Download The Conservative Grand Narrative

The Grand Narrative: Foundation for the Everyman's Conservative Ideology
An important tool in the anthropologist's quiver is the use of a concept known as the "world
view." A world view can be described as "All of the unobserved but inferred beliefs that an
individual has about the world and the universe, (consisting of) a set of feelings and basic
attitudes toward the world rather than a set of formulated opinions about it. World views are
mostly learned early in life and are not readily changed. They have a determinate influence on
our observable behavior, both verbal and non-verbal."i Anthropologists have traditionally used
the concept in the study of homogenous cultures.
This is an important concept. Our world view provides the basic frames within which more
specific attitudes and behaviors are formed. It is kind of in the background, but always there,
providing the frames within which we develop our present thoughts and shape cognitions. It is
the stage on which we think and behave. We rarely leave that stage to act. That stage defines
the parameters and structures that put limits on our thinking and ultimately our behaviors. Since
the elements of a world view are so deeply held and naturally accepted, they are taken-forgranted--and because they are taken-for-granted they move to the back of our minds. There is no
need to bring them into the fore unless a conflict between a currently required cognition and an
element of the world view arises. Then we might think about it.
Having beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge which are taken-for-granted and positioned in the back
of our minds does not only occur in our world views. It is an essential part of being human. We,
as humans, require the cognitive parsimony that results from bracketing certain stimuli and
thoughts, otherwise we would be unable to move forward, caught in an endless evaluation of
what might be relevant. For example, think about driving. Is it possible for one to evaluate the
intentions of every driver approaching in the opposing lane? Is it possible to repeatedly question
whether each driver will veer into your lane? No, it is just taken-for-granted. If it weren't, it
would be very difficult to drive anywhere. To negotiate the world, humans must take a lot for
granted. The advantages of the cognitive parsimony afforded by the taken-for-granted are not
only present for negotiating the physical world. The advantages are also present for processing
beliefs and attitudes. In the absence of a set of taken-for-granted beliefs, a new belief has nothing
with which to be compared--its evaluation could go on forever and ever. In the absence of a set
of taken-for-granted beliefs, one has no self and self-concept, an untenable circumstance and one
which would prohibit us from being a social animal.
The Grand Narrative
So each of us has a story or narrative about the way the world is and works. It is a narrative
about the big stuff, a grand story. Anthropologists call it a world view. We choose to call it a
Grand Narrative for those living in modern heterogeneous cultures to differentiate it from a
world view. A world view describes the narrative within a simpler homogenous culture. In
those cultures, almost all hold the same or very similar narratives. The universally shared
narrative serves as an important integrating mechanism within the culture. In more modern
heterogeneous cultures, the narratives vary much more from person to person, and although
elements of the narratives serve as important integrating mechanisms, they are much less
powerfully so. It is more of a personal thing. So Grand Narrative it is.
Let's inspect the grand narrative more closely. The most important characteristic of the grand
narrative is that the beliefs and attitudes included within it are very general and abstract. The
grand narrative covers a lot of ground, but most importantly, it includes a person's general idea
about "big" issues. These include beliefs and attitudes about things like: what is important in
life; what is right and wrong (generally); what is God about; what is the purpose of life; why are
we here; what is the best way to behave; how should one treat others; why do people act the way
they do; and the like. For example, the grand narrative will not include specific attitudes about
race relations, rather it includes ideas about how one should treat others and other general beliefs
that may frame or mold specific attitudes about race relations.
Another characteristic of the grand narrative is that there is a strong moral attachment to the
beliefs and attitudes included within it. This is largely because the foundation of one's grand
narrative is laid very early in one's life. Much of the grand narrative's foundation is internalized
during childhood socialization. Socialization is the process in which the young internalize the
general beliefs, attitudes, and norms of the culture in which they live. It is the process that
allows children to fit in well enough to be social actors. Since a child has very little knowledge
about these things, the content of that socialization serves as the foundation for all that follows.
As new content is added, it tends to solidify the content of the initial foundation, making it more
taken-for-granted, more legitimate, and increases its moral hold. The very nature of the grand
narrative's content also contributes to its moral hold. These are big and moral questions. Most of
all, its moral character results from its status as a taken-for-granted story about the way the world
is--no questions are necessary.
Another important characteristic of the grand narrative is its constancy and resistance to change.
