The Social Justice Narratives

narrativeFor those who are familiar with SJWs (social justice warriors) and their means of persuasion you will without a doubt have become familiar with “The narrative” that seems to drive both the media, the social media and the general conversation around an event or events. From a writing perspective, the narrative serves to link together disparate events into consistent and congruent story in order to entertain or inform the reader. For instance, if we take the story of “The Little Red Riding Hood” the facts are as follows:

  1. Little red riding hood is bringing some food to her grandmother.
  2. En route to her grandmothers house she runs into the wolf.
  3. The Wolf runs to her grandmothers house and swallows the grandmother whole.
  4. The Wolf dresses up as the grandmother and waits.
  5. Little Red Riding Hood arrives at the grandmothers house and is eaten by the wolf.
  6. The Wolf falls asleep.
  7. The Hunter (or Lumberjack) comes and cuts the wolf open allowing Little Red Riding Hood and Grandmother to escape.
  8. The Wolf is killed.

This is how short the story could be if you just stuck with the facts. To make the narrative more engaging you add things like descriptions, you engage in “show” rather than tell, and you attempt to get your readers to engage with the story through ethos and pathos. Narrative writing can be contrasted with academic writing, where the goal is to convey facts and the interpretation of those facts in a logically consistent manner. It can also be contrasted with journalism, where the goal is to communicate facts or events free of interpretation.

I listed the facts of Little Red Riding Hood in order, but if I were to list them out of order, such as listing the Hunter killing the wolf at step 2 in the story, it cancels out the rest of the narrative as these facts could never have happened, therefore the narrative would have to be altered. Alternatively, it would require moving other facts around as well in order to arrive at a consistent narrative. When structured in the correct order, the facts of the story (logos), work with the characters in the story (ethos) and the emotions of the audience (pathos) to create a compelling narrative.

The rhetoric

When we explain the facts that are included in a narrative to an uninformed individual, we are able to tailor them in a manner that allow us to persuade them into our interpretation of those facts. For instance, we can omit facts, in order to make our interpretation more likely to be the one our audience accepts as the nearest approximation of truth. We can add information to distract from facts we want to obscure, we can employ body language and tone to convey emotions related to those facts, and we can use language that leads to a given interpretation. See the example below:

  • Little red riding hood is bringing some poison to kill her grandmother.
  • En route to her grandmothers house she runs into the wolf and tells him what she is up to
  • The Wolf runs to her grandmothers house and locks the grandmother in a closet.
  • The Wolf dresses up as the grandmother and waits.
  • Little Red Riding Hood arrives at the grandmothers house and is eaten by the wolf.
  • The Wolf falls asleep.
  • The Hunter (or Lumberjack) comes and cuts the wolf open allowing Little Red Riding Hood to escape and give the poison to her grandmother.
  • The Wolf is killed.

From these changes, the entire meaning of the story is changed and Little Red Riding Hood is now a murderer, and her accomplice the hunter aids her in killing both her Grandmother and the defender of her Grandmother, the Wolf. This is in embryo how the social justice rhetoric works, facts are moved around, shifted, changed, omitted or obscured in order to fit into a story that is being designed in order to persuade the target audience of a certain interpretation of facts.

This is the same process a salesperson will use when they attempt to sell you a product, they will not tell you about the product recalls, or poor aspects of a product, unless they want you to purchase a different product. In which case, they will emphasize the problem with your intended choice, show you a much more expensive product that they will talk up, to finally show you a mid-range product that is “almost as good as the one that is much more expensive”

This is all done through the power of ethos, pathos and logos, the three cornerstones of Aristotle’s rhetoric with the aid of sophism in order to build a logical structure with the selected facts, in the interpretation that is desired. Communicated by someone in a position of authority such as a journalist, using emotional language and adapting the story to fit the audience psychology.

