Walter Fisher's 1984–1987 Narrative Paradigm Theory Example

Walter Fishers 1984 1987 Narrative Paradigm Theory For Example U

Walter Fisher’s (1984, 1987) narrative paradigm theory utilizes structuralist constructs of narrative rationality and coherence, specifically focusing on concepts such as fidelity and probability, to evaluate stories as good or bad. Fisher (1984, 1987) posits that humans are inherently storytelling animals who communicate through narratives, constructing “good reasons” for believing and acting upon certain stories while rejecting others. The basis for accepting or rejecting stories stems from logical and value-based reasoning (Fisher, 1984). Central to this theory are the concepts of probability and fidelity. Probability refers to the coherence of a story as judged by the audience—questions like “Does it hang together?” or “Does it ring true?” are employed to assess its internal consistency, completeness, and character behavior alignment with the storyteller or comparable narratives.

Fidelity, on the other hand, evaluates the truthfulness or authenticity of a story by asking whether it resonates as true to similar stories and whether it passes the audience’s tests of rationality and moral values. It pertains to a story’s alignment with rational reasoning as understood in rational argumentation theory, and its adherence to ethical and value-driven “good reasons” (Fisher, 1987). In narrative paradigm, stories with high probability and fidelity are deemed credible and persuasive, influencing audiences’ perceptions and decisions.

Expanding on these concepts, the theory emphasizes that storytelling is integral to human cognition and social interaction, shaping collective understanding and societal norms (Boje, 1999). The narrative paradigm challenges traditional, logocentric perspectives by prioritizing the coherence and ethical authenticity of stories over purely logical argumentation, highlighting the subjective and interpretive nature of human communication.

Within this framework, George Gerbner’s work exemplifies the application of narrative paradigms in mass media. Gerbner, a renowned communication scholar and former Dean of the Annenberg School of Communication, emphasized the power of storytelling in shaping societal perceptions. His research investigates how media narratives, especially related to violence, influence public cognition and societal attitudes, especially regarding crime, welfare, and civil rights.

Gerbner argued that media, particularly television, constructs specific narratives around violence that significantly impact viewers’ perceptions and attitudes. The portrayal of violence often emphasizes certain themes, such as the victimization of marginalized groups or the criminal’s motives, which reinforce societal stereotypes and fears (Gerbner, 1998). These media narratives can distort reality by oversimplifying complex social issues, thereby reinforcing existing stereotypes and influencing public opinion and policy debates about crime, welfare, and civil liberties.

Gerbner’s analysis suggests that consistent exposure to violent narratives on television cultivates a “mean world syndrome,” where viewers perceive the world as more dangerous than it truly is. This exaggerated perception of threat fosters support for more punitive crime policies, increased surveillance, and skepticism toward civil liberties (Gerbner et al., 2002). Moreover, the depiction of violence as a common and justified response to social issues can legitimize aggressive policies and reinforce prejudiced attitudes towards marginalized populations (Gerbner & Gross, 1976).

From a societal perspective, Gerbner’s work indicates that media’s storytelling habit influences not only individual attitudes but also collective values and policies. It suggests a cyclical relationship where media reinforces societal fears and stereotypes, which in turn justify restrictive or punitive policies. This process underscores the importance of critically analyzing media narratives, understanding their coherence (probability) and their alignment with societal values and realities (fidelity).

In evaluating whether television exerts too much or too little influence, Gerbner’s research provides compelling evidence that media narratives shape societal perceptions significantly, often more than most individuals realize. The enduring influence of televised violence on public attitudes supports the notion that television wields considerable power in shaping societal beliefs about crime and social justice (Gerbner et al., 1999). However, some critics argue that overemphasizing media influence neglects other factors such as political discourse, cultural values, and individual differences that also shape societal attitudes (Potter, 2013). Nonetheless, Gerbner’s work underscores the importance of media literacy and critical engagement with televised narratives to mitigate undue influence.

