The Value of Technology in the Space of Narrative: A Comparative Assessment

 

Jeffrey Benjamin White

 

 

In a recent article, William McKenna offers an analysis of inter-cultural objectivity as a tool toward reconciling differences in the ways that subjects of diverse cultures understand the world.  His discussion begins with the notion that members of diverse cultures have an accordingly diverse understanding of the world and of their places in it.  He notes that when such a culturally given understanding is naively appropriated, the differences between other cultural views can lead to “bias” against those different views and against the members of those cultures who hold those views.  In order to overcome such bias, McKenna offers a method, “situated objectivity,” which “requires the participation in different cultures in order to be achieved.”  The bridge that he identifies between different cultures runs through the objects that members of different cultures practically share.  In enjoining in different, culturally determined engagements with these shared objects, persons are able to come to terms with the world as if from another person's point of view, thereby overcoming bias.

 

But, participation in a different culture entails more than engaging with common objects in different ways.  It means altering one's understanding of the very stories in terms of which one lives his or her life.  Different cultures count different situations as happy endings, for instance.  This paper assesses the implications of narrative on situated objectivity.  It finds that the evaluation of common objects depends on the role of these objects in the space of the narrative in which they, and their appropriate engagements, are embedded.

 

The paper then turns its attention to an evaluation of development as 'progress toward a shared happy ending.'  It deconstructs 'progress' from the Western perspective, iterating characteristic marks of Western progress.  It then questions the facility of the importation of these characteristic marks into an Eastern perspective.  What happens to traditional narratives and notions of happy endings?  Does this count as an import, at all, or are these objects already essentially shared?  What could progress look like, when a vision of the developed future is extended from traditional Eastern evaluations?  The analysis reveals some very fortunate consequences.