(My thoughts in this post may not break new ground in narrative studies or be foreign to readers of AMV. I share them, however, as part of my continued project to elaborate a uniquely Mormon vision of language by exploring what uniquely Mormon texts, LDS scripture in particular can teach about the value and work of words.)
In Alma’s discourse on faith, he spends a great deal of time elaborating his central conceit. After exploring the need for humility and dispelling the notion that to place faith in something is to know that thing completely, he calls his audience to make a place in their being where they could at least receive and consider the character of his words. Then he introduces his extended metaphor: “we will compare the word unto a seed.” He continues by outlining some criteria for the seed’s growth: it needs to be planted, it needs to be a healthy seed, and it needs to not be tinkered with but left to interact with the soil.
My focus in this brief note is on Alma’s statement about the seed’s health—if it be a true seed, or a good seed—and what his language (as I read it) can teach us about narrative ethics.
The structure of the statement suggests that Alma felt compelled to modify the adjective he wanted to describe the seed. His rhetorical move prioritizes “good” over “true,” a priority supported by the fact that he uses “good” not “true” through the rest of the discourse. Alma’s revision of this condition suggests to me that there may be more value in privileging the goodness of words, the character of language, over their truth—their supposed correlation to reality. In this light, maybe the questions we should ask about a narrative aren’t “Is it true?” or “How true is it?” but “Is it good?” or “What good does it do or encourage its audience to do?”
The prioritization of a narrative’s goodness over its truth is an act of privileging narrative function and ethics over narrative content. Many people (including—maybe especially—Mormons) focus on the latter over the former; Alma suggests that we should flip that focus and attend to how words act upon us as individuals and social groups. He wants us, then, to see language and narrative as moral acts that can change us, our relationships, and the world.
2 thoughts on ““If it be a true seed, or a good seed”: A Brief Note on Narrative Ethics”
“Interesting question. Bizarrely enough, I was blogging about Alma’s seed just last week in a post titled, “The Story of a Shy (but secretly sassy and judgmental) Teenager Who Would Not Bear Her Testimony–Part I” at http://plainwords.weebly.com. I ended up being caught by the same wording issue as a teenager, which helped resolve my concerns with bearing my testimony and saying, “I know the church is true.”
“The prioritization of a narrative’s goodness over its truth is an act of privileging narrative function and ethics over narrative content. ”
I agree, although think that at some point you have to connect the function and ethics to truth. That is, if the ethics is too narrowly defined, you run the risk of lapsing into a simplistic “do no harm” version of narrative function which may be better than so much of the narrative we currently get, but not quite sufficient for what we need.