One nice thing that seems to be happening as I examine these academic folklore sites is that I’m finding some interesting references. This one is from Indiana University’s Folklore course offerings, which describes a course on “Narrative Poetics”.

There is ample evidence to confirm the claim that homo sapiens is in fact homo narrans, or to put it another way, that we acquire such self-knowledge as we have largely through narrative processes. Doubtless, stories told in several expressive media, in numerous generic forms, concerning virtually every aspect of human experience, abound in our lives and may even constitute for us the perceived world and the thread of human consciousness. But how do they do this? What is their claim on us?

This reminds me a bit of Dr. Renee Fuller’s articles on how stories are the fundamental unit of human thought. Their reference to “homo narrans” is from a book of that title by a John D. Niles. That Amazon book description has very little info though; this U Penn Press site has some better content on it. I’m just gonna snag bits I like from it:

It would be difficult to imagine what human life would be like without stories…

In Homo Narrans John D. Niles explores how human beings shape their world through the stories they tell…

…Oral narrative is and has long been the chief basis of culture itself, that the need to tell stories is what distinguishes humans from all other living creatures.

The author of that book, John D. Niles is a professor of English and the Director of Medieval studies at Berkeley. He seems like a pretty interesting guy. Berkeley only seems to have a graduate program in folklore.

This page from a fellow named Steve Denning’s website also comes up under the search for the phrase “homo narrans.” Apparently, he’s using it in a way not linked to Niles’ book. His website is about “business and organizational storytelling” which is an interesting topic in it’s own right (He’s also got a blog). Anyway, the relevant passage in this text:

Let us call the person who converses in this mode, homo narrans — a person who combines story-telling and analysis in a discourse that is rational, lively, imaginative, open to dialogue, entertaining and persuasive. This is the kind of person we would like to have at our dinner tables, and with whom we would be willing to discuss even the most difficult and controversial of topics. It is the sort of the person we might like to have as a friend and companion. It is the sort of person we would listen to, since conversing with homo narrans might well lead to the mutual discovery of truth.

Here is another separate reference online to homo narrans. It looks like its some sort of powerpoint slideshow lecture. It never makes sense to me why people waste their time using that web-publish function on powerpoint, when they could save a lot of time and annoyance just by putting together a simple bulleted list. It looks like it must have been a semi-interesting lecture, from the bullet points. It’s too bad they didn’t publish an elaborated version of what they actually said along with it.

Hm, following a reference from the above has lead me to somebody named Walter Fisher, who also seems to be associated with originating or popularization of the term “homo narrans”. This is part of a course description from Union Institute & University:

Week 5: Homo Narrans: Are We the Storied Species?

Does storying define our humanity? Were earlier species of Homo not the same as us because they did not have the capacity to story? Has that been the root of what has made Homo sapiens so successful? In this week’s readings we look at the work of Meyerhoff, Fisher and Niles who speak to the concept of Homo narrans, and then look into the work of neurobiology, and paleontology to see if our brain chemistry and biological history support the premise of humans as the storying species. If we are, what are the implications of accepting the power of that role?

Texts: Barbara Meyerhoff, Walter Fisher, John Niles, Ian Tattersall, Michael Gazzaniger, David Lewis-Williams

And here are some class notes from Bradley University which draw on Fisher’s ideas about homo narrans and the narrative paradigm:

…Fisher proposed the narrative paradigm, the idea that man is a story telling animal at heart, that human communication, especially argumentation, is largely a storytelling process, and that one should test the narrative rationality of stories as a way to further test argumentative grounds. After testing for the logic of good reasons (by examining factors of traditional rationality and the values orientations inherent in the arguments), advocates and audiences should test the narrative rationality of the stories told.

Also, this article from a Christian site called Movie Ministry has a good passage about the importance of stories:

People love stories. They spend most of their time telling and hearing them. Dr. Walter Fisher, a professor at USC, said that in addition to being homo sapiens or rational creatures, human beings are homo narrans or storytelling creatures. In fact, he argues that stories are the key identifying feature of human beings, because they are used by people to understand others, and themselves.

Jesus offers many great examples of the power of stories, but two should be enough to prove the point. I don’t know anyone who thinks that the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son were real people — in the sense of being historical. Jesus had lessons he wanted to teach average, everyday sinners. He did not pull out a volume on Jewish Systematic Theology — He told stories. In these stories, he was free to create characters ideally suited to the lesson he wanted to teach — about mercy, hospitality, love, and forgiveness. The truths that lived in these simple stories were ones He wanted to see people live out. They were memorable.

Here’s an article about narrative and different types of shit that I want to read, but my concentration on this is starting to break. I’ll come back to it.