Ways of Knowing
Journal Entry #6
Spring 2005
Erin Peters
In 1977 Jerome Bruner described two types of thinking in his book, The Process of Education, analytical thinking and intuitive thinking. Bruner categorized analytical thinking as having explicit steps generated through inductive and deductive thinking which may be adequately reported to other individuals. Intuitive thinking was described as proceeding by maneuvers, not steps, and based on implicit perception of the total problem. In the early 1980s Bruner dropped the distinction between analytical and intuitive thinking because even in science and creative writing, both types of thinking were enacted. Instead Bruner interpreted two new ways of knowing, paradigmatic and narrative. Paradigmatic thinking utilizes argument to describe truth and is oriented to the outside world. Narrative thinking tries to convey descriptions of experience through different perspectives and tends to be more introspective. Several essential characteristics of paradigmatic and narrative thinking demonstrate how they are different ways of knowing.
Examining
the amount of ambiguity permitted narrative and paradigmatic thinking
illustrates one difference between the ways of knowing. Narrative thinking
accepts ambiguity, but paradigmatic thinking has little tolerance for
uncertainty. Paradigmatic thinking strives for universal understanding of
general principles which must pass rigorous logical tests for truthfulness. In
contrast, narrative thinking develops understanding dependent on the observer’s
previous experiences. For example, in his book, Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Bruner uses the experience of
physicist Werner Heisenberg as he is walking through
The requirements for successful inferences for each way of knowing demonstrate another difference. Paradigmatic thinking is considered successful if it is able to generalize a principle and verify it through empirical truth. Paradigmatic thinking tries to convince someone of truth through argument. Narrative thinking is considered successful if it can be “true to conceivable experiences” (Bruner, 1986). The goal of narrative thinking is to convey the lifelikeness of human experience and conform to ways of human interaction.
Although narrative thinking appears to be more flexible in terms of perspective, paradigmatic thinking is not relegated to only one possible version of the world. Paradigmatic thinking considers the set of all possible worlds that an explanation can logically generate. Imagination, in terms of a paradigmatic way of thinking, has “good theory, tight analysis, logical proof, sound argument, and empirical discovery guided by reasoned hypothesis” (Bruner, 1986). On the other hand, imagination in terms of a narrative thinker has the “ability to see possible formal connections before one is able to prove them” (Bruner, 1986). Both types of imagination involve analytical thinking and intuitive thinking, and the definitions of imagination give evidence as to why Bruner prefers classifying ways of knowing as paradigmatic and narrative.
Several times in the book, Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Bruner references Sir Francis Bacon’s epigraph (translated), “neither the hand nor the mind alone, left to itself would amount to much” to argue for the use of a “toolkit” to progress language and learning. He believes that both ideas (the mind) and experiences (the hand) need to be evoked for learning to occur, which runs counter to rationalists. Rationalists believe that foundational concepts formed from reason, not from experience, were the groundwork for establishing knowledge, and that truths could be deduced from the foundational concepts with absolute certainty. The argument that a multiplicity of worlds exist simultaneously illustrates another concept that does not align with rationalism. Bruner uses Nelson Goodman’s argument that contradictions exist in human understanding, so a principled way to resolve the contradictions is to tolerate different worlds.
It would be difficult to support empiricism using narrative ways of thinking, but paradigmatic thinking has similar practices as empiricism. Because the basis of narrative thinking comes from the individual, it would be difficult to show a singular truth beyond a doubt through narrative means. Another reason it would be difficult to support an empirical argument though narrative means is the lack of precise measurements leading to generalizations found in the narrative method. There is a higher tolerance for ambiguity, and less of a need for outside verification in the narrative way of knowing. Paradigmatic ways of knowing depend upon verifiable references and testing of empirical truths, so it aligns well with empiricism. An empiricist would be more likely to adopt paradigmatic ways of thinking than narrative ways of thinking.
Constructivists would be able to argue ideas using both narrative and paradigmatic ways of knowing. Constructivism is contrary to the idea that there is one unique real world which is independent of human influence. Constructivists believe that people build their knowledge by attaching new knowledge to their prior conceptual framework. Bruner argues that science and art both originate from construction, but have different criteria for “right” thinking. The paradigmatic and narrative ways of thinking have different criteria for “rightness” but can both use the method of construction to develop knowledge.
Plato’s idea of realism has a basis in universals, not of specific individuals, but of the world, as if reality were in place before humans existed. Considering that narrative ways of knowing are concerned with individual explanation of perspectives, realism would not fit very well with narrative knowing. The understanding of narrative ways of knowing is successful if it is lifelike in a human sense, but realism is independent of the human experience. Narrative knowing and realism contrast because of the different roles humans play in each way of knowing. Paradigmatic ways of knowing disclaim any explanation where the particular is involved, and that is also a goal of realism. Paradigmatic knowing reaches away from everyday experience to embrace abstraction and testing of empirical truths. The incongruence between paradigmatic thinking and realism begins when you consider that there are a set of possible worlds from which problems can be solved logically. Bruner argues that once “we take as the world . . . itself no more nor less than a stipulation couched in a symbol system, then the shape of the discipline alters radically” (Bruner, 1986). When this premise is accepted, humans can deal with the multiple structures reality takes and address philosophical and educational matters in a more sophisticated manner.
When I studied engineering and science as an undergraduate, I was very much a paradigmatic thinker. I readily threw out any ideas that couldn’t be verified with empirical data. As I got older, I noticed the lack of humanity in that way of thinking, and decided to study Social Foundations of Education in graduate school. Having to think in a narrative way was difficult in the beginning, because I constantly tried to shore up my inferences about sociology and philosophy exclusively with empirical data. I found that if I used the criteria for paradigmatic thinking, I was unable to make any arguments to support important broad ideas in the social sciences. By the time I wrote my comprehensive exam, I was more adept at using narrative thinking to support important ideas and use personal experiences as evidence for arguments. I see value in both paradigmatic and narrative thinking and am constantly striving to use each way of knowing when it is appropriate.
References
Bruner, Jerome (1996). Actual
minds, possible worlds.
Bruner, Jerome (1977). The process of education.