Can a society share meaning without surrendering pluralism?

 

Narratives as the Meaning-Making Infrastructure of Society

Human societies are organized not only through institutions, material conditions, and rules, but also through shared narratives. Narratives connect events into interpretations of the past, present, and future. They identify actors, construct causal and moral relationships, mobilize emotions, shape collective identities, and influence which institutions and political decisions appear legitimate[1].

A narrative is more specific than a general discourse, frame, or ideology[2]. It contains at least a temporal sequence, positioned actors, causal or moral connections, and an implicit or explicit plot. Narratives operate at different levels, from personal life stories to religious traditions, national identities, and global interpretations. These levels interact: individuals interpret themselves through collective stories, while personal and group experiences can gradually transform dominant narratives.

Narratives fulfil three central functions. First, they reduce complexity by organizing social reality into understandable patterns. Because human knowledge is limited, people require interpretative frameworks to connect causes, intentions, consequences, and expectations[3]. Second, narratives give emotions direction. They influence whether events evoke hope, solidarity, fear, resentment, or moral indignation and can thereby mobilize collective action. Third, they provide existential orientation by connecting personal experiences of vulnerability, suffering, responsibility, and mortality to broader histories and visions of the future.

Narratives are neither neutral descriptions nor autonomous forces. Narrative form does not make all accounts epistemically equivalent. A story may organize verified facts, interpret uncertain events, express moral meaning, or deliberately conceal evidence. Public judgement must therefore ask at least three different questions: whether factual claims are sufficiently supported; whether the interpretation is open to competing explanations; and whether the narrative respects the equal standing of those it describes. Pluralism protects disagreement over meaning, but it does not require indifference to fabrication, impersonation, or demonstrably false claims. They emerge through interactions among individual experience, social communication, historical events, cultural traditions, emotions, institutions, material conditions, and power. They become socially durable when embodied in education, rituals, symbols, laws, media, commemorations, and everyday practices[4]. These structures preserve continuity across generations but can also privilege certain interpretations and marginalize others.

Social reality is partly constructed through narratives because classifications, roles, identities, and institutions depend on shared interpretation. Yet reality is not reducible to narrative. Material, biological, institutional, and ecological conditions continue to constrain what societies can plausibly believe and sustain. Narratives interpret reality and influence action, but they cannot abolish factual or ecological limits.

Narrative knowledge is always selective. By highlighting certain events, causes, and perspectives, narratives make action possible but can also oversimplify complexity. Their truth cannot be judged solely by internal coherence or social acceptance. A socially reliable narrative should remain connected to empirical evidence, acknowledge relevant complexity, permit historical correction, and remain open to alternative perspectives.

Narratives become epistemically dangerous when emotional attachment or group identity makes them resistant to evidence. Power intensifies this risk because actors controlling media, education, political communication, digital platforms, or cultural institutions can influence which interpretations become visible and legitimate[5]. Narrative power is therefore the power to define problems, assign responsibility, determine whose experiences count, and shape the limits of public imagination.

Narratives develop in response to changing experience. Crises such as war, economic disruption, pandemics, migration, or ecological breakdown can expose the inadequacy of existing interpretations and accelerate change. Crisis may stimulate solidarity and institutional learning, but it can also encourage simplified enemy images when uncertainty creates a demand for emotional certainty[6].

Historical memory gives narratives intergenerational force. Stories about war, colonialism, injustice, migration, or collective achievement shape contemporary identities and expectations. They can support responsibility, recognition, and reconciliation, but can also preserve resentment and inherited hostility[7]. Peace therefore requires more than the absence of violence. It requires interpretative frameworks that allow societies to acknowledge different experiences without converting disagreement into dehumanizing conflict.

Migration illustrates the adaptive nature of narratives[8]. Contact among traditions produces hybrid identities and new meanings rather than simple cultural replacement[9]. Societies remain stable not through complete homogeneity but through their ability to integrate plural perspectives without losing all shared orientation. Narratives that frame migration as an existential struggle intensify polarization; narratives based on mutual dependence and shared vulnerability can support integration and cultural innovation.

