Story Practice, Transformative Narrative and Discourse

Wikibooks describes discourse as 'the use of living language'. (http://www.wikibooks.org/.)

Here are some others:

• the totality of codified linguistic usages attached to a given type of social practice. Eg: legal discourse, medical discourse, religious discourse.(www.revue-texto.net/Reperes/Glossaires/Glossaire_en.html)
• a coherent piece of spoken and/or written language in a specific context. A discourse may be a whole text (for example, a personal letter or an entire conversation), or it may be part of a text that conveys related meanings (for example, several exchanges, within a dialogue ...)  (tki.org.nz/r/language/curriculum/german/glossary_e.php)
• a contiguous stretch of language comprising more than one sentence (text) or utterance (speech). (portal.bibliotekivest.no/terminology.htm)
• utterances or text larger than a sentence; sequences of sentences and interchange and their relation to social interaction, dominance, and collaboration (www1.appstate.edu/~mcgowant/3610glos.htm)

All of these definitions go some way to explaining why we need to be mindful of discourse in story practice. Discourse describes both the narrative and how it is told. Because a narrative requires a receiver, it is also about the discourse that goes on for him or her (each one, because there will most likely be many).

We all make the mistake of thinking that the story is truth, and that there is only one way to interpret it. This way of thinking, as flawed as it is, gets us through the day. We can't go around examining all sides of everything we hear - we have to get on with our lives, so we hear something, make a decision about it, and move on.

In story practice, we cannot do this. In order to truly appreciate it, we have to understand and accept its discourse - its way of telling - otherwise we cannot come close to appreciating the story, or the transformation that has occurred, is occurring, or will occur behind it.

Unfortunately, schools (and societies) are not geared to training us to understanding the marvelous workings of discourse. This is because educators, and societies themselves on the whole, are more in the business of telling, persuading, or straight out forcing, us to act in particular ways. They don't want us to analyse the discourse too much. Political speeches are all discourse and no substance - people love hearing them because they can side with the person they want, and find plenty of reasons to shoot holes in the other's arguments. We all know that politicians lie, but that doesn't stop millions of people from enjoying the discourse.

The discourse of story practice is a little bit more muddy, because applied stories must reflect and describe the uniqueness of the protagonists, the situations in which they find themselves, their reflections on these situations, and the actions they take. Of course, if the same protagonist provides several narratives, we will usually find similarities in their discourse, and their style, but in story practice we might find a million stories by a million people, and each one involves a rethink.

Above all of these stories, story practice is developing its own discourse; one that has been artificially arrived at in order to integrate the stories into a 'genre' or 'kind of literature'. It would be sad indeed if this discourse became a template or prototype that could simply be followed. Stories would become more stylised and less unique, which goes against everything story practice stands for.

Respect for a transformative narrative must involve an understanding of, and an appreciation for, the particular discourse that provides the nuts and bolts that underpin it.

Story practitioners who are not the protagonists in the stories have an extra responsibility, to ensure the discourse is faithful to the individual as much as it is faithful to the genre of story practice.