Part Deux

I apologize for the delay in posting. I'm sure everyone was waiting on pins and needles....

Unfortunately, the second half of the article - which further explores the author's theory on narrative identity development - falls flat in comparison to the first. And here's the rub: the guy just doesn't cite enough. In a nutshell, his theory posits that due to the development of "the modern man", with a reasoned, situated-in-the-world identity steeped in the Western Cultural Tradition, developing individuals seek to "author" their own identities by way of interpreting their life course and life events in a manner that suits their notions of themselves as character. These stories, of course, are bordered by the cultural norms - both writ large, and in terms of narrative structure - of the individual in question, which, in terms of what I'd like to study, is interesting.

Do we hold serendipity-luck-fate-grace-opportunity to be an/the important actor/force in our lives because:
a) that's how it's written in the Odyssey and the Bible and novels and it's comforting and warm;
b) because s-l-f-g-o exists, and really does influence us?;
c) because our perceptions that s-l-f-g-o exists gives us some sort of psychic buffer, whether it's a fall-guy or false-modesty;
d) because the tangled web of structural equation models called Developmental Systems are too complex, so we just label them s-l-f-g-o;
e) any combinations of the above; or
f) something I'm missing.

Run on sentences, cheers, 6 Total Jetts

C