So let’s think about this definition. Nowhere in it do we talk about time, meaning new narratives can sit alongside old ones. So the critique that time being important not fitting with our consideration is a valid one. If we take on the argument, we would need to alter our definition. So is there credence to alter it?

But the other problem with studying people is that there are elements of difference that goes without explanation. This is an important reason why the method of participant-observation is so important - it’s not just about seeing what’s happening and fitting into a category. It’s about experiencing it directly, feeling what it feels like. It’s the difference between looking at the building’s blueprint, and living in the building and feeling the protection it gives from the storm outside.