If ideology is an illicit unity, then its first component must be isolated.
We begin with narrative.
But as what it is when stripped of these functions:
a semiotic system of construal.
1. The explanatory reflex
Ideological narratives are almost always explained by what they do:
- they justify positions
- they mobilise supporters
- they sustain power
- they bind communities
Even critical accounts retain this structure.
Narrative is treated as instrumental to alignment.
This is the same mistake we encountered before.
It assumes that meaning exists in order to coordinate value.
2. Narrative as construal
Set that aside.
Narrative does something more specific—and more radical:
it brings forth a world as intelligible.
- it organises events into sequences
- it assigns roles (heroes, villains, victims)
- it establishes causal relations
- it frames what counts as significant
This is not representation.
It is actualisation through construal.
There is no narrative “about” a world that exists independently.
The world appears through narrative.
3. No intrinsic force
Once understood this way, a crucial consequence follows:
Narrative has no intrinsic power to bind or compel.
It does not:
- force alignment
- generate commitment
- ensure participation
It can:
- vary
- contradict
- proliferate
- coexist with alternatives
And often does.
4. The evidence of variation
The moment we stop assuming coherence, we see:
- individuals drawing on multiple, incompatible narratives
- shifts in framing across contexts
- partial uptake without full articulation
From the perspective of value, this looks unstable.
From the perspective of meaning, it is simply:
variation within a semiotic potential.
5. Against instrumentalism
A common response is to insist:
narratives are tools used to influence behaviour.
But this still subordinates meaning to value.
It treats narrative as secondary—an instrument for coordination.
The alternative is sharper:
coordination may recruit narrative,but narrative does not exist for coordination.
It operates on different terms.
6. Coexistence without resolution
Freed from the demand to bind, narrative behaves differently:
- contradictions persist without collapse
- multiple framings remain available
- shifts occur without systemic breakdown
There is no requirement that narratives resolve into a single coherent worldview.
7. The illusion of necessity
So why do ideological narratives feel compelling?
Why do they seem to demand alignment?
Because they are encountered already coupled:
- embedded in patterns of evaluation
- reinforced through repetition
- linked to participation
Under these conditions, narrative appears:
- necessary
- self-evident
- binding
But this necessity is not inherent.
It is produced through coupling.
8. Narrative in the absence of alignment
When partially decoupled, narrative reveals its autonomy:
- ironic or strategic use of ideological language
- selective uptake of frames without commitment
- rapid shifts in discourse without behavioural change
Meaning continues.
Alignment does not necessarily follow.
9. The analytic consequence
If narrative does not bind, then it cannot explain:
- why people align
- why groups stabilise
- why conflict persists
Those belong to the other side of the relation.
What remains is precise:
Narrative is a system of construal that organises intelligibility without determining action.
10. The shift in focus
This allows a different set of questions:
- What distinctions does a narrative make available?
- What roles does it distribute?
- What sequences does it render intelligible?
- How does it vary across contexts?
Without asking what it “causes.”
11. The unfinished relation
With this, half the structure is exposed.
- meaning without binding
- variation without necessity
But the appearance of unity remains.
Because the other side has not yet been isolated.
No comments:
Post a Comment