To be published in On the Horizon, vol. 14/ issue 3 (Fall 2006)

The Author - Dr. Boria Sax (Vogelgreif@aol.com) is the author of many books, most recently Crow.

 

Storytelling and the “Information Overload”

 

Abstract:

Methodology/Approach - This article examines the various functions served by storytelling, from its origins in prehistoric times to the post-industrial age.

Findings - Storytelling appears to have developed in archaic times as a means to organize vast and confusing amounts of information. It retains that function and becomes particularly important in transitional times such as the present.

Research limitations/implications - Historical records are rich in stories, yet they seldom provide the full social context in which these were told. This article attempts to reconstruct part of that context on the basis of anthropological and biological theories.

Practical Implications - Today, however, neither empirical nor theoretical analysis is able to cope with the information overload caused by new electronic media. As traditional markers of identity such as ethnicity and class become elusive, Individuals, and companies as well, need to articulate their stories in order to define themselves.

Originality/Value - This article places storytelling, arguably the most traditional of arts, in the context of a culture dominated by electronic media, thus helping people and institutions to use the power of narrative.

 

Document Type - Research paper

 

 

Keywords -  Storytelling, Information Overload, Theory, Identity

 

*

 

        My window at work opens on a field of grass and some trees, and I have several times seen crows drive away a hawk. There is probably a crow's nest nearby, though I have not yet found it. At any rate, they know that the hawk is big and fast but not very maneuverable. As long as the crows stay slightly higher than the hawk and make a lot of noise, they are safe. But one day a crow, calling loudly, flew almost directly beneath the hawk, as though daring the hawk to pounce. When the hawk did not pounce, the crow rose straight up until it was eye level with the hawk, still calling, then began to circle loudly around the hawk's head. After another minute, the hawk left, with the crow, still calling, chasing after it together with a partner. The behavior of the crow, while obviously purposeful, showed a sort of reckless courage that seemed to go beyond the prompting of instinct. It was the boldness of a hero, a quality that is hard to conceive outside of stories.

        While certainly animals such as ravens and bees hint at something analogous to human language, certainly none shows anything approaching the intricate grammatical distinctions that people use routinely. Similarly, no animals appear to have anything like the intricate web of stories that structure human society. We use stories to define ourselves, both as individuals and as members of groups. Stories also connect us to the past and direct us towards goals in the future. Each of us represents the intersection of many stories blending fact and fiction, which tell of family, gender, nationality and so on.

        While it may be impossible to give a very precise definition of a “story,” some basic characteristics are very clear. It is a series of connected events in chronological order. It is centered on a single character, whose life is disrupted by a crisis. He takes on a monumental task and confronts a powerful adversary. He is often finds a helper. A story has a clear dramatic structure, in which tension builds to a climax and is released.

        The structure is essentially a set of conventions with no objective correlate. In “real life,” there is no beginning or end, let alone a “happily ever after.” There is no hero, around whom everything that happens revolves. But by imposing a relatively simple structure on experience, storytelling helps us to make sense of the world. The structure of stories is an extension of grammar, which also imposes organization on the chaos of experience.

        It may be impossible to know just when human beings or their ancestors developed the capacity for storytelling. At any rate, it was fully developed by the invention of writing. The first recorded stories in Sumer and in Egypt are not tentative beginnings but often highly sophisticated narratives. To reach such a level of complexity, stories must have been told for a long time before they were written down, certainly several millennia or more.

        Stories are a means of connecting events and deciding what is important. Several people may observe the same public incident - say, a brawl - and come away with several contrasting stories, depending on what they care about and what they notice. If, however, an observer does not come away with any story, he will not be able to make sense of, report or probably even remember what happened. Stories were perhaps developed as a means to deal with the “information overload,” a contemporary word for what is actually a very archaic phenomenon.

        To use the terminology of the early twentieth century biologist Jacob von Uexkűll, stories are part of the “Umwelt” or perceptual world of human beings. Uexkűll had pointed out that, while they may appear to share the same landscape, different creatures will perceive it in entirely different ways (Uexkűll, 1928; Kull, 2001). This is due in part to their use of different modes of perception. To give one example, horses are color blind, while bees are able to perceive colors on the ultraviolet end of the spectrum that is imperceptible to human beings. Thus a horse, a man and a bee may look at the same field and they will see very different things. Without using its highly sensitive tactile sense, a horse will not be able to distinguish among many kinds of vegetation. The bee, however, will be able to see pollen, which is invisible to people.

        Using technologies, human beings can filter out color, to see more like a horse, or detect ultraviolet light, to see things more like a bee. We alter and direct our perceptions using a vast array of tools from the lamps and lenses to megaphones and microscopes. Because our means of perception are so various and our needs are so complex, our senses are completely insufficient to filter our experience. Without stories, we would be overwhelmed by the vast number of things that seem to clamor for our attention. That was as true in the forests and savannahs of Neolithic times as it is in the cities of today.