Narratives can motivate emancipation and reform when they expose contradictions between professed ideals and social reality. They can also manipulate when they reduce complexity to rigid oppositions, selectively mobilize fear or humiliation, and close off empirical correction. The crucial distinction is therefore not between having narratives and being free of them, but between open and closed narrative systems.

Narrative legitimacy is procedural and dynamic rather than based on one final truth[10]. A legitimate narrative should:

• remain open to evidence, criticism, and historical reinterpretation;
• permit plural perspectives and meaningful public participation;
• avoid dehumanization and fixed hierarchies of human worth;
• support autonomy, social inclusion, and developmental opportunity;
• make power over meaning visible and contestable;
• recognize ecological limits and responsibility toward future generations.

These criteria do not establish one mandatory worldview. They provide minimum conditions under which different narratives can coexist without destroying the dignity and developmental space of others. Universal legitimacy therefore cannot mean imposing one cultural interpretation. It must emerge through inclusive dialogue and an overlapping commitment to basic conditions such as human dignity, non-dehumanization, participation, and ecological responsibility. International law and human-rights frameworks can embody parts of this overlapping consensus, but they must remain open to intercultural criticism and correction.

Narratives remain adaptive only when societies possess effective correction mechanisms. Four dynamics are especially important: pluralistic dialogue exposes dominant assumptions to alternative experience; crises reveal gaps between narratives and reality; ecological feedback confronts societies with material limits; and normative tension exposes contradictions between proclaimed values and actual institutions.

These mechanisms require supportive conditions. Independent science, free journalism, open education, artistic expression, public deliberation, historical research, and accessible participation allow narratives to be questioned. Limits on political, economic, and digital concentrations of power prevent control over meaning from becoming monopolized. Critical thinking, historical awareness, emotional regulation, and digital literacy enable individuals to tolerate uncertainty and recognize manipulation[11].

Correction is never guaranteed. Propaganda, concentrated media power, algorithmic filtering, identity-protective cognition, existential fear, and fragmented information environments can make narratives increasingly closed. Different groups may lose a shared factual reference point and inhabit parallel interpretative worlds. Under these conditions, evidence alone may be insufficient because changing a belief is experienced as a threat to identity or belonging.

Digital infrastructures have become constitutive parts of narrative formation. Platforms determine visibility, repetition, and reach through algorithms optimized for attention, engagement, or commercial value. This can expand access and pluralism, but it can also amplify emotionally intense content, fragment public debate, and create new concentrations of epistemic power. Digital inequality further affects who can participate in meaning-making and who is represented by dominant narratives.

Artificial intelligence has an equally ambivalent role. It can identify patterns of framing, exclusion, polarization, and historical change across large bodies of communication. In this sense, it can act as an epistemic mirror that helps societies observe their own narrative dynamics. Yet AI also reproduces patterns embedded in training data and may strengthen existing hierarchies or dominant interpretations[12].

AI should therefore support rather than replace human interpretation. Its legitimate use requires transparency, public accountability, pluralistic governance, protection against emotional manipulation, and meaningful human participation. It cannot possess final normative authority because evaluating meaning, dignity, and legitimacy requires contextual judgment and public deliberation.

Narratives become institutionally consequential when they are translated into law, governance, policy, education, economic arrangements, and symbolic practices[13]. Law codifies assumptions about dignity, justice, responsibility, and social order. Policy embeds causal stories about why problems exist and who should solve them. Education transmits collective memory while potentially developing critical distance. Economic institutions materialize narratives about value, merit, work, and responsibility.

Institutionalization provides continuity and predictability, but it also selectively fixes some narratives more strongly than others. Institutions remain legitimate when they preserve shared orientation while allowing criticism, participation, and reinterpretation. When they become detached from lived experience or suppress alternative perspectives, formal validity can persist while social legitimacy deteriorates.

