| <<< PREVIOUS PAGE The Egalitarian Worldview |
Hero / Victim
“Status Movements” / “Undaunted Outgroup”
Villain
“Ignorant Masses”
Stakes
Dignity
The dignitarian worldview sees “respect as a political category, not merely something to be sought after and struggled over in private life” (Simmons, 2020, p. 181). Someone who is narrating from the dignitarian worldview will understand that particular people might become disrespected in society based solely on their perceived and real membership in a particular affinity group, be it based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or otherwise.
In the dignitarian worldview, there is a sinister edge to “the Virtuous People” who are so celebrated in the egalitarian worldview. They can become “Ignorant Masses” who use the weight of their majority to target or ostracize anyone who is perceived as being an outgroup, an “Other.” These “Undaunted Outgroups,” victimized by the masses, are meant to be saved by the heroes of the dignitarian worldview, “Status Movements,” which fight for the outgroup’s rights in a way that valorizes their group identity.
While the animating abuse of power in the dignitarian worldview can be understood as a matter of scale—of the majority disrespecting the minority—it does not only show up in this way. Rather, it is present whenever systems of social, cultural, or economic power are perceived as privileging one group of people over another not because of what that group of people does, but because of who those people are.
The Dignitarian Sub-Narratives
As with the other worldviews, the dignitarian worldview is made up of three sub-narratives, each of which presents a different permutation of the sentence “The Victim is abused by the Villain.”
- Recognition – “Undaunted Outgroups are disrespected by the Ignorant Masses.” (Dignitarian vs. Egalitarian)
- Liberation – “Undaunted Outgroups are disrespected by the Bad King.” (Dignitarian vs. Securitarian)
- Inclusion – “Undaunted Outgroups are disrespected by the Selfish Elites.” (Dignitarian vs. Libertarian)
Recognition
In the recognition narrative, it is the “Ignorant Masses” who disrespect the “Undaunted Outgroup” based on their group identity. They make up a broader society that refuses to see a particular group of people as belonging to that society based purely on perceived incompatibility of ideas, beliefs, values, practices, traditions, etc. Thus, the “Undaunted Outgroup” uses the recognition narrative to valorize their group as deserving of respect.
Some examples of this narrative include the following:
- calls for greater representation of characters of particular cultural, ethnic, racial, linguistic, or religious backgrounds in popular media;
- criticism of bigotry (e.g., racism, xenophobia, sexism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, etc.);
- celebration of a particular cultural, ethnic, racial, linguistic, or religious identity, etc.
The recognition narrative is the sub-narrative that most typifies the dignitarian worldview. That is why the “Ignorant Masses” represent the villain not just of the recognition narrative but also of the dignitarian worldview as a whole.
Liberation
In the liberation narrative, it is “the Bad King” who is the source of the disrespect for the “Undaunted Outgroup.” As a representative of some broader institutional authority, “the Bad King” has codified the disrespect of the outgroup, which in turn essentializes the outgroup into a permanently foreign “Other.” The only way to remedy this abuse of power, then, is for the group to be liberated from this codified disrespect.
Some examples of this narrative include the following:
- arguments for decolonization (e.g., “Land Back”);
- calls for abolition of systems of power that target particular groups (e.g., abolition of chattel slavery, abolition of mass incarceration, abolition of bigoted national border regimes);
- praise for efforts toward national self-determination, etc.
Inclusion
In the inclusion narrative, it is the “Selfish Elites” who disrespect the “Undaunted Outgroup.” They use their economic, political, and cultural privilege to keep outgroups at a disadvantage, or even to visit violence upon these groups. The outgroups experience exclusion and marginalization based on the refusal of these “Selfish Elites” to include them in dominant, mainstream society.
Some examples of this narrative include the following:
- calls for affirmative action in education to remedy the systematic exclusion of particular groups;
- efforts to increase voter registration among marginalized and minoritized communities;
- criticism of all-male speaker rosters at events (known colloquially as “manels”).
An Important Note on Substance and Style in Root Narrative Theory
The preceding examples of the securitarian, libertarian, egalitarian, and dignitarian worldviews provide a taste of how each of the sub-narratives show up in struggles for justice.
However, when it comes to the style and substance of examples of these worldviews and sub-narratives, each will still have their own distinct flavors.
On Substance
It is certainly the case that particular subjects might be most comfortably narrated from particular worldviews and sub-narratives. Discussions of terrorism might fit comfortably in the defense sub-narrative, while discussions of human rights abuses might easily draw on the consent sub-narrative. Discussions for greater taxation of wealthy citizens might be most at ease in the reciprocity sub-narrative narrative, while discussions of racism and sexism might be most comfortable in the recognition sub-narrative.
However, a key feature of good storytelling is creativity. While Root Narrative Theory helps illuminate the deep structures of moral and political narratives of justice, it does not dictate that certain subjects can only ever be narrated from a particular sub-narrative or worldview.
For example, take the #MeToo movement. It is possible to use a consent narrative to spotlight the individual rights of a sexual abuse survivor and call for those rights to be protected. It is also possible to use a recognition narrative to argue that certain people—women, trans women, women of color—are more likely to be sexually abused, and to call for specific interventions to address this issue on a systemic level.
On Style
When analyzing a particular narrative, it is important to pay attention not just to what is being narrated, but also to how it is being narrated. Differences in the style of how a particular root narrative shows up in a text can be understood as differences of degree in that root narrative.
As justice languages, there is a certain moral clarity to root narratives. They have clear heroes, victims, and villains, and a clear sense of an abuse of power that leads to a particular injustice.
However, that doesn’t mean that every example of a particular root narrative will have the same intensity of description and style. For example, there is no single root narrative that has a monopoly on the use of dehumanizing language. All root narratives can make use of dehumanization and demonization; whether they do, and the degree to which they do, is a matter of the stylistic choices made by the narrators.
Similarly, all root narratives can be told in ways that show respect for the fundamental dignity of human beings, leaving the door open for bonds of relationship to be built rather than broken.
The world needs justice stories as much as it needs peace stories. How we tell them matters as much as whether we tell them.
| NEXT PAGE >>> The Uses of Root Narrative Theory |