It is quite stable across time. We tend to create and recreate our vision of the social world, piece
by piece, in the same way time after time. That process is why we live in a stable predictable
world, and in its absence, chaos and disorder would rule the day. That does not imply that a
grand narrative is not subject to change, but constancy is its calling card. In fact, new
information is filtered or molded to be consistent with and reinforce our grand narratives. This
process has been well documented in social psychology and expressed in the theories of
cognitive consistency and cognitive dissonance. When new information is potentially in conflict
with our grand narrative, we are forced to either reinterpret the narrative, reinterpret the new
information, simply ignore the new information, or find additional information that contributes to
a resolution. It is not really a fair fight. The breadth, weight, and moral gravity of the grand
narrative is the shark to the new information's minnow. It usually eats it up. If new information
attacks relentlessly, then the narrative may change.
Internal consistency is not one of the requirements of one's grand narrative, although wildly
inconsistent components may cause cognitive dissonance and demand attention and resolution.
Although the need to invoke separate components of the narrative concurrently will reveal these
inconsistencies, this need occurs infrequently and in limited ways. Very few of us are called to
the debate stage or to take pen in hand and explain our grand narratives. So there is not
tremendous pressure to evaluate inter-component consistency within the narratives. It is also
true that elements of the grand narrative may be inconsistent with our material interests. This
phenomenon is insightfully described in Thomas Frank's What a Matter with Kansas.ii These
inconsistencies are allowed to occur since an integrated evaluation of the narrative is not
included in our everyday frames of relevance.
So where does the grand narrative come from? Let's consider this question by entertaining two
potential sources. First it could be a personal construction. A personal construction implies that
the grand narrative emerges from within us and is idiosyncratic to one person and one person
only. This could be the result of rationally evaluated thought, it could be the result of something
somewhat more metaphysical like "my true self," it could be the result of accumulated
knowledge and circumstance, or some combination of all three. Second, it could be a cultural
construction. A cultural construction implies it is shared knowledge among the people with
whom one lives and that it is just internalized either as part of the socialization process or
personal circumstance.
Where does it come from? The answer is both sources. However, if one were to favor the
former, a personal construction, one would be significantly more misled than if one were to favor
the latter. Ultimately the grand narrative is largely made up from the culture around us filtered by
our families and intimates and the selves we develop as we live. The detailed origins are
complex, but can be found in historical culture and contemporary society. The prudent tack is to
recognize that both culture and person are sources, but to lean heavily toward the cultural side.
In so doing, the grand narrative becomes a much more powerful and useful tool in one's
understanding of the social world and may even lead to more critical self-reflection. Such a
posture also is supported by observations about the distribution of grand narratives. Despite the
fact that in a modern heterogeneous culture grand narratives are much more personal than in less
complex cultures, there are only a few narrative groups or classes, each held by many. This is
evidence of its cultural origins. We are able to predict the distribution of grand narrative classes
across geography, social classes, and associative groups. This also is an indication of its cultural
basis.
Changes in one's grand narrative can come at any time, but we have previously noted that these
changes are incremental and infrequent. In the process of living, each of us constantly, albeit
partially, recreates "society", and concomitantly recreates our grand narratives. So there is an
ever present opportunity for change. Since we are performing these recreations in our mind and
symbolically (using language), we will do so with the symbols (language and ideas) that are
present, immediate, and available to us. It just so happens that these too change very slowly and
help buffer the grand narrative from change.
Taking some liberties with cognitive science and relying on metaphorical images for intuitive
visualizations, we can, in a general way, describe the manner in which the grand narrative serves
as a gatekeeper for more specific beliefs and attitudes. We begin by reasserting the postulate that
when new beliefs and attitudes are considered, they will be "evaluated" for their consistency with
one's grand narrative. Evaluation is encased in quotation marks because the process does not
adhere to a strict regimen of rational and logic evaluation. It sometimes does and it sometimes is
more visceral and intuitive. Most of the time, the grand narrative shows up for an ephemeral
appearance. It may not even be noticed as a cognition in real time. In one sense, one can
conceive of the grand narrative as a collection of frames, filters, and forms. When a new belief or
attitude knocks on the door, it tries to pass through these frames, filters, and forms. If it makes it
through, then it starts to take its place as part of one's stock of beliefs, attitudes, and positions. If
it gets stuck, then it is turned away or held for further consideration. In reality, this is not a onetime process, it is a continual process of thought over time. Human thought and social
constructions are complex, variable, and phenomenologically amorphous, so there is no really
accurate manner to offer a brief and universal description of this process. However, visualizing
the grand narrative as a collection of frames, forms, and filters and operating as a gatekeeper
offers insight into the process.