 

The Origins of Storytelling

        The latter eighteenth through early twentieth centuries were an era in which classifying and indexing large amounts of information assumed new importance. As folklorists and anthropologists began collecting and comparing vast numbers of tales collected around the world, they quickly noticed certain recurrent patterns and motifs. Tales that had originated in civilizations that had apparently very little contact might seem strangely similar. Several attempts have been made to reduce all stories to a few basic forms, or even a single structure. Joseph Campbell, a neo-Victorian thinker, tried to reduce mythology to a “monomyth,” in which a hero sacrifices himself for the redemption of his people (1972). The boldness with which Campbell ranges across barriers of time, geography, and culture is stirring, and his work theory has had a great impact on literary and popular culture. The theory is based more on poetic associations than on academic argument, and it is not well regarded by anthropologists or other social scientists (Segal, 1984).

        The most sophisticated of these theories is that of the Russian folklorist Vladimir Propp, who attempted to reduce the apparently highly divergent plots of fairy tales to a single story with seven characters and 31 episodes, which may not always be complete but is never altered. This led him to conclude that fairy tales are derived from a lost mythology (1968). Though Propp worked only with Russian fairy tales of Alexandr Afansiev, other folklorists such as Alan Dundes have simplified his schemata and applied it to tales of many cultures (1964).

        The Swiss classicist Walter Burkert used the model of Propp to trace storytelling to the experience of hunting, as the chase would be recounted in evenings around a blazing fire in prehistoric times (1996). He pointed out that scenes of pursuit are ubiquitous in fairy tales, and one need only think of such favorites as “Snow White” and “Cinderella to confirm this. The jealous stepmother pursues her beautiful stepdaughter; the prince pursues the stranger he met at the dance.

        Fascinating as the work of Propp and his followers may be, it is dependent on elaborate, and insufficiently explained, extrapolations from the texts of the tales (Tatar, 2003). How does one determine with confidence, for example, whether two characters from two respective fairy tales are equivalent in their function or not? Perhaps even more significantly, these reductionist theories fail to account for the creative element in storytelling, by which tales are adapted to many audiences, cultures and historical circumstances. If all stories are ultimately the same, why don’t people simply tell a single one? The theory of Propp is appropriate to the industrial era, when traditions of storytelling seemed to be coming to an end, and stories could be classified and studied like artifacts in a museum. But today, as we confront a glut of information that cannot be comprehended in abstract terms, the creative element in storytelling cannot be ignored.

        The theory of Burkert, however poetic, also presents difficulties. Hunting may have been a specialty even in very archaic societies, and it was never anything close to the sum of human activity. In Neolithic cultures, people would also have been spinning, weaving, practicing agriculture, minding the fire, caring for children and perhaps creating works of art. Why should storytelling have focused exclusively on the activity of hunting? The telling of tales seems to be a way of relating to the world that is not, and has probably never been, tied to any single task.

 

Alternatives to Storytelling

        Storytelling is now only one way amid several in which human beings can organize, or process, their experience (Blumenburg, 1988). It is not always necessarily the best. Other ways include, for example, rules of conduct, abstract principles, theory, traditions, and hierarchies of authority. All of these have their advantages, and it would probably be impossible to organize our experience on the basis or storytelling alone. Some people appear to lead lives in which stories are not even terribly important. They may, for example, live primarily by abstract principles or by rules and routines. While these people may be missing something, they do seem to get on well enough in their professional and personal lives.

        Stories have a unique ability to consecrate principles and rules, the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount for example. Once these are established, however, stories are not always so necessary. It is even necessary in the early stages of a science, where founders are mythologized every bit as much as in religions or governments. There is Newton discovering gravity when an apple allegedly fell on his head. There is Galileo allegedly dropping balls of different weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. But if the theoretical works of these thinkers and their successors may be called “stories,” it is only in some extended, metaphoric way. Once a set of stories becomes scriptural, alternative versions even become a threat.

        Storytelling does, however, have several advantages over other means of organizing experience. It has a sensuality that places it especially close to experience. Tales evoke sights, smells and sounds, while philosophies and precepts usually do not. For another thing, storytelling has great flexibility. Narratives can more easily be adjusted to different eras and circumstances than can rules or ideologies.

        Finally, in addition to being the oldest means by which people organize experience, storytelling is also the most robust. When neither abstract theory nor religious dogma can empower us to respond to a crisis, we can return to telling stories. The process is a bit like taking up a pen and paper, either because word processors are unavailable or because the older tools seem appropriate to our mood and inspiration. The toughness and flexibility of storytelling make narrative especially important in periods of transition, particularly at the origin of new religions, ideologies, institutions, or technologies.

