I just can't find it in me to accept any "grand narratives" without decontructing them and making ironic comments about them.
There has to be room for non-mainstream material and subcultures in every system. Problem is if skepticism and detachment becomes a role model for intellectuals, and if the praise of entropy overrides civilization. The entropy may grow outside of a system, but it has to be constant inside for us to allow to challenge the system.
I don't like dealing with people who strongly believe in some kind of narrative, because their way of thinking about things is too simplistic for me to feel as though their words have any meaning.
A worldview that is complex enough more or less incorporates the opposition. Your standpoint is also a response to its core values, so if it is supported by a vast majority, your rejection is reconed with. Negations are also affirmations in a way, which can be integrated.
Once again: problem is if disorder overwhelmes order.
Order is able to control chaos, but if chaos takes over, it can't control anything, including itself.
But can those things be integrated? And I honestly hate romanticism... though I do like the Enlightenment and modernity.
I definitely hope so. Our means to convince people are stronger than ever before, e.g. mass media. I believe that rationality and feelings, global and local, western and eastern thinking is all part of a whole, and disregarding this because of it's complexity or the difficulty of its comprehension is not beneficial.
To be a little more specific: everything is easier to take in when individuals are bound together for a reason. Humanity needs yet another "great goal" to coalesce, a positive one (I'm thinking of space exploration, which had great effects on culture and technology in the 60's and 70's).