In practice, we are likely to use a shortcut that bypasses the invocation of the grand narrative.
Over time, we discover and internalize associations between the grand narrative and other social
objects. These social objects become cues about the compatibility of a new belief with our grand
narrative and allow us to bypass the invocation of the grand narrative. These cues may be the
delivery person of the new belief, the universe of ideas with which the belief is associated, or
some other common connection that makes the evaluation of the belief pretty automatic. In
those cases, the grand narrative may not even make an appearance or one so brief to be virtually
unrecognized. Whether the evaluation process is automatic or more cognitive, the result of the
process is that over time and with use, the new attitudes or beliefs become part of our taken-for
granted stock of knowledge. These beliefs and attitudes may not be as general or as deeply
morally situated as the grand narrative, but they serve as gatekeepers for new attitudes and
beliefs at the same or a lesser level of generality.
Method
If one understands and accepts the nature and significance of the grand narrative, the question
confronting an analyst is, "How can one identify what elements constitute someone's grand
narrative?" A corollary question is, "On what basis should individual grand narratives be
grouped into general classes?"
These two questions can be combined by asking, "What is the method required to study grand
narratives?" The method is complex and requires considerable interpretation by the observer.
Since grand narratives live in the background and are not often articulated, the demands of the
task are even more daunting. The caveat offered here suggests that one should be critical of
anyone, even the current author, that claims to categorically have a handle on all of this. Perhaps
the most important aspect of that critical attitude is to evaluate the method that the creator of the
claim used. Most importantly, one should determine if the creator resisted imputing some
predetermined method of social construction on the subjects' construction. Methodologically, we
call this bracketing and it is an attempt to remove observer bias from the observation.
There are no standard methodological protocols for observing and describing grand narratives
and grand narrative groups. The analysis presented here included an interpretative component
and a content analysis component.iii The interpretative component is used in the discovery of an
individual's grand narrative. This is done repeatedly over many observations. The process
involves deconstructing the subjects' narrative about specific beliefs in an attempt to discover
"where it came from." Bracketing of predetermined interpretations must be constantly applied
during the process. The discovery of the grand narrative is derived from inquiries of the subject,
the context of the discourse, and other elements in the verbalized narrative The process requires
patience and the suspension of quick conclusions. When a large enough sample of subjects is
obtained, the observer then can proceed to grouping the narratives.
The aggregation of narratives into groups is a critical part of the process. Without it, the
observer only possesses a collection of one-off narratives. These can be useful in interacting
with a specific individual, but they provide no information about the state of the social world. To
group, a method known as content analysis is used. The goal of this content analysis is to review
all of the researcher-constructed grand narratives for commonalities and to "see if they group."
It is more difficult to respond to the question of how widespread the grand narrative group is in
the population. If the grand narrative is translated into survey questions, then the task can be
forwarded significantly with the use of social surveys. In the presentation here, the estimate of
its distribution was a tad less scientific and falls somewhere between social science and punditry.
An exposition of method may appear to be unnecessary, but there is a purpose to it. This essay
will culminate with a discussion about political attitudes and beliefs. These are topics that
dominate public discourse. Nearly all of the discourse resides within the realm of political
punditry and reporting. However intelligent and informed the pundits and reporters are, their
methods of discovery are informal and unlike the self-reflective and vigilant methodology
described above. As a consequence, one can easily observe a conflation of their life-worlds with
their perception of the life-worlds of the people whose motives they are explaining. It is readily
apparent that they superimpose the methods they employ in their own thinking onto the motives
and methods of the people about whom they are reporting. Quite frequently they just assume that
the electorate functions as rational actors seeking to maximize their utility. Almost certainly, this
is a short-sighted approach to gaining an understanding. So the purpose of this methodological
interlude is to alert the reader of the limits of punditry and to assert that vigilance and care are
required in discovery with respect to these matters.