The audience psychology

As human beings our minds are far from perfect. The scientific method was created for the purpose of structuring human investigations in a manner that made them logical, fact based, and evidence based, and to avoid the more common fallacies which humans are prone to make. For instance, we all have images in our heads tied to our experience, so that when I say the word “fratboy” you get a composite in your head of what a fratboy is like and looks like.If I have an inkling as to your person, for instance from cold reading, I can adapt the personas in my narrative to take advantage of your inherent bias.

A great example of this in practice, is the use of expressions like “corporate fat cats” to give a negative slant to a group of bankers in a narrative. A great example of use of bias by presidential candidate Donald Trump is his branding of his opponents Little Marco for instance giving allusions to Rubio’s size on the surface, but also to terms like “lightweight” and “Not enough of a man to be a leader on the world stage“, this means that every time something would happen that would give an impression to childishness for instance, it would make the connection in the audience mind of “Little Marco“. In essence, the use of confirmation bias means that the idea is planted in our head, which leads our interpretations of future facts as confirming of our existing impression.

The class struggle narrative served up in social justice classes around the western world, makes the social justice warriors prone to making the exact type of confirmation bias error that I just outlined, as their entire framework for interpreting the world is based around victim-oppressor. This is the great mindgame that feminists and social justice warriors played on the western world, they created a framework that will utilize human bias in order to validate the subjective interpretation of a selection of feminist ideologues.

Take for instance the example of someone on trial, the prosecution will attempt to build a narrative around the facts, while the defense will attempt to build a different narrative around the facts. Both lawyers will attempt to create a jury impression of what the accused is really like and what the victim is really like. In doing so, they will utilize a range of rhetorical tricks, they will use logical fallacies, such as cherry-picking evidence, poisoning the well when it comes to witnesses, and they will use the bias of the jury as much as they can.

Summary and conclusions

A narrative is simply put a story with a purpose, it is meant to communicate to the less rational and logical part of the human mind using techniques from persuasion, rhetoric and psychology. In essence, the goal is to present the facts in such a way, that the critical thinking part of the brain is shut down by the emotional and psychological impact of the story being told. It is the subversion of facts through a powerful story that your mind and emotions feel are true. The easiest way of seeing through a narrative is simply applying your critical mind and focusing on the facts, rather than the emotional sections of the story.

Evaluating logical conclusions based on facts, while evaluating those facts are also difficult to do on the fly, especially if your non-logical mind is being engaged and preyed upon. A simple non-sequitur or a case of Kettle logic can easily slip by in the heat of the moment and this is what politicians, social justice warriors and every other political activist is trained to do with their rhetoric. The best way to influence someone is to bypass their rational brain, and influence their emotions and bias so that their emotions and bias override their ability to think rationally.

The key to the SJW psychology, seem to be the combination of seeing patterns where none exist, this is common in humans and why its quite common for humans to see faces in clouds or religious figures in burned toast. The second is subjective bias, where all new information that contradicts the strongly held belief is dismissed. The third is confirmation bias, where information is interpreted to confirm the already held beliefs. The fourth is a combination of proof by assertion and argument from repetition, where the arguments and narratives are repeated ad nauseum until an opponent relents.

The most interesting thing about social justice narratives though is that they are becoming increasingly less effective as they are pushed time and time again, because they are now based in a system of thought so far from the average person, that they only work within the social justice echo-chamber. This means that they become less an less able to work off bias, and thus are left purely with emotions, which is clearly visible as narratives shift towards more and more catastrophic headlines and stories.

 

 

 

Advertisements

4 comments on “The Social Justice Narratives

  1. […] Read part 2 here: The narratives of social justice […]

    Like

  2. […] house of social justice is built, without an antagonist and without a protagonist, there can be no narrative and without a narrative there can be no moral relativistic framework on which to base the […]

    Like

  3. […] SJW strategy will be supported by the tools I outlined in my post on narratives and executed by the means I talked about in the post on common SJW […]

    Like

  4. […] reduces what you said to the lowest common denominator and sees how your statement fits with their narrative. Every person has their own subjective filters that affect information processing, among these are […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s