        For individuals as well, stories are most important during periods of transition such as adolescence, marriage or the start of a new career. At such key points in our lives, the capacity for rationality is likely to be challenged by decisions of great practical and emotional complexity. When familiar expectations and routines are disturbed, for example by the loss of a job or the end of a romantic relationship, we may find that analysis is futile. Brooding about the consequences of our acts can lead into an endless sequence of new questions.

        In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the hero experiences a sort of information overload, as he decides how to respond to the phantom that claims to be the ghost of his father. This paralysis may have parallels in other mammals such as rabbits, which often freeze when being pursued by a predator. People can, however, often move beyond the crisis of indecision by making significant changes in their lives if they can describe events as a story.

 

Storytelling in Industrial Society

        The information overload that we experience today is not unprecedented in human society. At the end of the Renaissance, for example, society faced something of the sort, as it attempted to absorb all of the scientific and artistic innovations, which had been discovered in a few short generations. One result was a period of social breakdown in Europe, including brutal wars and persecutions over the fifteenth through seventeenth centuries. People turned increasingly to stories that had been partially neglected during medieval times, particularly those of the pagan Greco-Romans and of the Old Testament.

        Storytelling is not equally important in all historical epochs. With the Industrial Revolution, other means of organizing experience gained in importance as storytelling declined. The primary reason may have been the growing dominance of written over oral culture, as literacy increased and the costs of publishing declined. Storytelling, as a cultural form, has always been especially intimately linked with the spoken word. Furthermore, the growing dissemination of writing enabled people to organize experience in alternative ways, from example by increasingly intricate rules of behavior, by legal contracts, and by elaborate schedules.

        By the twentieth century, the intelligentsia had come to prefer abstract theories such as those of Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche to stories. Though excellent storytellers themselves, those thinkers tried to articulate principles that would render storytelling less necessary. In the Romantic era of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the major literary form became lyric poetry, which focused on feelings rather than on events. In the latter nineteenth century it became the novel, but this was generally less a vehicle for storytelling than for intricate psychological and philosophical explorations. The interest in the works of major novelists such as Leo Tolstoy was primarily less in plot than in character. In an almost scientific manner, characters were created then placed in various situations, so that one might see what they would feel and how they would react. Many painters ceased to illustrate stories, particularly those of tradition. Instead, they produced still lives, abstractions or ideological propaganda.

        Steven Johnson has pointed out in Interface Culture that the work of Victorian novels of authors such as Dickens or George Eliot, presented a vaster panorama of society than any writers have done before or since, as authors jumped abruptly from palaces and factories to slums, making the connections by means of barely articulated associations. The novelists were straining to bestow coherence on a society, which had been fragmented by abrupt industrialization (2005). These intuitive leaps from one scene to the next, disrupted the narrative flow, and compelled the authors to weave together several contrasting, and often fragmentary, lines of action.

        Perhaps this tradition culminated in 1924, the year that saw the publication of both T. S. Eliot’s poem “The Wasteland” (1998) and Joyce’s novel Ulysses (2000), which consisted of rambling meditations and narratives, loosely organized around recurring themes with hardly more than the barest pretence of a plot. At the time, many people hoped or feared that these works might be the beginning of an entirely new literary tradition, yet they now stand in splendid isolation. Though celebrated as masterpieces, they had minimal influence on the literature of successive generations, which gradually returned to older kinds of narrative. To an extent, Eliot and Joyce anticipated the world of the Internet, where people jump between stories, associated through common motifs, by use of hyperlinks. The stories on the Internet, however, are themselves generally structured in a traditional manner. Indeed, the experience of navigating the web would be almost totally incoherent if they were not.

 

 

Storytelling in the New Millennium

        As the limitations of both empiricism and theory in confronting the information overload become apparent, storytelling is gaining renewed importance. The Internet is the ideal medium for the dissemination of stories. Rumors, urban legends and gossip spread almost instantly, and these do not necessarily need to be believed in order to entertain. Much of the storytelling may be fairly trivial, but it can at least reassure people in a dramatically changing world.

        On an individual level, articulating our own stories can help us find our way through a confusing plethora of choices. A couple of hundred years ago, people lived within fixed parameters, which could be changed with much difficulty if at all. You were born into a certain social class, a certain religion, an ethnicity and even a profession. You might alter these parameters a bit through marriage, but, in general, they were a destiny. Today there is more social mobility, if perhaps not as much as we sometimes like to imagine. It has become easy enough to change religions, and ethnicity appears increasingly ambiguous. Divorce, in most circles, does not carry much of a stigma. You can change the color of your hair, the lines of your face and even, if you have the money, your gender.

