Reading and Writing a Storytelling Culture

It seems as if the class has hit some of the key points right on the head thus far (in our blog posts and other discussions) that Tharon wants us to consider. The path from the notion of the death of the author evolving into the death of the producer, then into the awareness of a multiplicity of producers in a not-so-linear rhetorical situation have definitely culminated (at least to some degree in this writer's eyes) with Denning's and Lessig's works, respectively.

After last week's lecture I started realizing that I have been reading many of the works we have read to this point within, perhaps, the lens of a vulgar Marxist. In other words, I have been learning, from the readings, ways to evaluate the world, its cultures, and its cultures' images, particularly to look for the (often economic) power relations at work in the various forms of digital text we've been investigating. This, so that I might understand how my (and others') subjectivities, along with our supposedly "natural" dispositions comprising those subject positions, are being interpellated by systemic social structures. This has not been completely deliberate. I don't consider myself a vulgar Marxist, e.g., I don't adhere to a notion of ideology as "false consciousness" or believe there is an immanent "correct consciousness," yet I believe to some extent, perhaps from my period of time as an English Major, that I've been trained to look at all texts in a way similar to this. In the most simplistic terms, hegemony=bad, criticism=good, is how my own orientation has been at work. The problem with this terministic screen, if you will, however, is that it is anti-production (except regarding producing critique, of course). 

So when Tharon challenged us on Tuesday to start thinking of ways to interpellate our audiences with our projects, to produce formations of habitus (socialization on multiple levels, even, perhaps, below a discursive consciousness) in our audience, it kind of shook me. It reeked of the manipulation that I have been trained to decry. And yet if there is no "correct consciousness," per se, but rather the rhetorical pull of our own ideologically-weighted biases, why not view our productive capabilities within a counter-hegemonic perspective, or even just an "everything's an argument" perspective (if the hegemony word is too much for the moment)? This was a perfect position in my education to be introduced to Stephen Denning and Lawrence Lessig.

I'll start with Denning. To begin with, let it be said that my own insecurities about interpellating audiences, etc. don't just stem from a (post)Marxist reaction to power relations, but also my own confidence (or lack of it) in my own digital production skill set. This is one of the reasons Denning's Squirrel Inc.: A Fable of Leadership Through Storytelling speaks to me. Rather than arguing that the construction of one's audience's habitus is done through complex acts of subversion and sublation (not to mention, talent and knowledge of up-to-date technologies), Denning argues that it is done through storytelling. He doesn't use terms like habitus, but he is essentially getting at the same thing, even if through a corporate (again, I squirm) analogy about squirrels. Let me just quote some key moments from Denning's text that I've found important and helpful in establishing a new found motivation for what we are doing in 805. Some will speak for themselves, others I will comment on. Then I'll move onto Lessig. Watch, in particular, for the interpellative motives at work in the art of storytelling.

caveat: I don't have page numbers, as I read Denning's text with my Kindle.

"Storytelling is . . . at the center of everything we do in public and private life."

"The conventional wisdom that transformational change can be catalyzed by giving people a reason to change reflects a confidence in pure reason that is as touching as it is deluded."

"A springboard story enables listeners to visualize from a story about change in one context the ideas and actions involved in implementing such a change in an analogous context. In this way the change becomes the listeners' idea."

"Talking about the listeners' problems is one way of getting their attention." This is beyond user-experience, though, which just caters to the audience. This is using the audience's terms as a point of departure in which to begin interpellating habitus. Then . . .

"The object of the storyteller is to enable the listeners to discover the truth for themselves."

"Isn't this a trick on the listeners? It's really my idea, and I'm tricking them into thinking it's their own idea?" "Not really. It's up to the listener whether to invent a new story for themselves. They're not being deceived. The story they tell themselves really is their own story, not your story. Each listener imagines a slightly different story, depending on her own situation." I'm not sure about the bartender's response in this last quote, it sounds a bit like hedging, if you ask me. I'll take it, but I'd have preferred a Bakhtinian response about dialogism--that no one's text is really his or her own, but is always informed (even constructed) by encounters with past works.

Nevertheless, these passages lead me directly to Lessig. Lessig is concerned with the art of remixing and is particularly engaged in a politic to perpetuate what he calls Read/Write ("RW") culture. By RW culture he means a culture that allows the remixing of "original" artistic creations for the production of new ideas and expression. This is in contrast, to a degree, with Read/Only ("RO") culture, or culture that disallows such mixing through strict copyright laws. Lessig argues for the preservation of both cultures, but is most critical of the opposition against RW. Some great examples of RW cultural productions that Lessig mentions can be found here, here, and here. All three (referenced in pages 71-76) are really quite good. Click on "Audiovisual Art" and then "Read My Lips" on the last example. 

Lessig's work parallels Denning's to a degree regarding the notion of how the real power comes in getting one's audience to believe the ideas are theirs--for what better way to do this than for the audience to take part in the telling of the story? He discusses this in terms of blogging (59),for example, where giving an audience a voice shifts power relations to such a degree that the author (blogger, in this case) will never write the same. Not only does the writer become hyper-aware of the the interpretation of her texts, but may even come to appreciate and benefit from criticisms of them. Lessig's anecdote (storytelling) of Judge Posner's anger about being "surrounded by sycophants" (66) I felt to be especially powerful. 

Where Lessig departs form Denning is that he is not afraid to state that hierarchical power relations still lie exist in a Read/Write culture, or a storytelling culture where the audience participates. A brave passage where he contrasts RO and RW: "One [RO] emphasizes learning. The other [RW] emphasizes learning by speaking. One preserves its integrity. The other teaches integrity. One emphasizes hierarchy. The other hides hierarchy" (87-88, my emphasis). 

And yet, Lessig is still promoting a culture with a very active RW element. Remember my comments at the beginning of this blog? Just in writing this I am already becoming more comfortable with the idea of becoming a producer of habitus. 

There, I said it. Now let's do it.