At the end of July 2012, candidate Romney took a trip overseas which generated heated partisan assessments. One argument was dominant (example - Mitt Romney wraps up tumultuous overseas tour by Dan Balz and Philip Rucker) – he’s not ready for prime time, he’s gaffe ridden, etc. The other argument (Charles Krauthammer, Romney’s Excellent Trip) was only infrequently made at all. In the scheme of things, this is a relatively inconsequential issue. Whether the Romney trip was successful, unsuccessful or irrelevant probably won’t be known for a good while. What caught my eye was that the argument that the trip was a failure was largely narrative driven, the creation of a recognizable story that fits some sort of comprehendible pattern with which people can affiliate. In contrast, the sole account I have seen that took the contra view, that the trip was a success, was an argument more constructed on empiricism and data.
As yet a further diversion, one of the issues generated in the narrative version of the reporting was a comment made by Romney in Jerusalem to the effect that Israel’s success was an example of the difference which culture makes in achievement. Rather an innocuous statement as the role of culture in long term economic or civilizational success is a mainstay in the fields of history and economics. Of course, those to whose achievements Israel’s were being contrasted, the Palestinians, were not unnaturally incensed which in turn made for good narrative copy. Jared Diamond (Mitt Romney 'Misrepresented My Views' by Luke Johnson) and Daron Acemoglu (Uncultured by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson) piled on, arguing for their preferred theories of economic success.
On this particular issue (what are the elements which cause some economies to be hugely productive and others not), what is notable is that there is no consensus regarding what are the critical elements necessary for development, what are the weightings of those elements (which ones are more important than others), and how do they fit together to ensure economic development. Legitimate candidates are Values (McCloskey), Culture (Clark, Huntington and others), Geography (Diamond), Institutions (Anceou), Property Rights (de Soto), etc. The frank truth is that all these elements are probably critical (and perhaps a handful more) but that we really don’t know their relative weightings. This is one of those areas where predictable forecasting does not exist and though everyone has their own opinions, no one can reliably prove the efficacy of their particular viewpoint. We are at a knowledge frontier. To claim that someone, advancing the hypothesis that culture is a dominant if not the predominant factor in societal success, is wrong is simply hubris. They can only be wrong if we know the definitive answer and their explanation is inconsistent with that answer. Everyone has good reasons for their preferred explanation but the argument about economic development is not even close to being settled. No one is wrong, everyone is still searching and arguing.
But back to the main point of the contrasting news reports and their structure. The contrast got me to thinking. I overdramatize the difference between the two responses exemplified by Rucker/Balz and Krauthammer when I characterize the former as primarily a narrative account and the latter as an empirical argument but it is a useful dramatization.
Rucker/Balz and their ilk create a narrative structure. I suggest that in reporting or discussing any phenomenon, there is a hierarchy of questions. These questions can be answered in narrative form or in empirical form.
Ultimately, the narrative answers have to be reconciled with and incorporate the empirical answers so that they complete the discussion pyramid.
For a narrative hierarchy of questions to work and have credibility, there has to be a logical integrity between the layers of the pyramid. What happened has to be logically explained in words by the mechanics of how it happened and why it happened. At the bottom come the contextual questions of who was involved, when did it happen, where did it happen, which thing was chosen. As long as the statements are logically consistent with one another (a constructed narrative), the entire story has credibility. When approaching a story from a narrative perspective, there are powerful constraints and a close-ended goal – there has to be a familiar pattern, a tension and a consistency. Confirmation bias disposes us towards powerful narratives, (see my account regarding Stephen Jay Gould and The Mismeasure of Man), causing us to overlook factual concerns in deferment to narrative consistency. When someone starts with an existing narrative template, they seek 1) to ensure that there is consistency between the different question levels and then 2) that it is bolstered with available empirical facts.
The advantage of the narrative approach is that it appeals to many people and there is a certain efficiency to it. When people are familiar with the narrative templates, they fill in the blanks automatically (ex. Whatever the argument does not supply, the paradigm conveniently fills in). Narratives are very efficient and effective at communicating an idea. Their weakness is that the empirical data may not be there to support the conclusion being sought. Starting with the narrative, one then cherry picks the data to support it. So what you gain in efficiency of communication, you lose in integrity of argument.
In contrast, an empirical hierarchy of questions is really focused on provable statements and measured outcomes. The different levels of questions do not have to be consistent with one another. As long as there are inconsistencies, there are new questions to be asked. What actually happened? How did it happen? Why did it happen? There is much more of this in Krauthammer’s article which is why I characterize it as an empirical based article. Empirical stories are open ended. A portfolio of facts exists or are created followed by an attempt to knit them together so that there is some sort of connectivity between them. The strength of the empirical story is that it is bounded by reality but in attempting to connect disparate facts, it requires leaps of imagination and speculative thought. On the other hand, facts absent narrative structure tend not to engage a wide audience. What you gain in utility and creativity, you lose in audience.
Ultimately the narrative and the empirical stories have to come together. Either on their own can be persuasive but both are subject to significant error and tunnel vision. When the empirical story is married to the narrative story, neither survives as cleanly as they appeared when first presented. Which is fit. Life is messy and we never fully understand complex things when we first encounter them. The discipline of holding the narrative to the empirical facts improves the narrative. Establishing speculative links between empirical facts in order to craft a narrative, enriches the empirical questions.
As readers, our constant challenge is three-fold. 1) To discern which stories have their root in a pre-existing narratives, 2) To identify those stories whose roots are in a portfolio of facts cobbled together to create a story and 3) Tying either or both back to the Discussion Pyramid in order to get to answers.
This train of thought calls to mind the old adage about translations – If true, not beautiful, If beautiful not true. In the context of narrative versus empirical reporting it would take a slightly different form. If engaging then not accurate; if accurate then not engaging.
Let’s go back to the provocative observation of the contrast between articles describing Romney’s international travels. Most were pre-established narratives with a smattering of empirical information. At least one was more of an empirical story. Both sets were incomplete in terms of supporting a robust Discussion Pyramid. While I don’t think the actual event warrants the time or effort on the part of a general reader to try and reach some sort of proposition regarding an interpretation of the success or failure of the trip, the contrast of the articles does serve as a call to maintain awareness of the different strengths and weaknesses of narrative stories versus empirical stories.
No comments:
Post a Comment