Stroud viewed “multivalent” narratives that contain seemingly contradictory values or positions that force a reader to reconstruct their meaning, allowing for positive judgments about narrative fidelity and the adoption of new values. [38] The narrative paradigm includes both the pathos and logos forms of rhetorical theory. The theory of rhetoric was formulated by Aristotle. [41] He defines rhetoric as: the means of persuasion available. [8] It contains two hypotheses. First, effective public speakers must consider their audience. Second, effective public speakers provide evidence. Professor Chris Rideout has a long-standing interest in persuasion and has for many years integrated belief theories into an advanced legal writing seminar he teaches. He always asks his students the same question: “What is convincing about the law?” – and after examining different theories of persuasion, they then develop their own theory of legal conviction. When he first taught the course, he had in mind rhetorical models of persuasion, beginning with Aristotle and Cicero and ending with contemporary rhetorical works. Very quickly, however, he had to add narrative models of persuasion, as well as a second question: “What makes narratives persuasive in law?” This article deals briefly with each of these persuasive features of narratives, but especially with the psychologically persuasive properties of narratives and their relationship to legal beliefs. Critics of the narrative paradigm mainly argue that it is not as universally applicable as Fisher claims. For example, Rowland argued that it should be strictly applied to communication that fits classical narrative models so as not to undermine their credibility.
[36] Fisher established five criteria that influence the fidelity of a story. The first requirement is values embedded in history. The second element is the link between history and the value represented. The third criterion is the possible results that would result for people who adhere to the values represented. The last two are, first, the correspondence of the values of the narrative with the values of the viewer, and finally, the extent to which the values of the story represent the highest possible values in the human experience. [15] Instead, the narrative paradigm asserts that each individual can judge the merits of a story as a basis for belief and action. [4] A growing number of legal scholars argue that the legal narrative is persuasive. [32] In one study, judges tended to favour legal briefs with a narrative approach over those who did not. [33] In response, lawyers have applied narrative techniques to legal persuasion and even legal communication. [34] Researchers in the field commonly refer to this app as “Applied Legal Storytelling.” [35] Some forms of communication are not as narrative as Fisher claims. Many science fiction and fantasy novels/films challenge shared values rather than conform to them. [8] The narrative approach offers no more democratic structure than that imposed by the rational world paradigm. Nor does it offer a complete alternative to this paradigm. [39] The narrative paradigm attracted the attention of poststructuralist educational theorists because it was based on notions of truth. [40] Narrative coherence is the extent to which a story makes sense. Coherent stories are internally consistent, with enough detail, strong characters, and free of significant surprises. The ability to assess consistency is learned and improved with experience. Individuals evaluate adherence to a story by comparing it to similar stories. The ultimate test of narrative sense is whether the characters act reliably.When numbers show continuity in their thinking, motivations, and actions, acceptance increases. However, characters who behave atypically destroy acceptance. [14] When people experience a story, the comprehension phase is when they form a mental representation of the text. Such a mental picture is called a situation model. Situation models are representations of the facts described in a document, not of the text itself. Much of the research suggests that observers behave as if they are in history and not outside of it. This supports Fisher`s model that narrative components supported by good reasons are linked to elements of situational models. Narrative processing can create or enhance the connections between a brand and an audience. [29] Businesses and businesses use stories or brands that suggest a story to build brand loyalty.
Companies invest heavily in creating a good story through advertising and public relations. [30] In brand development, many marketers focus on defining a brand`s personality (typical user) before building a narrative for that brand. Character traits such as honesty, curiosity, flexibility, and determination are built into the character. Engagement with behavioral implications can help the brand maintain consistency with its narrative. [31] Fisher`s theory has been considered in areas ranging from organizational communication and family interaction to racism and advertising. McNamara suggested that the narrative paradigm with military storytelling can be used to improve the perception of the U.S. Armed Forces. [21] Stutts and Barker of Virginia Commonwealth University suggested that the narrative paradigm can be used to assess whether a company`s brand is well received by consumers by determining whether the narrative created has consistency and loyalty.
[22] Other researchers have suggested using the narrative paradigm to assess ethical standards in advertising. [23] Roberts used the narrative paradigm to better understand the use of narrative in folklore. [24] Hobart proposed using narrative theory to interpret urban legends and other types of hoaxes. [25] Affirmation of Legal Reasoning – The Challenge of the Left.PDF Smith conducted an example study in 1984 that made more direct use of narrative theory. Smith examined the fidelity and consistency of narratives presented as Republican and Democratic Party platforms in the United States and found that, despite obvious differences, each party was able to maintain its integrity and loyalty by remaining consistent in both the structure and overall values of the party. [27] Fisher`s narrative paradigm offers an alternative to Aristotelian analysis, which dominates the field of rhetorical thought. The stories do not require any training or expertise to be evaluated. Common sense evaluates narrative coherence and fidelity. [16] Busselle and Bilandzic distinguish narrative rationality from realism, writing: “It is remarkable that the power of storytelling is not diminished by the knowledge of readers or viewers that the story is invented. On the contrary, success stories – the ones that concern us most – are often both fictional and unrealistic. [17] Situation models represent relevant aspects of the narrative environment. Objects that are spatially close to observers are generally more relevant than more distant objects. The same goes for situation models. Observers are also slower to recognize words that designate objects far from a protagonist than those that are close to the protagonist. [42] If the viewer has a thorough knowledge of the spatial arrangement of the story setting (e.g., a building), they update their representations according to the location and objectives of the protagonist.