:

• Citations
• Style
  • The article contains a fair amount of jargon and vague wording, particularly in the lead section.
  • Some of the article sections have an essay-like feel in that they seem to be persuasive rather than descriptive.
  • Section headings are too long and don't properly describe contents.
  • Overall organization of article could be improved.
• Connections to other concepts - It would be helpful to have some detailed real-world examples or some kind of explanation of how the idea of metanarratives is applied or used philosophically.

Hopefully someone who is familiar with the subject can work on these things. Thanks! Augurar (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above points, and hope to have tightened connections and removed some essay-like material, as well as adding extra refs. Hopefully another editor can continue to de-jargon, as well maybe as to bulk the article up a bit (I have trimmed more than I realised!) Jacobisq (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metanarrative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610183414/http://www.idehist.uu.se/distans/ilmh/pm/lyotard-introd.htm to http://www.idehist.uu.se/distans/ilmh/pm/lyotard-introd.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)