Two Key Centres

Existing explanations cannot be ignored in using a shared framework without potentially humiliating those adhering to them. At the same time, any shared framework cannot be ignored in developing even superficial explanations without appearing to be ignorant. So a channel of influence must be present.

The two Centres draw on very different processes: the CL2-framework is systematic and comprehensive: which suggests it needs to include factors relevant to plausible explanations. Explanations may well indicate what needs to be modelled and where structure is missing.

The CL1-explanation is focused on plausibility, which is enhanced if it draws on aspects of a widely shared framework. The framework can help explanations be more coherent, consistent and grounded. In this way it provides for a more formal plausibility.

CL3_P-underlying polarities is about deep, often implicit, opposing forces in the situation. The CL2_B framework by contrast is a simplified public schema which typically omits cultural, ideological and emotional factors intrinsic to polarization.

Polarization therefore provocatively introduces elements that the framework is ill-equipped to handle. Conversely, the framework will itself provoke those preoccupied with social conflicts generally to reveal how these polarities apply in the situation.

CL3_S-concerns for tensions are pressing and immediate while the CL2_B-shared framework is an abstraction that endures. Tensions are universal and frameworks must allow for them. However, there will be a question of how relevant the tensions are to the framework's depiction.

When tensions are identified as a matter for concern, they can question the sufficiency or even coherence of the existing shared framework.

The CL2_B-framework and the CL4_B-narrative are similar in that both are offered as coherent and comprehensive models. However, the framework is static in nature and commonly general across a variety of situations within a category, while the narrative is dynamic, evolutionary and specific to a particular situation.

The framework gives structure and analytic power to the narrative and indicates its scope, while the narrative provides actual content for the framework's abstractions, generating depth and life.

The CL4_B-narrative remains the primary account of the reality of the situation, especially if supported by other Centres. There must be a narrative core that remains intact and viable even while it accommodates adjustments that flow from differences in context.

Context can have a powerful effect on how matters are viewed and what is done, but CL7_B-contextual adaptations have strict limits. They must accommodate the given narrative while ensuring that it remains usable in the particular setting.

Credible CL4_B-narratives will accord with CL6_S-authoritative reports. That means broadly conforming to their contents, appealing to them, and generally endorsing their significance.

In turn, such reports will be used to judge a narrative and may constrain or modify it to ensure it is legitimate and deserves to be sustained. Any accepted narrative will therefore be expected to be endorsed by authoritative reporting.

CL6_P-relevant standards enable a person to judge, value and ultimately accept, qualify or reject any given CL4_B-narrative. Relevant personally-owned standards therefore determine psychological consent to the narrative.

Conversely, popular narratives must consent to the application of a diverse variety of principles from many individuals.

The CL5_S-prevailing mindset is a rather generalized outlook on the situation and it needs to confirm that any CL4_B-popular narrative is credible and realistic.

The accepted narrative is a more complicated account of the situation and its evolution. It will be most readily accepted if it is in accord with and confirms the validity of the popular way of thinking about such situations.

CL5_P-versions are based on simplifying and re-wording a CL4_B-narrative to suit the person's understanding. So a person will always appeal to the narrative to justify and confirm their version.

Similarly, when an individual sustains a popular narrative, they will draw on and appeal to their version of the situation.

CL3_P-polarities are socially disturbing and often pushed out of public consciousness. Those individuals aware of polarization and its importance therefore put pressure on any CL4_B-narrative to incorporate and explain their role in the evolution of the situation.

In order for the CL4_B-narrative to be popularly accepted, pressure can be placed on members to keep polarities hidden, softened or re-framed. Individuals who recognize the importance of the polarity are likely to push back against such handling.

CL3_S-tensions refer to disputes and social conflicts that are difficult or even impossible to ignore. So a CL3_S-narrative will not be persuasive if it does not somehow incorporate them. The narrative is therefore constrained to provide a frame for clarifying their nature, impact, and evolution over time.

However, tensions also constrain the narrative which should be articulated in a way that does not exacerbate tensions in the situation or inflame any of the participants.

This channel was examined above.

Narratives can coexist with a wide variety of explanations of particular situations and any influence is exerted by way of evident tensions and shared frameworks. Similarly, explanations cannot influence narratives without mediation by some framework or evident polarizing tensions.