A Review of Controversies about Social Representations Theory: A British Debate

Abstract

Since its inception more than forty years ago, social representations theory has been subjected to several criticisms, particularly within British discursive psychology. This paper reviews four major controversies that lie in the areas of a) theoretical ambiguities, b) social determinism, c) cognitive reductionism and d) lack of a critical agenda. A detailed discussion and evaluation of these criticisms reveals that while some can be regarded as misinterpretations, others need to be treated as serious and constructive suggestions for extending and refining the current theoretical framework. The main argument underlying this review is that many of the criticisms are based on the difficulty to understand and integrate the complex, dynamic and dialectical relationship between individual agency and social structure that forms the core of social representations theory. Engaging with the critics is thus thought to provide clarification and to initiate critical dialogue, which is seen as crucial for theoretical development. Key Words: social representations, social determinism, cognitive reductionism, critical power 2 Social representations theory, originally developed by Serge Moscovici (1961), is certainly one of the more controversial concepts in contemporary social psychology. Despite its continuing attraction to many researchers and theorists around the world, it has received extensive criticism, particularly within the British context. While these critiques demonstrate that the theory of social representations is taken seriously enough to debate (Billig, 1987), we consider a thorough discussion of these objections essential for the conceptual development of the theory. It will be shown that whereas some of the criticisms can be regarded as misunderstandings, others need to be treated as serious and constructive points for improving or extending the current theoretical framework. Furthermore, engaging with these criticisms may promote a more critical version of social representations theory that invites a social psychology of conflict, resistance and social change relevant to today's world.On the whole, most critics recognise the importance of social representations theory within social psychology and are sympathetic to its aims and general propositions. In particular, many regard it as a necessary challenge to dominant US-American social psychology which they characterise as individualistic, behaviourist and experimentally driven (e.g. Jahoda, 1988;Parker, 1987;Potter & Wetherell, 1998). However, it is both in the details of its conceptual elaboration as in its practical application that critics find weaknesses. Since problems in the theoretical formulation of social representations are seen as responsible for alleged difficulties in its application , it is these theoretical controversies that we will focus on. We point to four central issues that need to be clarified or developed: a) ambiguities in defining social representations, b) social determinism, c) cognitive reductionism and d) the apparent lack ...

Social Representations of Foreign Aid: Exploring Meaning-Making in Aid Practice in Sulu, Southern Philippines

“…In the process, social representations influence the actions of people (Voelklein & Howarth, 2005) and shape the social practices and institutions that impinge on the everyday experiences of social groups (Elcheroth, Doise, & Reicher, 2011). As such, we need to adopt a critical stance in social representations research (Howarth, 2006a;Voelklein & Howarth, 2005), which entails an analysis of meaning-making and its possible psychological, social and political consequences for different groups in society (Howarth, 2006a;Voelklein & Howarth, 2005;Howarth et al, 2004).…”

“…In the process, social representations influence the actions of people (Voelklein & Howarth, 2005) and shape the social practices and institutions that impinge on the everyday experiences of social groups (Elcheroth, Doise, & Reicher, 2011). As such, we need to adopt a critical stance in social representations research (Howarth, 2006a;Voelklein & Howarth, 2005), which entails an analysis of meaning-making and its possible psychological, social and political consequences for different groups in society (Howarth, 2006a;Voelklein & Howarth, 2005;Howarth et al, 2004). In particular, we need to examine how particular representations may impact on people's sense of wellbeing, identity and agency, how they maintain, justify or defend particular versions of reality, how they may encourage or discourage specific social practices, how they support or challenge relations of power and inequality among social groups in a society, and how they come to legitimise or delegitimise the current economic, social and political order (Howarth, 2004(Howarth, , 2006a(Howarth, , 2006b.…”

“…Drawing on this present conceptualisation, we utilised the theory of social representations as a social constructionist approach to surface the multiplicity and dynamism of meanings (Howarth, Foster, & Dorrer, 2004;Moscovici, 1988Moscovici, , 1998 that people hold about foreign aid in a specific historical, social and political context, such as the province of Sulu in Southern Philippines. Taking on a critical perspective in social representations research (Howarth, 2006a;Voelklein & Howarth, 2005), we also discussed how the meanings attached to this social object may achieve particular psychological, social and political consequences for specific social groups involved in aid practice, as well as how these social representations may provide potential spaces for reflection, critique and transformation in aid practice (Howarth, 2006a;Howarth et al, 2004). First, we provide a brief background into the history of Sulu in Southern Philippines where this research was undertaken.…”

Using Photo‐elicitation to Explore Social Representations of Community Multimedia Centers in Mozambique

“…(Wagner et al, 1999, p.96) The emergence and evolution of social representations are therefore contingent to the cultural context where they are generated. Social representations are neither simply a cognitive process, nor only a social process: they are concurrently both, and they are embedded in specific cultural and historical settings, where cognition and interaction of social groups takes place (Jovchelovitch, 2007;Voelklein & Howarth, 2005).…”

“…(Wagner et al, 1999, p.96) The emergence and evolution of social representations are therefore contingent to the cultural context where they are generated. Social representations are neither simply a cognitive process, nor only a social process: they are concurrently both, and they are embedded in specific cultural and historical settings, where cognition and interaction of social groups takes place (Jovchelovitch, 2007;Voelklein & Howarth, 2005).The rationale for employing SRT in this study is grounded on the aforementioned characteristics of the theoretical framework. On the one hand, SR originate when communities are pushed to cope with novelties, and make the unfamiliar familiar (Jovchelovitch, 2007;Moscovici, 1984).…”