“They immerse themselves in the story, striving to experience vicariously the events and emotions that the protagonists experience… [and] when they hear or read stories, audiences suspend their proclivity to counter argue, that is, to raise doubts about the veracity or relevance of the information they are hearing. They truly suspend disbelief, and they do so in a way that has lasting effects. The attitudinal change brought about by stories tends to persist or even increase over time (Appel and Richter2007). Tell an absorbing story, this research suggests, and you can win people to your cause”
“The other problem lies in the norms governing how stories are heard and evaluated: when they are considered appropriate, believable, serious, and so on. Such norms are historical, but also institutional. This is why activists telling stories of their victimization have fared better in the media than in court. In the media, activists’ stories have been heard as those of “Every person.” Activists have been able to connect their own experiences to a larger normative point. In court, by contrast, storytellers have been expected to hew to familiar images of victims—passive, pitiable, and like all other victims—and then penalized when they have done so”
No comments:
Post a Comment