Talk:Metanarrative

message: *** 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)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Additions

message: 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)
thread_title:  What to do with some POV, misplaced, and generally misleading text. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Habermas although disagrees. 

message: "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)
thread_title:  The latent diverse passions 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Examples Toward the End 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Freudianism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: [[William James]]

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed

message: 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)
thread_title:  Metanarrative as literary technique 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Examples of Metanarratives 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Necessary Improvements 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified