The case
From LIT-1001 (pp. 36–37), which takes it from Meyrowitz (1985: 43). “Until then, Carmichael had used very different rhetorical styles when speaking to blacks and whites, but when faced with electronic media, he had to make a choice. There was no neutral speaking style and Carmichael’s decision to use black speaking style alienated white society.”
Held fixed: the speaker, and his two styles. Varied: whether the two audiences were present at the same speech.
What it can show
The two styles are sections over two contexts. While the contexts did not meet, the sections glued, and nothing was contradictory in a speaker addressing different audiences differently (CLAIM-197). Broadcast made one context in which both audiences were present. On that overlap the sections disagreed, and one had to give way. That is role conflict created by a change of cover, with no change in the roles (CLAIM-196).
It also shows the cost of the overlap falling on the person, not the roles. No neutral style existed for the shared context, so no section over it agreed with both.
What it cannot show
It is stipulated. The facts come secondhand through boyd, and Meyrowitz (1985) was not read. Whether Carmichael’s styles differed as described, and what the alienation consisted in, are assumed here, not checked. The case shows the shape the claim predicts. It is not evidence about Carmichael.