Well, she didn’t lie, exactly. But a British anthropologist has suggested the fairy tale, Little Red Riding Hood, is far older than previously known. The Telegraph has the details:
Dr Jamie Tehrani, a cultural anthropologist at Durham University, studied 35 versions of Little Red Riding Hood from around the world. Whilst the European version tells the story of a little girl who is tricked by a wolf masquerading as her grandmother, in the Chinese version a tiger replaces the wolf.
Contrary to the view that the tale originated in France shortly before Charles Perrault produced the first written version in the 17th century, Dr Tehrani found that the varients shared a common ancestor dating back more than 2,600 years.
Using techniques biologists use to create taxonomies, Tehrani traced variants of the story as far as the sixth century B.C., and speculated a common ancestor in the even deeper past. Our narrative habits go way back. Therein lies a tale.
Humans use stories to organize their thoughts, their lives, their beliefs, and their actions. I’ve used the story of Little Red Riding Hood to teach the importance of narratives. It is commonly believed we can persuade by using the right word or frame. But words come in stories. People think in terms of heroes, villains, victims, hero helpers, etc. The habits of narrative are so ingrained that people fill them in for the storyteller if the teller leaves a blank, falls short, or uses a word or frame out of place.
If the glove doesn’t fit, the story must quit. If the Big Bad Wolf suddenly urges tolerance and waxes on about compassion, the story falls apart.
Did you really believe the headline above: “Little Red Riding Hood Lied About Her Age”? Probably not. It might have made you want to read on so you could watch this writer fall off the high wire (yes, the telling follows its own narrative arc, just like the tale). But the headline is so preposterous – Red’s a heroine, after all – it would never be believed. Which is why the claim was corrected quickly – after the reader’s attention was grabbed but before the writer plummeted to credibility death on the floor of the circus tent.
This is exactly how tabloid headline writers work, by the way. The old bait-and-switch. It is, when you think about it, just what the Big Bad Wolf did to Red.
You ask, if narrative expectations matter, why then do people believe the gossipy garbage? Because what’s garbage to us is narrative caviar to them. It meets their narrative expectations. They live in different narrative universe, a universe in which Elvis lives, an east wind brings disease, and presidents are illegal aliens. Frolicking in these narratives, they take the bait. So, by the way, do we, when the bait fits the narratives of our own encampment.
A hero in one narrative universe is a villain in another. So when you can’t understand how somebody could believe that, chances are the stories circulating in their heads are very different from those circulating in yours. This does not mean, by the way, that truth is relative. People once told stories about the curative power of leeches. Humans lost a lot of blood. The truth does, ultimately, matter.
Getting folks to abandon or alter their narratives is hard. It is a bit easier with open-minded folks who have the good habit of living with a bit of humility and uncertainty. To paraphrase some sage advice, they are more willing to turn the other narrative. Most people though, are lifelong creatures of narrative habit. Red notices the Wolf’s teeth are too big to be her grandmother’s, but she still must be rescued by a hunter.
Racism is, in part, a problem of narrative stickiness. People might learn there are drawbacks to publicly displaying bigoted opinions, but the underlying narratives are still their in their heads and hearts, doing what narratives have always done, creating a universe of belief and action. They will not change unless they are constantly challenged. Even then, it may take generations. Meanwhile, here’s yet another version of Little Red Riding Hood, a new cover of an old song telling the story in a new medium.
Great essay. Thanks so much for writing it.
“Getting folks to abandon or alter their narratives is hard.” — I think this is one way to understand the language employed on blogs, and elsewhere, in referring to the political party “other.” During the Bush administration, some Republicans referred to Democrats as “democraps,” while some Democrats referred to Republicans as “rethuglicans.” The use of such labels is silly, but of course, both grows out of and reinforces the “narrative habit.” Or maybe another way of thinking of it, proclaims and reinforces the known and comfortable “brand,” and the attending loyalty to it.
