On the Knowledge of Politics and the Politics of Knowledge: How a Social Representations Approach Helps Us Rethink the Subject of Political Psychology

Abstract

Fifty years ago, Serge Moscovici first outlined a theory of social representations. In this article, we attempt to discuss and to contextualize research that has been inspired by this original impetus from the particular angle of its relevance to political psychology. We argue that four defining components of social representations need to be taken into account, and that these elements need to be articulated with insights from the social identity tradition about the centrality of self and group constructions in order to develop original insights into political psychological phenomena. First, social representations are shared knowledge, and the way interpretations of the world are collectively elaborated is critical to the way people are able to act within the world. Second, social representations are meta-knowledge, which implies that what people assume relevant others know, think, or value is part of their own interpretative grid, and that collective behavior can often be influenced more powerfully at the level of meta-representations than of intimate beliefs. Third, social representations are enacted communication, which means that social influence is exerted by the factors that constrain social practices as much as by the discourse that interprets these practices. Fourth, social representations are world-making assumptions: collective understandings do not only reflect existing realities but often bring social reality into being. Put together, these four components provide a distinctive theoretical perspective on power, resistance and conflict. The added conceptual value of this perspective is illustrated by showing how it allows revisiting ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia. We conclude with implications for research practices and discuss how the proposed model of social representations invites us to define new priorities and challenges for the methods used to study political psychological phenomena.

Migration and Multiculturalism

“…These discourses participate in the construction and diffusion of positive and negative meanings of migration, thereby creating socially acceptable, and often simplified, ways of thinking and talking about immigrants and immigration. Both migrant groups and national majorities then rely on such social representations to deal with the realities and difficulties of multicultural societies (see Elcheroth, Doise, & Reicher, 2011;Staerklé, Clémence, & Spini, 2011). In future research, political psychology could gain from placing a stronger emphasis on the implications of this ongoing communicative process on how migrants construct their ethnic identities and how majorities ascribe characteristics on migrant groups.…”

“I don't really want to be associated with the self-righteous left extreme”: Disincentives to participation in collective action

“…This includes impeding the recruitment of supporters The findings also suggest that even when these negative views were not held by participants themselves, they still make assumptions about other people's perceptions (see Elcheroth, Doise, & Reicher, 2011;Goffman, 1959).…”

“…One option is to strategically re-define the identity through top-down social movement communications (Elcheroth et al, 2011;Reicher, Hopkins, Levine, & Rath, 2005). Such communication could break down strong prescriptions on behaviour and re-define involvement in terms of a variety of actions open to potential participants (i.e., beyond 'protest' per se).…”

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).…”