        In what, then, does individual identity consist? More than anything else, it lies in having a unique story (Ibarra and Linebeck 2005). This, together with your social security number, accompanies you throughout your life. When you get to know a friend, you exchange stories with her. When you take on a new job, you must incorporate it into your story. Similarly, the firm may need to integrate you into the story that gives it cohesion, and, consciously or not, a job interviewer will try to find out if that is possible. When you marry, you and your spouse must integrate your stories into a single one.

        Storytelling can help us deal with the loss of security that comes as hierarchal structures of the Industrial Age disintegrate, and we can no longer fully rely on a career with a fixed trajectory culminating in a pension and retirement. The situation is a bit like that at the start of the Industrial Age, when many former serfs gave up the meager but relatively secure life at a feudal manor house for a far less stable existence as itinerant laborers. Often, they would journey from town to town in hope of employment, carrying little more than wooden spoon to eat their meals. Those who could confront their hardships in a spirit of adventure, however, might learn new industries or journey to distant lands.

        Institutions as well as individuals have stories, and it is primarily these narratives that distinguish them from their competitors. It is primarily their context that makes educational institutions appear unique, and that context consists mostly of stories. This is increasingly being recognized not only in academia but also in the corporate world. In the words of Stephen Denning, former Director of Knowledge Management at the World Bank, “…any discussion of organizations that does not place narrative and storytelling at the center is bound to be misleading and incomplete” (Denning, 2005).

        Cyberspace is a great place for telling stories, but it is not such a good one for creating tales, much less for living them. It is stories that anchor virtual reality in what we sometimes call “real life.” These appeal to the imagination far more easily than abstract philosophies of education. Institutions would do well to record, reflect on, and publicize the stories of their people and their programs.

        Eventually, mythic narratives of the post-industrial era will emerge, which will address questions that abstract analysis has failed to solve: What is our proper relationship, as human beings, to animals and the environment? What is the significance or nationality or ethnicity? How can men and women acknowledge differences of gender without arrogance? Although theorists such as Propp have shown that the structure of stories has remained amazing stable over the centuries and millennia, we cannot assume that it never changes. It is possible that the stories that emerge during the centuries to come may be profoundly different from those we tell today.

        Because it confronts us with massive uncertainties, the era we have entered is generally described in negative terms. It is “post…” something – “postmodern,” post-industrial,” or “post-capitalist”…. Sometimes, it is called the “Information Age,” on the grounds that social relations are now structured by the flow of information rather than that of money (Drucker, 1994). Unfortunately, information does not necessarily provide society with any structure at all. Information does not necessarily even “flow,” for it constantly overflows the “channels” that people have created. Knowledge that was once the province of professional journals, for example, is often disseminated by consultants, corporate researchers, popular writers and others who bypass the traditional vehicles. We must look instead to our tales to provide structure, so perhaps the new millennium will be the “Age of Stories.”

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Blumenberg, H. (1988) Work on Myth, trans. R. M. Wallace, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

 

Burkert, W. (1996), The Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of       Biology in Early Religions, Cambridge, MA, Harvard UP.

 

Campbell, J. (1972), The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Princeton, Princeton UP.

 

Denning, S. (2005), The Role of Narrative in Organizations, in Storytelling in Organizations: Why Storytelling Is Transforming 21st Century Organizations and Management, ed. S. Denning, J. S. Brown et al, Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

 

Drucker, Peter (1994), Post-Capitalist Society, New York: Collins.

 

Dundes, A. (1964), The Morphology of American Indian Folktales, Helsinki, Helsingen Liikerijapaino Oy,.

 

Eliot, T. S. The Waste Land and Other Poems (1998). Minola, NY, Dover.

 

Johnson, S. (1997), Interface Culture, New York, Basic Books.

 

Joyce, J. (2000), Ulysses, New York: Penguin.

 

Kull, K., ed. (2001) Jacob von Uexkűll: A Paradigm of Biology and Semiotics, Special issue of Semiotica, vol. 134, no.1/4.

 

Ibrarra, H. and Lineback, K. (2005), What’s Your Story?, Harvard Business Review, Jan., 65-71.

 

Propp, V. A. (1968), The Morphology of the Folktale, trans. Laurence Scott, Austin, TX, U. of Texas Press,.     

 

Segal, Robert A (1984), “Joseph Campbell’s Theory of  Myth,” in Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth, Ed. A. Dundes, Berkeley: U. of CA Press, 256-269.

 

Tatar, Maria (2003), The Hard Facts of Grimms’ Fairy Tales, Princeton, Princeton UP.

 

Uexkűll, J. (1926), Theoretical Biology, New York, Harcourt, Brace & Co.