Generalizably Thinking

The final chapter in On the Case was dedicated to the role of generalization or the extrapolation, within the readers mind, outward from the specifics of an individual case to the relevant, applicable issues pertaining to the larger report or concern to which the study has dedicated itself.  As is frequently the case in my readings about the problems facing Narrative Inquiry as it attempts to find its place in an increasingly scientistic world I am struck by the inadmissability of the ineffable on both side of the argument. In short that the scientific/academic side will be doomed to an incomplete view as they insist on only recognizing the provable while the personal/narrative side is equally doomed by attempting to "dress up" that which cannot be apprehended as distantly or narrowly scientific.
       There are several well thought out attempts in the last chapter to elucidate how the underpinnings of detail and verisamilitude can be cataloged in retrospect to dissect the success of the "painting a picture" portion of the narrative. Try ing to explain in precise terms how something that seems true to one can be made to seem true to another. Or by what means a human mind my be persuaded to willingly engage its suspension of skepticism to stop resisting a narrative and let its character take up residence in the readers heart. There it is, using words to reach another's heart is cool but if you over focus on those words you cannot know what made them stick. The authors have attempted to systematize some thing the theater folks have nearly proved is best left in the shadows. And this because at a basic human level we have a great distaste for the idea of what makes us choose to suspend that skepticism. It is a joyful process and the keys to invoking this passive imagination are best wielded blindly so that the check on the potential abusability of this power resides in its being tied to belief. Stated sharply, we like to think that only a person who believes can convince us to change our minds or make them up.
      Thus the healthy role of the ineffable. A narrative will always have the potential to command almost too much power over a "properly" academic report because once the heart is engaged, there's no stopping its sway over the head. Science may be pure but its a head thing and the heart will win one way or another. This explains perhaps the great resistance to Personal Narrative, its detractors rightly and wisely fear the precedent set by letting it dominate, even if the case in question could admittedly use some personalizing.  Before this point, the personal was limited in its scope to realms where its power was clear, we stand now at a time where the personal strives to go where it was once unwelcome and it may be a step back to try and become scientific to force science to admit of its relevance. I submit that the only science-able fact about a personal Narrative would be the countable number of individuals who choose to stand up and say "this touched me."