Two Key Centres

The existing explanations cannot be ignored in developing a shared framework without potentially humiliating those offering or using them. At the same time, any existing 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 Centre draw on very different processes: the CL2-framework is systematic and comprehensive: which suggests it needs to includes factors relevant to popular explanations. Explanations may well indicate what needs to be modelled and where structure is missing.

The CL1-explanation is focused on salience, plausibility and popular beliefs: which suggests it needs to draw on aspects of any widely shared framework. The framework can help explanations be more coherent, consistent and grounded.

CL3_P-underlying polarization 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.

CL3S-tensions are overt while the CL2-shared framework is an abstraction. The shared framework must allow for the possibility of tensions, which it may or may not do. Because tensions are universal, any framework will raise the question of exactly what they are likely to be.

In a similar way, when tensions are identified, they can question the sufficiency or coherence of the shared framework.

The CL2B framework and the CL4B-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 CL4B-narrative remains the primary account of the situation, especially if endorsed by standards and principles, and while there must be a core that remains intact and unchanged, it must accommodate adjustments that flow from differences in context if it is to remain viable.

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 and acceptable in the particular setting.

CL4_B-narratives to be credible must accord with and recognize CL6_S-authoritative standards. That means conforming to their requirements, appealing to them, and generally endorsing their significance.

The standards will be used to judge a narrative and constrain or modify it to ensure it is legitimate and deserves to be accepted. The accepted narrative will therefore be endorsed by the standards.

CL6_P-principles enable a person to judge, value and ultimately accept any given CL4_B-narrative. Conversely, the narrative will evoke or activate certain principles in a person.

The principles grant consent to the narrative, permitting it to be accepted as reasonable and legitimate. Any proposed narrative must consent to the application of a diverse variety of principles from many individuals.

The CL5S-prevailing mindset is a rather generalized outlook on the situation and it develops to make any accepted CL4B-narrative seem credible or at least plausible.

The accepted narrative is a more complicated evolutionary account of the situation and it will be most accepted if it confirms the validity of the popular way of thinking about he situation.

CL5_P-convictions are based on radically simplifying a complicated CL4_B-narrative to suit the person's understanding. So a person will always appeal to the narrative for justification of those convictions.

While the narrative justifies a person's convictions, a person will also use their convictions to accept and justify acceptance of the narrative.

CL3_P polarities are socially disturbing and often pushed out of public consciousness. Those individuals aware of polarization therefore generate a pressure for the CL4_B-narrative to incorporate and explain their role in the evolution of the situation.

In order for the CL4_B-narrative to be generally accepted, pressure can be placed on polarities to remain hidden or accept obscuring, softening or reframing. Individuals who recognize the importance of the polarity are likely to push back against such handling.

CL3_S-tensions relate to human concerns, social conflicts and often perennial struggles. So CL4_B-narratives must incorporate with identifiable CL3S-tensions if they are to be credible and acceptable.

Existing tensions depend on the narrative as a frame for clarifying their impact on the situation and their evolution over time.