I’ve heard old people describe my generation as, more than previous generations, refusing to nod along when wisdom is dispensed. We have to learn our lessons the hard way, we instinctively ask “why” when given an order, etc. I don’t know if this is typical “In my day…” malarky, but I’ve certainly heard it enough to make me feel like it’s becoming conventional wisdom.
If true, then has the concept of the parable become worthless? Or was it always worthless? Thinking of the classic parables from childhood, like the boy who cried wolf, or Hansel and Gretel, I’m not impressed by their impact on me. The lesson is either common enough that I learned it on my own (Hansel and Gretel is much less effective than the intense terror of getting separated from Mom in the supermarket), or it’s obscure enough that I’d never actually reference the parable in my day to day to life.
On top of that, simplistic parables seem to suffer from the classic meme contradictions, like he who hesitates is lost, but slow and steady wins the race.
In the other thread, someone says that Genesis is a useful parable because it teaches you to respect authority, to respect the rights of a property owner, and that the consequences of your own bad decisions can also affect your loved ones. Those seem like the sorts of life lessons that your average 6 year old has already figured out, and I’m not sure some nebulous story about naked people talking to a snake would have any more of a profound impact than getting grounded for not listening to mom and dad.
But maybe that’s just my insolent generation talking.
For myself, I’d say that parables are more useful as ways of remembering the concept, then for learning the concept itself. The problem I had with classic parables is the lack of explaining why something is useful. It wasn’t until I was actually in an appropriate situation, and often after multiple times, that I actually understood the parable.
The thing is, I’m not sure that wasn’t always the purpose.
Parables are examples, ways to help your audience visualize something that’s hard to explain. Many of the ones in the Bible don’t make as much sense to people whose only approach to agriculture is a potted geranium, but I use the parable technique quite often when I teach/train. This includes many activities which aren’t labeled anywhere as being “teaching”, but which require me to make sure that people understand what exactly is needed of them and why - for example, taking requirements for a new computer program. I don’t just go and ask “what do you want the program to do?”, I explain how I need them to structure, prioritize and organize their answers and why (so I can do a better job of giving them the best results/cost ratio). The explanation usually takes the form of trying to use examples from their own daily work: parables.
If I tell someone “your saying ‘this is a piece of shit’ doesn’t do anything for me, I can’t help you unless you’re more precise”, I’m being oppositional and they react with hostility. If I tell them “does it help you when someone calls you saying ‘this piece of shit doesn’t work’?” they instantly say “hell no!” - they understand me perfectly and we’re on the same side!
I see what you’re both saying though – as a teaching tool, it’s a useful way to get someone to remember the lesson. “Here’s a rule I’m giving you, and here’s a story you can relate to so you’ll remember my words in the future.” In order for this to work, the listener needs to be a willing recipient of the message.
I can totally see the usefulness of Nava’s example, because as an adult in a classroom/training setting, I’d be eager to learn the lessons of the teacher.
As a child, rules were horrible things enforced on me that prevented me from having any fun, so I wouldn’t have been quite so eager to remember the lesson. Also, classic parables are far from timeless, which makes them much less effective.
Only because our society and our jobs have changed so much in relatively-recent times, since the industrial revolution. In the 18th century, priests didn’t need to spend half of a sermon explaining the agricultural background: people knew it, they lived it.
I think a good parable has real value. It’s basically a metaphor used to show the value of some ethical principle.
The parable is presumably being addressed to some person who doesn’t see the need to apply some ethical principle to a given situation. The parable illustrates the value of the principle in some other neutral situation, which reaffirms the general value of the principle. The listener will then hopefully be willing to apply that principle to his own situation.
I remember in high school when I was first learning the basics of calculus like limits, derivatives, and integrals. Most of the students struggled with these concepts because they seemed really theoretical and didn’t really have much practical use. I was also taking physics at the same time and, conveniently enough, examples of how those concepts were useful in that context made them click for me and I, and others who were also in both classes with me, had little trouble picking it up. It’s the same sort of idea with parables, that giving a context and such an example helps the lesson solidify. Afterall, our brains tend to work with connecting concepts much better than just straight up logic.
And these sorts of things have plenty of practical application with understanding lessons. Of course it seems trivial that a 6 year old today might understand certain concepts, but our society has changed a lot over time and we’ve learned what lessons are important to teach early and we focus on them. But we also have to realize that those children learn through example at first as well, which is more or less a stronger case of parable since the story actually happens to them. For instance, children learn to respect authority because they’ve been disciplined countless times for disobeying authority.
Sure, there’s plenty of parables that are contradictory, but they are illustrating different points in different cases, and life is much the same way. The OP’s example of hesitation is lost and slow and steady seem contradictory, but the hesitation one is for someone who hesitates too much and slow and steady is for someone who rushes things. In the end, they really push toward a mutual lesson of moderation and not waiting too long nor rushing into things.
It’s like I once heard described in this way. There are three types of people, those who can be told fire is hot and believe it, those who have to see someone get burned before they believe it, and those who have to touch it themselves before they believe it. Obviously, it’s a bit more nuanced than that, depending on the situation, but there are plenty of situations of the second type, and that’s where parables are useful, that they teach the lesson where simply telling it to them doesn’t work and it potentially saves them a painful experience of having to directly experience the negative consequences before it makes sense.
And the REAL lesson of the boy who cried wolf is NOT that you shouldn’t lie, as most people claim, but rather, that you should not tell the same lie TWICE.
Not just that. I recall a quote from some priest or other complaining that the lesson people got from the parable of the Good Samaritan was that “Samaritans are good people”. To work as well as it did when it was created, the “Samaritan” character would need to instead be from a group that is presently feared or despised by the people you are reciting the parable to. A Muslim, gay, atheist, Communist, Iranian, whatever.