The Conservative Grand Narrative
It may have been a long journey, but we have finally reached our destination. Perhaps not the
destination itself, but at least we are within the city of our destination. First, some limits for the
essay. It is beyond the scope of the essay to describe the many grand narrative groups that exist
in the United States. Accordingly, we will direct our attention to only one, the conservative grand
narrative group. It is also beyond the scope of the research to describe that grand narrative in
full. Grand narratives are big, really big. This essay will concentrate on elements of the
conservative grand narrative that have the greatest effect on political attitudes, behavior, and
affinity for candidates.
Let's commence with a preface to the conservative grand narrative and a reassertion of its
character. The conservative grand narrative provides the major frames in the development of
more specific political attitudes and behaviors. It is content used in a basic human social
process. It is not a political ideology, rather it is more fundamental and general than that.
Similarly, it is imperative that the grand narrative not be considered a script. It does not exist in
a document that holders study and then profess. It is the result of a life-long process of
internalizing meaning within the culture in which one is situated. Rather than a script, it is more
like a script prospectus. In the same vein, the grand narrative is not determinative of attitude
formation, rather it is a frame and gatekeeper that shapes specific attitudes within the context of
other factors and information. The grand narrative group has no existential presence, it is a
construction--a construction made from individual grand narratives and grouped in a way that
seems useful in today's world.
After completing the observations and completing both stages of the analysis, a description of
the politically relevant elements of the conservative grand narrative can be offered. Some of the
most important tenets of the conservative grand narrative is captured well by Sam Francis in his
description of paleoconservatism, "What paleoconservatism tries to tell Americans is that the
dominant forces in their society are no longer committed to conserving the traditions,
institutions, and values that created and formed it, and, therefore, that those who are really
conservative in any serious sense and wish to live under those traditions, institutions, and values
need to oppose the dominant forces and form new ones."iv, and "(America) is instead a concrete
and particular culture, rooted in a particular historical experience, a set of particular institutions
as well as particular beliefs and values, and a particular ethnic-racial identity, and, cut off from
those roots, it cannot survive."v
Francis' description identifies the tenets which are fundamental to the conservative grand
narrative. Let's extract the three most profound. First, the narrative is all about conservatism-conservatism in the everyday use of the word and not in the variety of its political usages. That
is, it is all about adherence to and the protection of "old" values and ways, whatever they are
perceived to be. This is described well in Frank's Kansas, even if he did not organize his
observations as such. In the speech of conservative grand narrative holders, the old values and
ways are spoken of with a sacred affinity. This tenet of the grand narrative predisposes the
holder to adopt what we traditionally conceive of as socially conservative attitudes. Among the
political attitudes shaped by this tenet of the narrative is, to varying degrees, a distaste for (at
least a suspicion of) government. This affinity for the old is not the sole shaper of antigovernment attitudes and most likely not the most important. It does, in conjunction with other
tenets of the narrative spawn this complex of attitudes. The state is on a linear path over time:
from small to big and from less bureaucratic to more bureaucratic. Old is smaller and old is less
bureaucratic. The perception of the small non-intrusive state as the traditional way is conflated
with the fact that it was most likely our perception when we were young. The images of our
youth constitute our perception of the old ways. Related to this disaffinity for government, is a
similar disaffinity toward the managerial class and intellectuals, they are seen as a guiding force
behind the recalcitrant growth in government and "new ways." Curiously, many of the holders
of the conservative grand narrative are members of the managerial class and intellectuals.
Second, the conservative grand narrative is against the usurpation of these values and ways and,
consequently, its holders are likely to embrace a negative posture, i.e., more often than not they
have a style of being against something. The style of the holders is to form attitudes against the
omnipresence of the currently existing ways; as Francis states, "... need to oppose the dominant
forces and form new ones." This is not surprising for those with an affinity toward the old, the
new is always knocking on their door or perhaps banging on their door.
Third, the conservative grand narrative is shaped by an "us and them" conception of the world.
Francis alludes to this when he refers to, " a particular ethnic-racial identity." It is not clear who
us and them are in the conservative grand narrative and the dividing line probably varies
significantly from person-to-person, but it often, not always, appears to be related to eurocentrism. It actually is less important who us and them are than that there is an us and them. So
it doesn't necessarily have to be ethnic-racial, although it often is. A grand tenet like this easily
accommodates political values that can be labeled as nativism, chauvinism, xenophobism,
ethnocentrism, American exceptionalism, and the like. It also fits well with the protective and
negative style embraced in this grand narrative. As might be expected, us are good and them are
bad. In general, any form of cooperation or accommodation of "them" will not be entertained.
