Fisher's Narrative Paradigm

Walter Fisher contends that “Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm” merits attention because it demonstrates that rhetoric does not have to conform to traditional conceptions of argument developed by those educated in a “rational world paradigm.” For Fisher, narratives include any speech or act that has “sequence and meaning” for the speaker/actor or someone who interprets the behavior. Fisher says that for narrative to be accepted it must compete with rationality. But he also views the rational world paradigm as falling under the domain of narrative paradigm. Here lies the tension within the paper. If rationality is part of narrative then any victory for rationality should be a victory for narrative. Fisher wants to say that all communication is narrative and he also leads the reader to believe that rationality, though perceived as superior is an inferior form of narrative. His research of the nuclear war controversy led him to believe that rationality has failed to resolve the issues but a narrative paradigm could be a solution. However, Fisher does not adequately explain the other forms of narrative that might be superior to rationality. So he attempts to remove rationality, or at least set it back, but he is not advancing anything new to replace it because everything is already narrative. Actually, his failure to provide specific alternatives to rationality is consistent with his view that the narrative paradigm does not require any expertise to recognize or articulate. Fisher, according to Fisher, cannot claim to have expert knowledge beyond the average person. But then we should also ask why Fisher has to write an essay to explain something to us that we already have knowledge of. One possibility is that he is simply reminding us not to try and advance beyond narrative applications of communication. But if rationality was ineffective, would we need people like Fisher to point that out? No it should be obvious that logic is ineffective.