In critical theory, and particularly postmodernism, a meta narrative (sometimes master- or grand narrative) is an abstract idea that is supposed to be a comprehensive explanation of historical experience or knowledge. According to John Stephens it "is a global or totalizing cultural narrative schema which orders and explains knowledge and experience". The prefix meta means "beyond" and is here used to mean "about", and a narrative is a story. Therefore, a meta narrative is a story about a story, encompassing and explaining other 'little stories' within totalizing schemes.
“ Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward meta narratives. This incredulity is undoubtedly a product of progress in the sciences: but that progress in turn presupposes it. To the obsolescence of the meta narrative apparatus of legitimation corresponds, most notably, the crisis of metaphysical philosophy and of the university institution which in the past relied on it. The narrative function is losing its functors, its great hero, its great dangers, its great voyages, its great goal. It is being dispersed in clouds of narrative language elements--narrative, but also denotative, prescriptive, descriptive, and so on [...] Where, after the meta narratives, can legitimacy reside? - Jean-Francois Lyotard
According to John Stephens it "is a global or totalizing cultural narrative schema which orders and explains knowledge and experience".
The metanarrative is a story that speaks of the narrative, or which tends to reflect on it.
It has, for example, when a narrator calls into question the reader (narratee). See the "twenty-five readers" addressed in Manzoni's "I promessi sposi", or in the same novel, the way in which the author explicitly the presence of chapters or narrative passages. Or the entrelacement "but let's get back to Angelica who flees" in the Orlando Furioso of Ariosto.
Another example is the tale personal philological dramatic Conference implications of Tommaso Landolfi (1974) speaking over another story, always Landolfi, a few years before, and misunderstanding that was: The Walk (1966).
Another example is the second book of Don Quixote de la Mancha by Miguel de Cervantes, a case of embryonic metafiction
Dear All,
My comment is not the best fit for this discussion however I think Jorge Luis Borges’ oevre is an excellent example. Let us see at first Averroes who tried to understand what tragedy and comedy were without even knowing about theatre.
„In the foregoing story, I tried to narrate the process of a defeat. I first thought of that archbishop of Canterbury who took it upon himself to prove there is a God; then, of the alchemists who sought the philosopher's stone; then, of the vain trisectors of the angle and squarers of the circle. Later I reflected that it would be more poetic to tell the case of a man who sets himself a goal which is not forbidden to others, but is to him. I remembered Averroes who, closed within the orb of Islam, could never know the meaning of the terms agedy and comedy. I related his case; as I went along, I felt what that god mentioned by Burton must have felt when he tried to create a bull and created a buffalo instead. I felt that the work was mocking me. I felt that Averroes, wanting to imagine what a drama is without ever having suspected what a theater is, was no more absurd than I, wanting to imagine Averroes with no other sources than a few fragments from Renan, Lane and Asín Palacios. I felt, on the last page, that my narration was a symbol of the man I was as I wrote it and that, in order to compose that narration, I had to be that man and, in order to be that man, I had to compose that narration, and so on to infinity. (The moment I cease to believe in him,
"Averroes" disappears.)”
Jorge Luis Borges: Averroes’ search
I repeat again Borges: “I felt, on the last page, that my narration was a symbol of the man I was as I wrote it and that, in order to compose that narration, I had to be that man and, in order to be that man, I had to compose that narration, and so on to infinity. (The moment I cease to believe in him, "Averroes" disappears.)”
http://wordscascade.com/labirynths.pdf
Was it a tragedy for Averroes not to understand the notion and principle of dramas and to have but self narration about them? Was it a real meta-narrative? Should a real narration be like a labyrinth of which only aim is infinity?
Narratives which are age old and have chronological sessions of information such as in
do fit into this.
Would it be possible to view "The 1001 Arabian Nights" as an implied "grand narrative"? The entire work can be seen as a vast piece of metafiction: Scheherezade, to save her life until the next night, must invent a story worthy of capturing and keeping the archetypal narratee´s attention, with this narratee being her ruler/husband the sultan, capable of executing her if she displeases him with her narrative. Therefore, generalize about the high quality of each of her stories within the frame-story of saving her own life through narration, and you have a unique type of metafiction. I think Borges would have agreed.
