This article addresses the difficulties of generalizing new norms and practices, focusing on the role of the legal system for proposing change and innovation to society. It first presents some contributions offered by the social representational approach for understanding these issues, based on the assumptions of the interdependence both of change and stability, and of the social and the individual. Afterwards it is argued that for advancing the study of change the approach needs to offer more attention to: (1) the role of expert mediating systems regarding the translation of new norms to concrete contexts and their articulation with practices; (2) the arguments and discursive strategies employed in everyday communication to resist change with normative force; and (3) the consequences for the relations between representations and practices of the distinction between 'transcendent' and 'immanent' representations. In the empirical part of the paper, and with the goal of better understanding the difficulties linked to the generalization of new norms and practices, these notions are used for analysing a controversy which, in a context of changed norms regarding public participation, involved the expert and lay spheres in a debate about the built heritage of a community.
Bauer, M.W. (2006). Paradoxes of resistance in Brazil. In G. Gaskell & M.W. Bauer (Eds.), Genomics and society: Legal, ethical and social dimensions (pp. 228-249). London: Earthscan .
2.
Billig, M. (1985). Prejudice, categorization and particularization: From a perceptual to a rhetorical approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 79-103.
3.
Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., & Radley A. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: The social psychology of everyday thinking. London: Sage .
4.
Campbell, C., & Jovchelovitch, S. (2000). Health, community and development: Towards a social psychology of participation. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 255-270.
5.
Castro, P. (2003). Dialogues in social psychology, or how new are new ideas? In J. Lazlo & W. Wagner (Eds.), Theories and controversies in societal psychology (pp. 32-54). Budapest: New Mandate.
6.
Castro, P. (2006). Applying social psychology to the study of environmental concern: Contributions from the social representations approach. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 247-266.
7.
Castro, P., & Lima, L. (2001). Old and new ideas about the environment and science: An exploratory study. Environment and Behavior, 33, 400-423.
8.
CEC (2002). Communication on the Collection and Use of Expertise by the Commission: Principles and Guidelines (COM-2002) 713. Brussels: European Commission.
9.
Cialdini, R.B., Kallgren, C.A., & Reno, R.R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and revaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201-234). New York: Academic Press.
10.
Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. New York: Syracuse University Press.
11.
Duveen. G. (2001). Representations, identities, resistance. In K. Deaux & G. Philogene (Eds.), Representations of the social (pp. 257-270). Oxford: Blackwell.
12.
Farr, R.M. (1998). From collective to social representations: Aller et retour. Culture & Psychology, 4, 275-296.
13.
Fiske, S.T. (1992). Thinking is for doing: Portraits of social cognition from daguerreotype to laserphoto. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 877-889.
14.
Foucault, M. (1971). Orders of discourse. Social Science Information, 10, 7-30.
15.
Fritsche, I. (2002). Account strategies for the violation of social norms: Integration and extension of sociological and social psychological typologies. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 32, 371-394.
16.
Gonçalves, M.E. (2002). Implementation of EIA directives in Portugal: How changes in civic culture are challenging political and administrative practice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22/23, 249-269.
17.
Harre, R. (1998). The epistemology of social representations. In U. Flick (Ed.), The psychology of the social (pp. 129-137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Howarth, C. (2006). A social representation is not a quiet thing: Exploring the critical potential of social representations theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 65-86.
19.
Jodelet, D. (1989). Folies et représentations sociales. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
20.
Jovchelovitch, S. (2007). Knowledge in context: Representations, community and culture. London: Routledge.
21.
Jovchelovitch, S., & Gervais, M.-C. (1999). Social representations of health and illness: The case of the Chinese community in England. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 247-260.
22.
Lawrence, J.A., Dodds, A.E., & Valsiner, J. (2004). The many faces of everyday life: Some challenges to the psychology of cultural practice. Culture & Psychology , 10, 455-476.
23.
Lima, M.L. (2004). Images of the public in the debates about risk: Consequences for participation. Portuguese Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 149-163.
24.
Marková, I. (2003). Dialogicality and social representations: The dynamics of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Moloney G., & Walker, I. (2002). Talking about transplants: Social representations and the dialectical, dilemmatic nature of organ donation and transplantation . British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 299-320.
26.
Morant, N. (2006). Social representations and professional knowledge: The representation of mental illness among mental health practitioners. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 817-838.
27.
Moscovici, S. (1972). Society and theory in social psychology. In J. Israel & H. Tajfel (Eds.), The context of social psychology: A critical assessment (pp. 17-68). London: Academic Press.
28.
Moscovici, S. (1976a). La Psychanalyse, son image et son public. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France . (Original work published 1961.)
29.
Moscovici, S. (1976b). Social influence and social change. London: Academic Press.
30.
Moscovici, S. (1981). On social representations. In J.P. Forgas (Ed.), Social cognition: Perspectives on everyday understanding (pp. 181-209). London: Academic Press.
31.
Moscovici, S. (1984). The myth of the lonely paradigm: A rejoinder. Social Research, 51, 939-967.
32.
Moscovici, S. (1998). The history and actuality of social representations . In U. Flick (Ed.), The psychology of the social (pp. 209-247). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Moscovici, S. (1999). Psicologia sociale, interdisciplinarita e fiducia fra gli scenziati. Giornale Italiano Di Psicologia, XXVI, 221-224.
34.
Perez, J., Papastamou, S., & Mugny G. (1995). Zeitgeist and minority influence-where is the causality? Comment on Clark. European Journal of Social Psychology , 25, 703-710.
35.
Pettigrew, T., Jackson, J., Ben Brika, J., Lemaine, G., Meertens, R., Wagner, U., & Zick, A. (1998). Outgroup prejudice in Western Europe. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Coord.), European Review of Social Psychology, 8, 241-273.
36.
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage Publications.
37.
Potter. J., & Wetherell, M. (1998). Social representations, discourse analysis, and racism. In U. Flick (Ed.), Psychology of the social (pp. 138-155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Raudsepp, M. (2005). Why is it so difficult to understand the theory of social representations? Culture & Psychology, 11, 455-468.
39.
Santos, B. (2003). Conhecimento prudente para uma vida decente: Um discurso sobre a ciência revisitado. Porto: Edições Afrontamento.
40.
Spini, D., & Doise, W. (1998). Organizing principles of involvement in human rights and their social anchoring in value priorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 603-622.
41.
Vala, J., Garcia-Marques, L., Gouveia-Pereira, M., & Lopes, D. (1998). Validation of polemical social representations: Introducing the intergroup differentiation of heterogeneity. Social Science Information, 37, 469-492.
42.
Valsiner, J. (2003). Beyond social representations: A theory of enablement . Papers on Social Representations, 12, 1-16.
43.
Voelklein, C., & Howarth, C. (2005). A review of controversies about social representations theory: ABritish debate. Culture & Psychology, 11, 431-454.
44.
Wagner, W. (1998). Social representations and beyond: Brute facts, symbolic coping and domesticated worlds. Culture & Psychology , 4, 297-329.
45.
Wagner, W., Duveen, G., Themel, M., & Verma, J. (1999). The modernization of tradition: Thinking about madness in Patna, India. Culture & Psychology, 5, 413-445.
