I wanted to comment on my own entry for week 5 after thinking about the readings throughout this week.
I said that I was skeptical about the notion of placing emphasis on storytelling. I thought it was an exercise in futility because "story" is so broad and sweeping of a word. One can contrive anything as a story. That was what I wanted others to infer when I quoted the definition of story. Telling a story is just that-- telling. Why yes, we should communicate. Why is this an issue? Why are we reinventing the wheel? I have found three main faults with my line of thinking and have thus changed my mind.
The first fault in my initial view is one of a false analogy. When I say that I blame the creators of law of failing to be objective enough, I put the onus on lawmakers to better understand multiple views. In a perfect world, this wouldn't be that bad, but we don't live in a perfect world. There are existing hierarchies in the structure of law and society.
The second fault is the presumption that those in power will hear the voices of subordinate groups. A story is a narrative. If the narrative persuades or reinforces beliefs, then it has power. Therefore, stories themselves are a source of power. The subordinate groups are already silenced. Like in the case of Mrs. G, they are afraid to speak. If they are silenced, then those in power, even though it might be unintentional, might never hear those different views.
The third and final fault is that I presume that those in power will sooner or later reason out inequities in law. By placing that responsibility on lawmakers, I further perpetuate the structure of dominance. This encourages the class in power to do a better job, but neglects the possibility that someone with a different viewpoint might come up with a better argument or premise that someone has forgotten.
So, I slightly change my mind. Rather than feeling passively about storytelling, I encourage it. Speak up.