Walter Fisher's Theory of Narrative Rationality

In order to flesh out narrative rationality, a theory of logic, Walter Fisher found it necessary to distinguish between technical logic and rhetorical logic, two forms of argumentation. "Technical logics," Fisher wrote, "aim at true knowledge; their procedures and criteria are pan-historical, true always and everywhere." (Fisher, 1987) Technical logic, the hunt for inartistic proofs outside of reality, is, Fisher believed, convention driven to an immutable extreme. All knowledge yielded from technical logic's syllogisms would be inward-pointing and, ultimately, otiose. One could say: All living organisms eat, Man eats, Man is a living organism. This would be technically valid and, provided the premises were true, true. Aristotle, Fisher noted, believed that "only science was invested with such premises and could produce what he called apodictic proof." (Fisher, 1987) In other words, Aristotle believed that science could determine decisively what it means to be a living organism and to eat and that, through technical logic, it could be deduced that Man was a living organism.[1]

Rhetorical logic developed because "technical conceptions of reason [technical logic] are inappropriate or not very useful in understanding or assessing non-formal expressions of reason" and "there is a need and value in having aids for the invention, composition, and presentation of relevant, sound cases in a given case."(Fisher, 1987) The theory of rhetorical logic depends on a reasonable, rational world, based on words, in which people make decisions based on logic and in which rationality hinges on people's depth of knowledge and persuasiveness in argument.

Fisher formulated a new conception of logic called narrative rationality. As rhetorical logic loosened and broadened the strictures of discourse from technical logic, so does narrative rationality alter and extend the understanding of how truth is constructed from rhetorical logic. The concept of narrative rationality supplants rationality and reason with storytelling and narrative as the mechanisms by which people decide truth, pick good reasons, and understand their own lives. "Human communication is tested against the principles of narrative probability (coherence) and fidelity (truthfulness and reliability)." (Fisher, 1987)

To understand narrative rationality, consider this excerpt from President Barack Obama's March 20 speech to the House Democratic Caucus in which he urges the representatives to vote for the health care bill:

Something inspired you to get involved, and something inspired you to be a Democrat instead of running as a Republican. Because somewhere deep in your heart you said to yourself, I believe in an America in which we don't just look out for ourselves, that we don't just tell people you're on your own, that we are proud of our individualism, we are proud of our liberty, but we also have a sense of neighborliness and a sense of community and we are willing to look out for one another and help people who are vulnerable and help people who are down on their luck and give them a pathway to success and give them a ladder into the middle class. That's why you decided to run. ... And now a lot of us have been here a while and everybody here has taken their lumps and their bruises. And it turns out people have had to make compromises, and you've been away from families for a long time and you've missed special events for your kids sometimes. And maybe there have been times where you asked yourself, why did I ever get involved in politics in the first place? And maybe things can't change after all. ... And this is one of those moments. This is one of those times where you can honestly say to yourself ... this is exactly why I came here. ... Because I believe so deeply in this country and I believe so deeply in this democracy and I'm willing to stand up even when it's hard, even when it's tough. (Obama, 2010)

In his speech to the Democratic Caucus, Obama tells a story, mostly consistent with the principles of narrative rationality, that incorporates ideas of the transforming power of political action with beliefs about the venality of politics to limn the decision facing the representatives as a potential moment of narrative climax. This portrayal is strongest in its structural coherence; the story has a beginning (the inspiration and involvement that jumpstarted the representatives' political careers), a conflict that explains what makes passing health care difficult (the passage about compromise), and a climactic conclusion set in the future (representatives fulfilling the promise of the opening scenes of their political career to overcome self-interested caution). The compromise portion of the speech also helps the methodological coherence "by comparing and contrasting stories told in other discourses": the inclusion of political compromises-a euphemism for the betrayal of principles-makes it seem like there are no "counterarguments ignored." (Fisher, 1987) The speech is also characterologically coherent. Obama sketches a character portrait-"a generalized perception of a person's fundamental value orientation" (Fisher, 1987)-of the (Democratic) representatives as well-meaning, goal-oriented, and community-minded but somewhat overwhelmed by the baroque bureaucratic exigencies of making laws. From this portrait, "one infers a person's probable decisions and actions, and determines the relationship of the person's orientation to one's own way of being in the world" (Fisher, 1987); the citizen to whom Obama's speech is (in part) directed can imagine that the representative would discard their self-interested proclivities and their adapted caution for the chance to achieve the goal for which they had, ostensibly, been self-protective and cautious in the first place.

The other half of narrative rationality, fidelity, is about judging a story's credibility, what Fisher called "the logic of good reasons." (Fisher, 1987) It is a weakness of the narrative rationality paradigm that the discussion of Obama's speech's-or any argument's-fidelity is subjective. The analysis and evaluation of "fact, relevance, consequence, consistency, and transcendental issues"-the determining whether a reason is "good"-is highly contingent. (Fisher, 1987) The main contentions of this excerpt from Obama's speech pertain to motivations and are consequently hard to discredit through a fidelity rubric, but they may also be less persuasive than contentions rooted more strongly in the historical, literary, or social collective narrative. But narrative rationality goes a long way toward providing a framework for understanding of how Obama's speech helped persuade Democratic representatives to pass health reform.

Works Cited

Fisher, W. R. (1987). Technical Logic, Rhetorical Logic, and Narrative Rationality. Argumentation (pp. 3-21). D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Obama, B. (2010, March 20). Make True on That Promise. Washington, D.C.