The social / political narratives of our culture(s) frequently, maybe always, include an either / or factor. It seems the narrative won’t work without a “them” for “us” to be better than, the victims of, whatever.
Of course politics makes use of the existing, primary narratives. And you are so right, that the narratives “will not change unless they are constantly challenged.” I’m wondering — are there any narrative-free ways to so challenge? I’m thinking the best starting place is becoming as aware as possible of our own narrative framing.
Joyce, you nailed it.
It is, obviously, mind-opening, but it also gives insight into the power of cultural narratives in others. Very well taken points, Joyce. I hope others come down in the comments and see what you had to say.
I’ve been sharing DogCanyon pieces with my conservative friends. Will that help?
Them? I hope so!!
“… gives insight into the power of cultural narratives in others.”
That’s part of the struggle, isn’t it, allowing myself to see and gain understanding about the narrative power which differs from mine. So my narrative has to be, what, big enough, open enough, for conversation. Something like that. Of course, if the differing narrative won’t allow for conversation, we’re in a bit of a bind. Self-fulfilling, us and them narratives seem to spend a great deal of time and energy creating and reinforcing boundaries and restrictions, and basically working diligently to avoid actual conversation with actual people. But, I certainly think the efforts, even if at the boundaries of differing and/or competing narratives is worth the effort. So for what it’s worth, Patty, I think it’s great that you’re sharing DogCanyon pieces with conservative friends
.
Yes, yes, yes, to Patty’s sharing. I was trying to be funny with my little abrupt “them?” But should have used a laughing emoticon.
Joyce, you are probing the problem. What do we do when the narratives of those we disagree with include a story in which the integrity or sanctity of their stories must be protected at all costs? In other words, if they have a core value about protecting their narratives? Close-mindedness, if I may use the term, becomes essential for them. This is an existing worldview among many. History hasn’t proven it to be too evolutionarily successful in any one case, but it keeps reappearing. In other words, the stories of these folks might change to make the world a little less crazy for them, but they reach again for the “protect the authority” story to include along with the new ones.
Perhaps a greater problem is that we open-minded ones are not really as open-minded as we think, and that’s why the work on self-awareness you suggest is so crucial. As I said, though, there is truth, and there are values we should hold to. Open-minded tolerance does not mean passivity or cultural relativity. It just means we’re watching ourselves closely while we advance our thoughts.
A lot of our conversation has to do with the words we use. If we use terms like “lame brains” and “idiots”, you can rest assured our efforts will fall on deaf ears. What I like about DogCanyon is that the appeal is generic and subtle. Thanks for that!
You’re right about words being used that can distance people from one another. Of course, sometimes the other ears are already deaf. And sometimes we need to say, “Don’t follow those crazy people over a cliff.” We’re not talking to the crazy people, we’re talking to the not-so-crazy who are caught in the crowd. There will be times when DC casts subtlety to the winds, but not without a valid purpose (albeit, “valid” from our perspective).
Oh yes, I totally agree — “It just means we’re watching ourselves closely while we advance our thoughts.” The “advancing” part, that points to a process. Narratives can evolve, change, add new characters and new ideas. Or they can if the narrative itself allows for such.
And I agree that we open-minded certainly aren’t always as open-minded as we think. Okay, taking responsibility — I know I’m not always as open-minded as I think / want to be. I suppose the awareness we need includes that piece of insight as much as anything else. Finding the balance — that’s a challenge in itself, because I think you’re right, that there is a core value in protecting the narrative itself. I know some very bright, intelligent people who have convinced themselves that President Obama really doesn’t have a valid U.S. birth certificate. Geez, I have two U.S. Senators (Cornyn and Hutchison), and a representative who routinely use key narrative language like “government takeover.” I wonder if this really reflects their personal narratives, but clearly fits a convenient and powerful conservative political narrative. Hmm, which then makes me wonder about personal narratives and public narratives.
Patty,I think you make a very important point about our use of words. Clearly efforts at actual conversation will fail when words like “idiot” are used.