Revisiting the Narrative Turns

This article reconsiders (self-)critically the constitution of the scholarly phenomenon called the 'narrative turn'. Based on the intellectual autobiographical experiences of the author, it is argued that the turn may be understood as having proceeded in three successive phases: as an interest in narrative theory and research; as recognition of narrative inquiry as a field; and as an explicit identity concept. In order to resist straightforward chronology, it is suggested that instead of one fixed narrative turn, we should talk about at least four different turns with different agendas and attitudes toward narrative: firstly, the turn in literary theory in the 1960s; the turn in historiography following literary narratology; the turn in social sciences from the 1980s onwards; and finally a more broadly cultural and societal turn to narration. There is no simple plotline or causal chain between these layers; instead they tend to receive locally idiosyncratic articulations. Understanding the different agendas of different disciplines is understood to be crucial for cross-disciplinary discussions, and may help to reformulate individual scholars' own sets of priorities. Keywords: narrativenarrative turnnarratologysocial sciences Notes 1. This article is part of my larger project, 'The Conceptual History of Narrative', funded by the Academy of Finland. A more extensive list of references is available in my 'Towards'. 2. I am grateful to Anu Korhonen and Markku Hyrkkänen for important comments on this section. 3. Louis Mink's most essential articles were collected and published posthumously in Historical Understanding. His History and Fiction as Modes of Comprehension was originally published in 1970; and Narrative Form as a Cognitive Instrument in 1978.