Paper For Above instruction

Walter Fisher’s (1984, 1987) narrative paradigm theory presents a compelling framework for understanding human communication through stories. This theory, grounded in the concepts of narrative rationality—probability and fidelity—argues that humans inherently evaluate stories based on their coherence and alignment with moral and societal values. Instead of relying solely on formal logic and empirical evidence, people make decisions and form beliefs by assessing whether stories “hang together” logically and resonate as truthful and ethical within their cultural context.

Probability in the narrative paradigm refers to the internal coherence of a story. It involves scrutinizing whether the narrative’s elements—characters, plot, and setting—are consistent and believable. For example, when a story features characters behaving in accordance with established norms and motivations, or when the sequence of events logically follows from the premise, it is deemed to have high probability. An audience’s judgment of probability influences their likelihood of accepting a story as true or valid. Conversely, a story with internal inconsistencies, missing elements, or implausible character actions undermines its credibility and reduces its persuasive power.

Fidelity complements probability by addressing whether a story resonates with the audience’s moral and cultural values. It evaluates the truthfulness of a story based on whether it rings true against other accepted stories of similar type and whether it aligns with the audience’s rational and ethical standards. For instance, a news report telling a story that conflicts sharply with viewers' experiences or contradicts their moral beliefs would have low fidelity and be less persuasive. Fidelity thus acts as a moral compass, ensuring stories not only make sense internally but also feel truthful and ethically sound to the audience.

George Gerbner’s research aligns with the narrative paradigm by emphasizing how stories shape societal perceptions through mass media. Gerbner’s focus on violence in television illustrates the power of media narratives in influencing social attitudes. His concept of “cultivation theory” suggests that repeated exposure to certain types of stories cultivates perceptions of reality. For example, frequent portrayals of violence and crime cultivate a worldview where viewers see the world as more dangerous than it is, a phenomenon Gerbner termed “mean world syndrome” (Gerbner et al., 2002).

Gerbner’s analysis highlights that media narratives about violence often emphasize certain themes—such as the need for tough-on-crime policies—based on stories that seem coherent and believable (high probability) but may lack fidelity to actual societal complexities. These narratives reinforce stereotypes and fears, which can influence public opinion and policy. For instance, the consistent depiction of minorities as perpetrators of violence can distort public perceptions and support for harsh crime legislation, thus shaping societal attitudes and policies (Gerbner & Gross, 1976).

Evaluating Gerbner’s work demonstrates that television wields significant influence in shaping societal beliefs about crime, welfare, and civil rights. His research suggests that television’s storytelling often leaned heavily on violence and conflict to gain viewer engagement, which in turn shapes perception—sometimes disproportionately to reality. Critics argue that television may have too much influence, possibly overstating the threat of violence or criminality, which can lead to policy decisions rooted more in media-driven narratives than in empirical evidence (Potter, 2013).

Nevertheless, Gerbner’s findings underscore the importance of media literacy and critical analysis of storytelling in mass communication. By understanding the coherence and credibility of narratives, society can better comprehend how stories influence perceptions and policy. Recognizing media’s role encourages efforts to diversify narratives and promote stories that are not only coherent but also fidelity-based, reflecting societal truths more accurately. Ultimately, Gerbner’s insights into the power of storytelling reveal that the stories we consume on television significantly impact our collective worldview and policy preferences, highlighting the vital need for a critical engagement with media representations of violence and social issues.

References

• Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (2002). Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 43–68). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 173–199.
• Potter, W. J. (2013). Media Literacy. Sage Publications.
• Boje, D. M. (1999). Narrative Methods for Organizational & Communication Research. Sage Publications.
• Fisher, W. R. (1984). Clarifying the Narrative paradigm. Communication Monographs, 51(2), 83–98.
• Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. University of South Carolina Press.
• Gerbner, G. (1998). Cultivation analysis: An overview. Mass Communication & Society, 1(3-4), 175–194.
• Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory of Mass Communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–299.
• Perse, T. (2001). Media Effects and Society. Routledge.
• Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Media Effects Theory. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20.