Narrative Deliberation? On Storytelling as a Necessary Component of Public Deliberation

This paper deals with the place of narrative, that is, storytelling, in public deliberation. A distinction is made between weak and strong conceptions of narrative. According to the weak one, storytelling is but one rhetorical device among others with which social actors produce and convey meaning. In contrast, the strong conception holds that narrative is necessary to communicate, and argue, about topics such as the human experience of time, collective identities and the moral and ethical validity of values. The upshot of this idea is that storytelling should be a necessary component of any ideal of public deliberation. Contrary to recent work by deliberative theorists, who tend to adopt the weak conception of narrative, the author argues for embracing the strong one. The main contention of this article is that stories not only have a legitimate place in deliberation, but are even necessary to formulate certain arguments in the fi rst place; for instance, arguments drawing on historical experience. This claim, namely that narrative is constitutive of certain arguments, in the sense that, without it, said reasons cannot be articulated, is illustrated by deliberative theory’s own narrative underpinnings. Finally, certain possible objections against the strong conception of narrative are dispelled.

A philosophy in action: Carl Einstein and Die Fabrikation der Fiktionen

Carl Einstein is a not very well known figure within German culture, but his essay Die Fabrikation der Fiktionen remains ignored even among scholars of his work despite containing highly valuable clues to understand the intersection between philosophy and politics that characterizes much of the European thought of the twentieth century. Given this situation, after an initial part where the author’s personality and his latest ideas and actions are taken in account, the article makes a thorough review of Die Fabrikation der Fiktionen by doing firstly a comparison of the different interpretations that it has received until now, and continues by carrying out a new reading of its main ideas –the conflict between Realität and Wirklichkeit or the very concept of Fiktion– and an exercise of contrast between the essay and certain works by contemporary thinkers like Siegfried Kracauer and Paul Nizan.