Reopening the dialogue between the theory of social representations and discursive psychology for examining the construction and transformation of meaning in discourse and communication

Abstract

The theory of social representations (TSR) and discursive psychology (DP) originated as different social psychological approaches and have at times been presented as incompatible. However, along the years convergence has also been acknowledged, and, lately, most of all, practised. With this paper, we discuss how versions of TSR focusing on self-other relations for examining cultural meaning systems in/through communication, and versions of DP focusing on discourse at cultural, ideological, and interactional levels, can come together. The goal is to help forge a stronger social-psychological exploration of how meaning is constructed and transformed in and through language, discourse, and communication, thus extending current understanding of social change. After presenting a theoretical proposal for integrating those versions of TSR and DP, we offer also an integrated analytical strategy. We suggest that together these proposals can, on one hand, help TSR systematize analyses of social change that are both more critical and better grounded in theorizations of language use, and, on the other, provide DP with analytical tools able to better examine both the relational contexts where the construction and transformation of meaning are performed and their effects on discourse. Finally, we give some illustrations of the use of this analytical strategy.

‘Social Re-presentation for…’: An Action-Oriented Formula for Intergroup Relations Research

“…Action has been problematized by different traditions of research within SRT and remains of concern (see Batel and Castro, 2018;Potter, 2019). These conceptualizations can advance our understanding of collective action.…”

Probing the history of social psychology, exploring diversity and views of the social: Publication trends in the European Journal of Social Psychology from 1971 to 2016

“…This position was promptly defended by Tajfel (1979) in response to the aforementioned suggestion of Taylor and Brown (1979): He strongly contested the view that the individual should remain 'the ultimate target of understanding', arguing that this would render social psychology incapable of 'providing any new insights into some of the most important aspects of our functioning in society' (p. 187). This position sees the social and the individual as mutually constitutive realities (Batel & Castro, 2018;Greenwood, 2014;Moscovici, 1988), and requires social psychology to consider how historical, cultural, and institutional factors are integral to the psychological (Doise, 1980;Gergen, 1973;Harr e & Secord, 1972). This position sees the social and the individual as mutually constitutive realities (Batel & Castro, 2018;Greenwood, 2014;Moscovici, 1988), and requires social psychology to consider how historical, cultural, and institutional factors are integral to the psychological (Doise, 1980;Gergen, 1973;Harr e & Secord, 1972).…”

“…Among these perspectives, some date back to the Journal's foundation, and are both European (see Harr e & Secord, 1972;Israel & Tajfel, 1972;Moscovici, 1972) and American (Gergen, 1973). Other perspectives are newer, and again originate in Europe (Batel & Castro, 2018;Billig, 1987;Markov a, 2003;Potter & Wetherell, 1987;Reicher, 2004;Wagner, 1998) as well as in the United States (Bruner, 1990;Gergen, 2012;Greenwood, 2014).…”

“…For this second perspective, humans are beings 'whose essence is in not having an essence', beings that are completed in culture (see Reicher, 2004, p. 927). This position sees the social and the individual as mutually constitutive realities (Batel & Castro, 2018;Greenwood, 2014;Moscovici, 1988), and requires social psychology to consider how historical, cultural, and institutional factors are integral to the psychological (Doise, 1980;Gergen, 1973;Harr e & Secord, 1972). From this perspective, then, the focus is on how meaning-making and action happen in and emerge from Subject-Other-Object relations of various types (Bruner, 1990;Moscovici, 1972), and are consequently changeable (Reicher, 2004).…”

“…The debate centres on two dimensions. The first is the applied versus theoretical dimension: whether social means 'social topics/subjects of research' or requires theorisations accounting for how the social is integral to the individual (Batel & Castro, 2018;Greenwood, 2014). The second is whether the social is more characteristic of European research than American studies.…”