narrative

Recently I have been in a discussion with my good friend Dan about what amounts to the purpose of public discourse and how we, as individuals, can be most effective. I have long advocated a personal approach. An approach that focuses on personal narrative.

Dan, in recent times, has used his most public persona as a clearing house for information that can be mostly interpreted as apocalyptic enlightenment. Although I don't fundamentally disagree with his general thesis, (I will save that for a later post, but essentially, my outlook is less dire, more personalized and ultimately more optimistic.) I will say his approach is limited and inaccessible.

In a time where attention spans are limited and entertainment is placed at a premium our most vital attempts to influence the public discourse have to be both interesting and pertinent. We have a duty to attempt both.

The only way this can be achieved is through an experiment in personal narrative. By personalizing your thesis, you make it relevant. Although I am not and never will be an ardent supporter of organized belief of any kind, especially religion, we can learn many things from the Protestant Christian Fundamentalism movement. They have always emphasized the personal story of conversion, of acceptance, of being saved, because it serves dual purpose as evangelist tool and a rallying point of interest. It is allows the consumer to relate. They have either been converted or hope to be, in either case they can find some common ground.

Ultimately, it is being interesting that allows anyone to reach an audience. So, as a challenge, if you want massive or even spherical influence find it through a personal narrative. Find influence by understanding your intent through empirical experience and go tell it on the mountain.