[Abstract] The suffering of Korean youth is typically attributed to economic deprivation. Yet the persistence of disorientation, burnout, and existential emptiness even among materially stable young people suggests that its source cannot be reduced to material scarcity alone. This paper locates that source in the structural collapse of the social narrative that has long answered the question: What kind of life should I be living? In South Korea, the life-course narrative linking quality university admission, stable employment, marriage, and homeownership was institutionally consolidated from the 1970s onward. Through state-directed education, labor, housing, and family systems, this narrative became not merely an aspiration but an unquestioned experiential reality. After the 1997 financial crisis, however, the structural conditions presupposed by this narrative progressively eroded: labor market stability weakened, housing costs surged, and the causal pathway from credential to livelihood became increasingly uncertain. The core problem, therefore, is not simply that reality deteriorated, but that reality transformed while the dominant life-course narrative remained insufficiently adjusted. To theorize this disjuncture, the paper constructs a narrative-structure circulation theory and introduces a dual-axis variable framework composed of two analytically independent dimensions. The V-axis is a set of formal variables that describes the relational conditions between narrative and structure. V1 refers to the macro-level temporal gap between structural transformation and narrative adjustment; it must be inferred from large-scale indicators such as labor market instability, housing affordability, educational returns, marriage patterns, and the persistence of normative life-course expectations. V2 refers to the degree to which a given doxa is internalized by individuals and distributed across groups; it requires both macro-level indicators of collective behavioral patterns and micro-level evidence of self-evaluation, shame, guilt, failure, and normative attachment. V3 refers not to mere social agreement or doxic density, but to the exit costs generated by institutionalized doxa: the economic, institutional, relational, and symbolic costs individuals bear when they depart from the dominant life-course narrative. V3 is therefore approximated through indicators such as intergenerational differences in normative belief, institutional inertia, resource control, relational sanctions, and the scarcity of viable alternative pathways. The Q-axis, by contrast, is a set of qualitative analytic variables for examining alternative narratives that emerge after the weakening or collapse of dominant doxa. Q1 evaluates factual adequacy, namely whether an alternative narrative accurately grasps the transformed social reality. Q2 evaluates internal coherence, namely whether its explanatory claims, values, and practical prescriptions remain consistent. Q3 analyzes the objective structural effects produced by a narrative: the forms of relation, recognition, exclusion, autonomy, hierarchy, self-exploitation, violence, resource distribution, and institutional possibility that the narrative tends to generate. Q3 does not directly determine whether those structures are good, bad, harmful, or desirable. Such value judgments are always mediated by an explicit evaluative narrative. Thus, while the V-axis explains the formal conditions under which suffering emerges, the Q-axis analyzes the explanatory adequacy, internal coherence, and structural effects of narratives that attempt to fill the post-doxic void. Under this framework, four types of suffering are systematically specified. Intra-narrative suffering emerges under high V2 conditions, when individuals continue to evaluate themselves through the dominant life-course narrative and experience failure as personal deficiency. Double-bind suffering arises when V1 expands while residual normative layers remain, producing a situation in which the old narrative is no longer structurally realizable but not yet socially abandonable. Anomic suffering appears when the old doxa loses credibility but no alternative narrative with sufficient factual adequacy, internal coherence, and structuring capacity has yet emerged. Finally, suffering under structural compulsion occurs when individual internalization weakens but V3 remains high: individuals no longer fully believe in the dominant narrative, yet continue to perform it because exit entails substantial economic, institutional, relational, and symbolic costs. The framework is applied to South Korean empirical materials from 1997 onward. Discursive naming events such as the “N-po generation” and “Hell-Joseon” are read as symptoms of narrative breakdown. The persistence of private tutoring expenditure, credential competition, and stable-job orientation amid deteriorating structural conditions is interpreted not simply as evidence of continued belief, but as a combined effect of residual V2 and high V3 exit costs. Intergenerational gaps in life-course expectations, the continued institutional centrality of credentials, and the scarcity of socially recognized alternative pathways are examined as indirect indicators through which V3 can be approximated. Youth NEET rates, social isolation statistics, burnout data, and related indicators are treated not as proof of the theory by themselves, but as convergent evidence of suffering generated under narrative-structure disjuncture. The paper then examines currently circulating alternative narratives—the red pill, multi-income identity, FIRE, non-marriage, and local life movements—through the Q-variable framework. This analysis does not ask whether these narratives are intrinsically better or worse than the old life-course model. Rather, it asks how each narrative interprets transformed reality, whether its claims and prescriptions cohere internally, and what kinds of structural effects it produces. Some narratives may organize resentment, hierarchy, exclusion, or vicarious compensation; others may reorganize labor, intimacy, locality, autonomy, or recognition in different ways. The central question is therefore not whether a narrative merely departs from the old life-course model, but what forms of life, relation, authority, belonging, exclusion, and institutional possibility it objectively generates. Methodologically, the paper adopts ideal-type construction and interpretive inference. Since doxa is not directly observable, its operation is captured through convergent patterns among indirect indicators: macro-structural change, behavioral inertia, intergenerational belief gaps, institutional residues, and self-narrative expressions. The theory’s explanatory scope is explicitly bounded to suffering arising from narrative-structure disjunctures. It does not claim to explain all forms of youth suffering, nor does it reduce psychological distress to social structure alone. Falsifiability conditions are specified so that the ideal-typical analysis remains open to empirical testing: if structural change is accompanied by rapid narrative adjustment, if individuals no longer internalize the dominant life-course narrative yet continue to experience shame and failure in a way better explained by another mechanism, or if exit from the dominant narrative entails little institutional, relational, or symbolic cost, then the relevant V-variable explanation must be weakened or revised. Likewise, if a Q3 analysis attributes certain structural effects to a narrative but those effects are not empirically observed, the corresponding Q3 claim must be corrected. This paper is designed as more than a single-case study. It serves as the theoretical foundation, or Grundlagenarbeit, of a research program spanning 2026–2036. The program proceeds from historical generalization—testing the theory against Weber’s empirical materials on Calvinist and Confucian narratives—through systematic empirical verification via textual analysis and interview research, to macro-theoretical extension across narrative ecology, political sociology, and comparative sociology. All subsequent papers in the program share the V-Q dual-axis framework formalized here as their common analytical scaffold, each building upon it as floors upon a foundation.