This paper develops a theoretical framework for understanding how social action remains defensible under conditions of disagreement, uncertainty, and conflict. It introduces the concepts of impulsive rightness and meaning scaffolding to explain the motivational and structural conditions that sustain action. Impulsive rightness refers to a pre-reflective orientation through which actors seek to maintain the sense that they are not wrong, while meaning scaffolding denotes the provisional support structures that render action intelligible and legitimate. Building on and differentiating itself from theories of self-justification, habitus, and social conflict, the analysis reconceptualizes conflict as a defensive interaction aimed at preserving the viability of action rather than as a simple clash of interests, values, or ideologies. Conflict often reinforces meaning by mobilizing justificatory resources and stabilizing the conditions under which actors can continue to act. Meaning destabilization occurs not through disagreement alone but under specific conditions, including institutional breakdown, experiential disconfirmation, and shifts in the social distribution of interpretive frameworks. The paper repositions justification, conflict, and social change within a common analytical perspective and proposes a foundation for examining how action persists, becomes contested, and transforms across social contexts.
Naito Ray (Thu,) studied this question.