ABSTRACT
Does anyone intentionally tell something that we could call a master narrative? How much resistance or diversion do counter narratives embody? Can we always divide competing narratives into master and counter narratives? In aiming to answer such questions, this chapter explores the conceptual ambiguities attached to the terms of counter and master narrative; it sets out to investigate their different ontological statuses and potential uses in narrative research. The distinctive point of departure in this chapter is Jerome Bruner’s narrative theory. Building on it, the chapter takes a different path from the metonymic heritage of the Lyotardian “grand narratives,” which, on closer analysis, seldom pass for proper narratives. The chapter addresses the role of master narratives as a form of narrative conventionality and structure. The theory of master and counter narratives is eventually tested by reading stories from a column “Vaikea tapaus” [A difficult case] published in a Finnish weekly journal for medical professionals.