The nuclear agreement with Iran is currently in the news. One needs to understand that
conservative opposition to the deal has more to do with Iran being a "them" than any evaluation
of the specifics of the agreement. Likewise, a preoccupation with immigration reform emerges
from this tenet of the grand narrative.
At varying levels of intensity, the conservative grand narrative embraces a Hobessian conception
of man in the state of nature, a war of all against all. This tenet is not associated with one of the
classical responses from Hobbes' time, i.e., a Leviathan or social contract. Rather it simply is the
background reading of man's nature. This tenet has the propensity to spawn a variety of attitudes
and positions that respond to the perception of an ever-present danger, especially from the
"them," whoever they may be. Included among these attitudes is a affinity for militarism and a
strong reaction to street crime.
Individualism plays a major role within the conservative grand narrative. Holders of the
narrative believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions. There are two sides to
this tenet of the narrative. First, individuals are (solely) responsible for the design of their
actions and, second, individuals are (solely) responsible for the consequences of their action.
Although it is difficult to identify the origins of such beliefs in the historical culture, it likely has
its roots in American capitalist ideology and the protestant ethic This fundamental belief in
individualism is summarized well in the philosophy and writings of Ayn Rand and her influence
on the libertarian movement. Among the derivative beliefs of this tenet are: (1) individual
autonomy is imperative to the maximization of human potential and collective well-being, (2) it
is immoral to limit that autonomy, especially by the state, (3) individuals are responsible for their
lot in life and should not be assisted, especially by the state, and (4) unrestricted capitalism is
seen as the only appropriate form of organization for the social and political economy. An
additional derivative belief is that there is an incontestable and basic virtue in hard work. It is
not always clear what hard work is, but it has considerable moral weight.
An excerpt from an unpublished work by Samuel Francis serves as an illustration of how the
grand narrative functions as the back story to a political ideology. In this case it is part of his
description of the "new" ways. In his characterization, one can substitute "old and traditional"
for "bourgeois" and substitute "new ways and government" for the " managerial intelligentsia."
"Perhaps the most adversarial attitudes of the managerial intelligentsia are directed against the
persistence of the social, cultural, religious, and moral codes of the bourgeois order, especially
against its 'domestic ethic'--the valuation of bourgeois virtues of work, thrift, integrity, selfrestraint and loyalty to the bourgeois institutions and roles that enforce such virtues (family,
community, nation, ethnicity, sexual roles, church, local government, and the entrepreneurial
firm).vi In his description, one can identify the influence of several of the grand narrative tenets
discussed above including: the adversarial posture, the moral affinity for the old, the distrust of
government, the embrace of individualism, the embrace of entrepreneurial capitalism, a distaste
for governmental administration and the administrative class, a distaste for the intelligentsia, and
the us vs. they (in this case the new order) attitude. It is imperative that we avoid grabbing a
formalized ideology like Francis' and assume that his calculated logic is also characteristic of the
general population. That is exactly the method for which this essay is an antidote. We want to
understand the grand narrative from observing the constructions of ordinary people in the general
population. Nevertheless, his views are a well-articulated expression of elements that we have
discovered in the conservative grand narrative. Quoting him is a matter of convenience, not
method.
These, then, are a few of the major tenets of the conservative grand narrative. Those tenets with
the most relevance to political attitudes and behaviors were selected for consideration. Although
each tenet was considered individually, in practice they form a large pool of predisposing ideas
that operate in concert with one another on an ad hoc basis. The grand narrative is not a political
ideology or a political philosophy. Rather, it is a basic and universal human construct that
functions as a set of frames, forms, and filters for more specific attitudes, positions and
behaviors. It is in the background and is taken-for-granted, traveling from sub-cognitive to
cognitive locations. The grand narrative is a living construct, subject to change, but reluctant to
do so. The conservative grand narrative is not deterministic of more specific attitudes and
behaviors, rather it is a gatekeeper in the consideration of them, always in the presence of other
contemporaneous influences. Although the existence of the grand narrative and its function are
incontrovertible, grouping similar grand narratives into a class is an interpretative decision of the
observer.
