Commentary: We Don't Share! The Social Representation Approach, Enactivism and the Fundamental Incompatibilities between the Two

Chryssides, Alison; Dashtipour, Parisa; Keshet, Shira; Righi, Céline; Sammut, Gordon; Sartawi, Mohammad

doi:10.1177/1354067x08096514

Cited by 22 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The differentiation between Moscovici's social representations and personal representations (Breakwell, 2001) is analogous to Saussure's (1915/1959) distinction between language (langue), a collective phenomenon, and speech (parole), its manifestation at the individual level. Social representations, like language, are conceptualised as systemic phenomena in themselves, not reducible to individual minds (Harré, 1984; Chryssides et al., 2009; Jovchelovitch, 2007), constituting a social reality sui generis (Moscovici, 2000).…”

Section: The Phenomenon Of Social Representationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Points of View, Social Positioning and Intercultural Relations

Sammut

Gaskell

2010

J Theory Soc Behav

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The challenge of intercultural relations has become an important issue in many societies. In spite of the claimed value of intercultural diversity, successful outcomes as predicted by the contact hypothesis are but one possibility; on occasions intercultural contact leads to intolerance and hostility. Research has documented that one key mediator of contact is perspective taking. Differences in perspective are significant in shaping perceptions of contact and reactions to it. The ability to take the perspective of the other and to understand it in its own terms is a necessary condition for successful intergroup outcomes. This paper sheds light on the processes involved in intercultural perspective taking by elaborating the notion of the point of view based on social representations theory. The point of view provides a theory of social positioning that can analyse cultural encounters between social actors, and identify the conditions for positive relations. Insights are drawn from a study of public views on the relative merits of science and religion, following a documentary by Richard Dawkins in which it was suggested that religion is a source of evil. The findings demonstrate that the point of view may be categorised according to a three‐way taxonomy according to the extent to which it is open to another perspective. A point of view may be monological—closed to another's perspective entirely, dialogical—open to the possibility of another perspective while maintaining some percepts as unchallengeable, or metalogical—open to another's perspective based on the other's frame of reference.

show abstract

Section: The Phenomenon Of Social Representationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a social field, the process of social re‐presentation generates a product: the social representation (Chryssides et al., 2009). No one individual has access to all social representations in operation, nor to a single social representation in its entirety (Breakwell, 2001).…”

Section: Social Positioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Points of View, Social Positioning and Intercultural Relations

Sammut

Gaskell

2010

J Theory Soc Behav

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even today one reads that “there is no standard or clear‐cut definition of what social representations are” and that “Moscovici steadfastly refuses to define the concept” (Verheggen and Baerveldt, 2007, p. 5). In their remarkable analysis of this article, the group of postgraduate students from the London School of Economics (Chryssides et al, forthcoming) explain that underlying philosophical presuppositions lend themselves to different explanations of a particular phenomenon and that understanding social representations as individual‐level mental phenomena originating in actions or interactions totally misses the point.…”

Section: Interactional Epistemology and The Theory Of Social Represenmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Epistemological Significance of the Theory of Social Representations

Marková

2008

J Theory Soc Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The theory of social representations must be understood in terms of its proper epistemology so that it can accomplish its full potential in social sciences. This is often difficult to achieve because researchers comprehend it in terms of concepts that are part of static and individualistic Newtonian epistemology rather than in terms of dynamic and relational Einsteinian epistemology. This article considers three signposts that Moscovici identifies and analyses in the theory of relativity, namely the relation between epistemology and science, theory and method, and the argument against the explanation of effects by their causes. The following question is posed: are these signposts also characteristic of the theory of social representations? This question is examined focusing on interactional epistemology, theory and method and the diversity of natural thinking and communication. Moscovici's Psychoanalysis shows that natural thinking appears in a plurality of modes according to the situation in which it takes place and according to social groups towards which it is directed. Natural thinking is controversial and communication-centred. Different professionals, groups and lay people use different kinds of speaking and different communicative genres when they try to resolve "the same" problem. The article suggests that bringing together dialogicality, dialogical linguistics and the theory of social representations may open up new possibilities for theoretical developments in social psychology. Key words: theory of social representations; interactional epistemology; Einstein's triangle of relations; natural thinking; dialogicality, dialogical linguistics During my dialogues with Serge Moscovici some years ago I posed him a question concerning the relation between the theory of social representations and the minority/majority innovation. He insisted that these two theories were separate from one another and that they had different aims, purposes and concepts. Nevertheless, it was my view that these two theories shared philosophical and epistemological presuppositions on which they were built. Serge Moscovici has worked on these theories more or less simultaneously, although during certain periods he has devoted more intellectual effort to one rather than to the other. So I insisted: "These two theories have the same philosophical basis." "Maybe" he responded, "I do not think that I am split into two different persons, so they probably share something, but they are independent theories." Serge Moscovici has been always concerned with the theoretical and epistemological basis of social psychology as well as with that of his own work, and he has written extensively about these issues. Of course, such complex questions can be approached from diverse perspectives depending on the problem under study. For example, in considering the relation between social influence and cognition, in order to make his point, he has chosen to contrast epistemologies of minorities and majorities (Moscovici, 1993). On the other hand, t...

show abstract

“…The distinction between social representations (SR) and points of view (POV) is relevant to the present work: The former have been defined as the abstract and standard knowledge background of a social group; the latter consist of a contribution by the individual's cognitive elements (Tateo & Iannacone, 2011;Valsiner, 2003). Social representations are conceptualized as systemic phenomena in themselves, not reducible to individual minds (Chryssides et al, 2009;Harré, 1984;Jovchelovitch, 2007), constituting a social reality sui generis (Moscovici, 2000). In contrast, a point of view constitutes a "personal representation" (Breakwell, 2001) and can be defined as a social actor's outlook toward some object or event "expressed as a claim, which can be supported by an argument based on a system of knowledge from which it derives its logic" (Sammut & Gaskell, 2010, p. 49).…”

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Therapists Do Not Know What to Do: Informal Types of Eclecticism in Psychotherapy

Romaioli

Faccio

2012

ResPsy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Eclecticism usually arises from the perception of one's own theoretical model as being inadequate, which may be the case in situations of therapeutic stalemate. In need of new strategies, therapists criticize their own approach and take eclectic knowledge onboard. The goal of this qualitative study is to explore basic elements of this informal knowledge, with reference to the theory of social representations and points of view. Episodic interviews were conducted with 40 therapists. Results confirmed that clinical knowledge often turns eclectic, showing different styles of reorganization; a social co-evolution model will be pointed out to explain this personalization of one's own approach. The results achieved might contribute to the amelioration of the therapeutic awareness of one's own knowledge structure and the use of eclecticism in carrying out therapies, leading to significant benefit in treatment effectiveness.

show abstract

Commentary: We Don't Share! The Social Representation Approach, Enactivism and the Fundamental Incompatibilities between the Two

Cited by 22 publications

References 10 publications

Points of View, Social Positioning and Intercultural Relations

Points of View, Social Positioning and Intercultural Relations

The Epistemological Significance of the Theory of Social Representations

When Therapists Do Not Know What to Do: Informal Types of Eclecticism in Psychotherapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About