Narratives can be evaluated by examining their effects on relational autonomy, epistemic pluralism, social inclusion, emotional stability, historical responsibility, and ecological sustainability. Such evaluation should function as a reflexive diagnostic tool rather than as a system for ranking cultures or imposing ideological conformity.

The central challenge is to maintain several unavoidable tensions: cohesion without uniformity, pluralism without epistemic fragmentation, continuity without rigidity, change without disorientation, emotional commitment without manipulation, and shared norms without cultural domination. Healthy societies do not eliminate these tensions. They create institutions and public practices capable of managing them openly.

Narratives are therefore the interpretative infrastructure connecting individuals, society, history, and ecology. They support human development when they provide meaning, enable participation, regulate conflict, and remain open to correction. They undermine it when they legitimize dehumanization, conceal power, deny evidence, or transform cultural differences into fixed hierarchies. Social stability ultimately depends not on possessing one unquestioned story, but on maintaining the collective capacity to examine, revise, and responsibly institutionalize the stories through which society understands itself.

 

Would you like to explore how a relational understanding of humanity can transform democracy, law, the economy, and public institutions? Click the link below to read the full book, Becoming Human Together, and discover a new framework for building a more humane, democratic, and correctable society within ecological limits.

(PDF) Becoming Human Together: Rethinking Democracy, Power and Institutions for a Complex and Changing World

---

[1] Jerome Bruner, “The Narrative Construction of Reality,” Critical Inquiry 18, no. 1 (1991): 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1086/448619; Somers, “The Narrative Constitution of Identity”; Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative, vol. 1, trans. Kathleen McLaughlin and David Pellauer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984).

[2] Robert M. Entman, “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm,” Journal of Communication 43, no. 4 (1993): 51–58, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x; Benford and Snow, “Framing Processes and Social Movements,” Annual Review of Sociology 26 (2000): 611–639, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611.

[3] Bruner, “The Narrative Construction of Reality”; Crystal L. Park, “Making Sense of the Meaning Literature,” Psychological Bulletin 136, no. 2 (2010): 257–301, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018301; Gould, Moving Politics.

[4] Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, rev. ed. (London: Verso, 2006 [1983]); Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization; Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice.

[5] Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge, ed. Colin Gordon (New York: Pantheon, 1980); Jason Stanley, How Propaganda Works (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015); Entman, “Framing.”

[6] Arjen Boin, Paul ’t Hart, Eric Stern, and Bengt Sundelius, The Politics of Crisis Management, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016); Wodak, The Politics of Fear. Crisis effects vary; crises can intensify closure or create opportunities for learning and solidarity.

[7] Ian Hacking, The Social Construction of What? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999); Roy Bhaskar, A Realist Theory of Science, 2nd ed. (London: Verso, 1978). These sources support distinguishing socially organized interpretation from the material and causal constraints that interpretation cannot abolish.

[8] Stuart Hall, “Cultural Identity and Diaspora,” in Identity: Community, Culture, Difference, ed. Jonathan Rutherford (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1990), 222–237; Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London: Routledge, 1994). Avoid implying that hybridity is experienced positively or equally by all migrants.

[9] Stuart Hall, “Cultural Identity and Diaspora,” in Identity: Community, Culture, Difference, ed. Jonathan Rutherford (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1990), 222–237; Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London: Routledge, 1994). Avoid implying that hybridity is experienced positively or equally by all migrants.

[10] Longino, Science as Social Knowledge; Fricker, Epistemic Injustice.

[11] Maurice Halbwachs, On Collective Memory, ed. and trans. Lewis A. Coser (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992); Priscilla B. Hayner, Unspeakable Truths, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2011).

[12] Emily M. Bender et al., “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots,” in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (New York: ACM, 2021), 610–623, https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922; UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. The metaphor “epistemic mirror” is the author’s own.

[13] Deborah A. Stone, Policy Paradox, 3rd ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 2012); Emery Roe, Narrative Policy Analysis (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994). Policy narratives shape problem definition, but institutional outcomes also depend on resources, law, organization, and power.