One is likely to find the conservative grand narrative among those whose politically philosophy
might be considered neo-conservative, libertarian, conservative evangelical, and socially
conservative. Elements of the conservative grand narrative are likely to be found among an even
broader segment of the population, including those not likely to be considered conservative of
any flavor. The distribution of the conservative grand narrative group across the population is
only an estimate here and is not based on scientific enumeration.
The Role of Mass Media
It is important to acknowledge the effect of mass media on the relationship between the
conservative grand narrative and specific political attitudes and beliefs. It is well-documented
that news media has changed significantly in recent times. With the emergence of cable news,
talk radio, and internet news, the media reach is more expansive and its content considerably
greater than before. It is also true that the nature of journalism has changed from what it was for
most of the 20th century. The conflation of news with opinion and political ideology is the
calling card of many of the journalistic media. It has also been documented that consumers of
media journalism patronize outlets that are consistent with their beliefs and political ideologies.
The net effect of all of this is that much of the population tends to be confronted with a rather
parochial set of messages concerning the social and political world and that confrontation is
consistent, persistent, and relentless. The choice to consume is the consumer's, but the message
is designed by the media. Such a scenario suggests the question, "In what ways do the media
affect political attitudes and behaviors, the grand narrative, and the manner in which the grand
narrative shapes political attitudes and behaviors?"
Some will suggest that media content directly shapes consumers views. Others will suggest that
there is no important effect. Neither are accurate. The reality is a bit more complex. The media
products that consumers choose are overwhelmingly consistent with their grand narrative.
Consequently, most of the specific content passes through its filters and frames quite effortlessly.
As a result, media content functions to strengthen the grand narrative
A different scenario occurs when specific content is not consistent with a consumer's grand
narrative. Does the specific content (a belief, position, or attitude) finds its way into the
consumer's taken-for-granted because of its persistent delivery and the context in which it is
delivered or does inconsistent content begin to alter the grand narrative or is it simply rejected?
Is the power of the media strong enough to force attitudes into an inhospitable grand narrative?
The effect of the media on political attitudes and behaviors, the grand narrative, and the manner
in which the grand narrative shapes political attitudes and behaviors is an interesting question to
ponder. A question for which no simple answer is readily available. What is undeniably true is
that through a combination of consumers' parochial choices, media persistence, and the
functioning of grand narratives, the basic effect is to strengthen consumers' proclivities and to
reinforce their grand narratives. It is also important to note that the media often serves as the
sole source of symbols used in the construction of political attitudes and beliefs. This contributes
to the importance of media in the construction of attitudes and the reconstructions of grand
narratives.
Epilogue: What Does This All Mean?
In an important way, this essay is an antidote. It is an antidote to the method of pundits that only
understands political attitudes and beliefs as the product of rational logic. Consequently, it is a
call to understand the limits of these experts' method. More generally, it is a call not to limit our
understanding of these matters to their method.
It also is a tool in understanding others' views. Our natural tendency is to automatically reject
views that exist outside our life-worlds, our grand narratives. Since there is a moral commitment
to our own narratives, we quickly attribute ill-will or an absence of moral judgment to those
holding conflicting narratives. If we understand others' positions as embedded in culturallybased grand narratives, we are more likely to be more tolerant and garner a deeper understanding
of those views. Similarly, if we apply this method to our own views, we are more likely to
rationally evaluate our own attitudes and positions.
More generally, this essay is a call to appreciate that human thought and action is more than the
result of pure rationality. Rather it is a conflated mix of rational thought, tradition, habit, takenfor-granted, culture, and characteristics of one's self including one's grand narrative.
i
http://anthro.palomar.edu/religion/glossary.htm#sectW
Frank, Thomas What's the matter with Kansas?, Holt: New York, 2004.
iii
It is possible that after initial research and elements of grand narratives have been identified, that more efficient
research designs employing survey research and statistical methods can be used. There is the danger, however, of
missing nuance or variations in grand narratives when using pre-coded survey questions.
iv
Francis, Samuel T. "Principalities & Powers: (Con)fusion on the Right," Chronicles Magazine, March 2004.
v
Francis, Samuel T. "The Paleo Persuasion", The American Conservative, 2002.
vi
Francis, Samuel T., unpublished manuscript.
ii