Abstract What is the relationship between our theories of rupture (which view it as a basis for learning and development) and narratives of rupture (myths, novels, films, etc.)? On the one hand there are striking convergences. Both entail a variant of the following sequence: steady state, breach, crisis, and resolution or transformation. But, on the other hand, there are important differences. Narratives are multi-functional: they allow us to approach our fears, be entertained, pre-imagine crises, and they can become symbolic resources within crises, helping us to navigate ruptures. We argue that, rather than being mirrors of rupture, narratives of rupture are help us to navigate ruptures. This is formalized in model that shows how narratives enable us to pre-imagine ruptures, identify the early warning signs of a rupture, support our problem-solving, and subsequently narrate our rupture experiences. The model emphasizes the limits of narratives as symbolic resources within ruptures. Narrative guidance can fail, canalizing and constraining semiotic mediation in unhelpful ways. Due to inherent limitations of narratives as resources for ruptures, we propose that narratives also often provide meta-cultural guidance to ignore cultural guidance.
Gillespie et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: