The Creative Dimension of Lay Thinking in the Case of the Representation of Democracy for Greek Youth

Abstract

This article intends to make a contribution to the study of lay thinking on democracy and proposes a theoretical framework based on the notion of the `argumentative pole' that I have developed in my Ph.D. dissertation (Magioglou, 2005) and will be further presented in a series of articles. It focuses on the dialogical and creative dimension of lay thinking, based in a question—answer style. Argumentative poles are a number of open questions, such as `what is good?', or what is democracy?', `who should act?' and `how?', that attract different and, at times, opposing answers. The answers present a dynamic tension between an organized and an ambivalent dimension. In this article, the presentation is focused on the contradictory and ambivalent dimension of lay thinking and draws, from a theoretical point of view, on perspectives in social and cultural psychology (Bruner, 1986; Marková, 2003; Moscovici, 1976; Valsiner & Van der Veer, 2000) that attend to language and social and cultural context. This contradictory element is related to the creative character of lay thinking as a form of social thinking: bringing together ideas that do not match according to logic or ideology, which allows new combinations and new representations of democracy to appear. I present data from the narrative analysis because it led to the notion of the `argumentative pole'. The logic of the presentation is theoretical and does not follow a linear demonstrative style. It is typical of qualitative research (Flick, 2002), where the results of the data analysis inspire a `grounded' theory that fits the research questions (Strauss, 1987).

Keywords

ambivalent thinking argumentative pole democracy dialogical epistemology lay thinking meaning making societal creativity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adorno, T.W. , Frenkel-Brunswik, E. , Levinson, D.J. , & Sanford, R.N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Wiley.

Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin ( M. Holquist , Ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bell, D. (1993). Communitarianism and its critics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology (New ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Paris: Maison des Sciences de l'Homme.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Castoriadis, C. (1987). The imaginary institution of society. Cambridge: Polity. (Original work published 1975)

Converse, P.E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D.E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York: Free Press.

Dahl, R.A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.

10.

Gaskell, G. (2000). Individual and group interviewing. In M. Bauer &

11.

G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching (pp. 38-56). London, Sage.

12.

Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right: The future of radical politics . Cambridge: Polity.

13.

Gignac, J.L. (1997). Sur le multiculturalisme et la politique de la différence idéntitaire: Taylor, Walzer, Kymlica. Politique et Sociétés, 16(2), 31-65.

14.

Glaser, B.G. , & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.

15.

Habermas, J. (1985). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon.

16.

Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. Lifeworld and system. Boston, MA: Beacon.

17.

Jodelet, D. (1991). Madness and social representations: Living with the mad in one French community. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1989)

18.

Lane, R. (1962). Political ideology. New York : Free Press of Glencoe.

19.

Lubart, T. (2003). Psychologie de la créativité. Paris: Armand Colin.

20.

Magioglou, T. (2005). Le sens commun et la creation de sens. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Picardie, Amiens, France.

21.

Marková, I. (2003). Dialogicality and social representations: The dynamics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

22.

Michelat, G. , & Simon, M. (1977). Classes, religion et comportement politique. Paris: Presses de la FNSP.

23.

Moscovici, S. (1976). La psychanalyse, son image et son public. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (Original work published 1961)

24.

Moscovici, S. , & Hewstone, M. (1984). De la science au sens commun. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Psychologie sociale (pp. 539-566). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

25.

Parekh, B. (1993). The cultural particularity of liberal democracy . In D. Held (Ed.), Prospects for democracy. Cambridge: Polity.

26.

Piaget, J. (1972). Essai de logique opératoire (2nd ed. of Traité de logique: Essai de logistique opératoire) . Paris: Dunod.

27.

Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems. New York: Basic Books.

28.

Sandel, M.J. (1998). Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1975). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

30.

Shapiro, I. (2003). The state of democratic theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

31.

Sniderman, P. (1998). Les nouvelles perspectives de l'opinion publique . Politix, 41, 123-176.

32.

Strauss, A.L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

33.

Taylor, C. (1998). The dynamics of democratic exclusion. Journal of Democracy, 9(4), 143-156.

34.

Tsoukalas, K. (1975). Dépendance et reproduction: Le rôle social des appareils scolaires en Grèce. Paris: Themelio.

35.

Tversky, A. , & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.

36.

Valsiner, J. , & Van der Veer, R. (2000). The social mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

37.

Wagner, W. , Duveen, G. , Themel, M. , & Verma, J. (1999). The modernization of tradition: Thinking about madness in Patna, India. Culture & Psychology, 5, 413-445.