@ Nelson
yes, similarly the "Alibaba and thieves ", "Sindubad the sailor" etc., are fictitious stories in akin to Grand narrative by itself, never ends and goes on and on....
The telling of history is narrative. It is different from chronicling. There are other terms such as “narrative history”, or “historical narrative”. Consider this: the history of Russia during the revolution is a grand narrative. Here, "grand" has a connotation as something” immense” or” spectacular”. Can grand narrative, therefore, be a spectacular narrative? Impressive in view of size or importance...Can it be monumental or glorious or grandiose?
The Mahabharata, a grand epic poem, made up of 100,000 couplets—world’s longest poem, about seven times the length of the Iliad and the Odyssey combined – is a monumental narrative, and could be a grand narrative.
Grand Narrative in American Historical Writing: From Romance to uncertainty. The author, Dorothy Ross, here states that she uses the term, “grand narrative”, here to mean the story (with beginning, middle and the end) of all humanity, an adaptation of the term as used by Allan Megill (adapted in turn from Lyotard) in “ ‘Grand Narrative’ and the Discipline of History”, A new Philosophy of History, Frank Ankersmit and Hans Kellner, eds. (Chicago, 1995). Megill differentiates “grand narrative” from “master narrative”, the story of one segment or a nation.
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/walter.sargent/public.www/web%20200/ross%20grand%20narrative.pdf
The sculptures of Mahabalipuram, The paintings of Ajantha and Ellora caves are some of the examples of grand narratives reminiscing within a historical art context
The grand narrative can refer to the stories told about others. For example, how you see a certain group of people, say people living in disadvantage. The grand narratives are the stories told about them by government policies and the picture painted of them.
The petit recits (Lyotard) are the antithesis of these. These are the small stories, told in situ, by the people living in disadvantage.
Weis, Weseen, and Wong, L (2003) In Denzin and Lincoln, The Landscape of Qualitative Research talk about the tension of representing groups of people as "victimized", "damaged" or "resilient" and "strong". Stories that are told without evidence of resilience, agency and resistance are "seriously flawed" (p.197) and deceptively partial. Equally dreary is the increasing popularity of stories of individual heroes that triumph over adversity despite their difficulties, denying the burdens of surviving against serious difficulties.
Therefore, be careful of interpretations of grand narratives.
I like STEMPLEWSKA-ZAKOWICZ (2000) philosophical and historical viewpoint on the epistemological problems related to grand narrative.
http://www.plc.psychologia.pl/plc/plc/contents/fulltext/04-1_5.pdf
In Pre-modern discourse:
-There is only one “Truth”
-The truth is obvious to everybody
-no awareness of other possibilities
-possible lack of tolerance
-lacks epistemological awareness so subjectivist v objectivist orientation criteria do not apply
-naïve realism
-enforcement of “the Truth” guarantees an ideal social order
Modern discourse:
-Some “truths”
-Recognises other perspectives and the truth they imply
-Validating own truth becomes important when there are possible alternatives
-There is a “Right Method” of cognition that is valid
- This is an objectivist orientation
-focusses on the object of knowing
-disregards the role of cognition by a subject
-pervasive concern with the method that finds “The Truth”
-different “truths” are considered “mistaken” rather than “evil”
-education of the mistaken is important
- lots of complex explanations as to why the mistaken are mistaken (see poverty)
-programmes implemented for their “enlightenment”
Postmodern discourse
-Not centred on only one “truth”
-recognises and encourages the subjectivist approach
-the assumption of the truth is in respect of the perspective of the subject
-no truth is universal or complete
- no need for a Grand Narrative
-people are not “evil” or “mistaken”, but simply “different”
-focus on understanding not arguing for or against views
-individuals implement projects in actual circumstances rather than look at goals to be achieved
Hope this helps!
For Lyotard, examples of grand narratives given are Marxism, Liberalism and all religions. The meaning of the post-modernist characterization of the "name" or concept is to educate on the observation that authorities in a knowledge society will have less impact, as the individuals may construct their own narratives.
I recommend to read Lyotard's "The Postmodern Condition" (1979.
- Badges
- Science topic