I agree with the point about narrative structure, which is why I restacked the piece, but one might have applied the same argument with regard to the insurgent labour movement in the early 20th century. Movements learn and evolve, so, for me the fundamental question remains why Farage, Twice and Lowe are today's voice of insurgency.
because the "labour movement" operated in a political economy. we are now in an attention economy - two totally different market regimes (but with the same structures)
I presume that these two economies coexist, just as your diverse narrative structures coexist. My question thus remains unanswered and I also start to wonder about history/contingency and power, how these fit in your framework. I suppose, in other words, that I return to the critique of structuralism.
I agree with the point about narrative structure, which is why I restacked the piece, but one might have applied the same argument with regard to the insurgent labour movement in the early 20th century. Movements learn and evolve, so, for me the fundamental question remains why Farage, Twice and Lowe are today's voice of insurgency.
because the "labour movement" operated in a political economy. we are now in an attention economy - two totally different market regimes (but with the same structures)
I presume that these two economies coexist, just as your diverse narrative structures coexist. My question thus remains unanswered and I also start to wonder about history/contingency and power, how these fit in your framework. I suppose, in other words, that I return to the critique of structuralism.
They co-exist but are not complementary. my framework does not have structures as such. just parameters.
So my equation is the structure. Everything else is a parameter or derived from the first equation which covers the behaviour of indivduals.
“And one of three things would happen.”
You might also come down with a case of ‘Dubai Dick’ 😱
that is a very itchy complaint - i hope i never get it :D