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

Abstract

Underlying all theories are philosophical presuppositions that lend themselves to different epistemological approaches, which need to be unfurled when comparing theories and offering alternative explanations. Contrary to Verheggen and Baerveldt's (2007) promulgation that `enactivism' may be an adequate alternative for Wagner's social representation approach, this commentary outlines how this may be a misguided position. Enactivism, following an outward trajectory from nervous systems, to minds, to `(inter)action', to social enactivism, is incompatible with the dialogical epistemology underpinning social representations theory. Social representations are not reducible to individual minds, and dialogical interaction is not reducible to operationally closed `systems' in (inter)action. The difference between the two approaches lies in the fundamental paradigmatic distinction between molar and molecular explanatory frameworks. Offering one as an alternative to the other overlooks the epistemological differences between the two and fails to appreciate the discrepancies between different levels of analysis, explanatory frameworks and the very phenomena that theories problematize.

Keywords

dialogical epistemology enactivism social representation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bauer, M.W. , & Gaskell, G. (1999). Towards a paradigm of research on social representations . Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 29, 163-186.

Baum, W.M. (2004). Molar and molecular views of choice. Behavioural Processes, 66, 349-359.

Doise, W. (1986). Levels of explanation in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harré, R. (1984). Some reflections on the concept of social representations . Social Research, 51, 927-938.

Himmelweit, H.T. (1990). Societal psychology: Implications and scope. In H.T. Himmelweit & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Societal psychology. London: Sage.

Jodelet, D. (1991). Madness and social representations (pp. 17-45). Berkeley : University of California Press.

Jovchelovitch, S. (2006). Knowledge in context: Representations, community and culture. London: Routledge.

Marková, I. (1982). Paradigms, thought and language. London: Wiley.

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

10.

Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self and society from the standpoint of a social behaviourist (C.W. Morris, Ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

11.

Moscovici, S. (1973). Foreword. In C. Herzlich , Health and illness: A social psychological analysis (pp. ix-xiv). London: Academic Press.

12.

Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R.M. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Social representations (pp. 3-69). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

13.

Moscovici, S. (2000). Social representations: Explorations in social psychology. Cambridge: Polity.

14.

Rose, D. , Efraim, D. , Gervais, M. , Joffe, H. , Jovchelovitch, S. , & Morant, N. (1995). Questioning consensus in social representations theory. Papers on Social Representations, 4, 1-6.

15.

Vergheggen, T. , & Baerveldt, C. (2007). We don't share! The social representation approach, enactivism and the ground for an intrinsically social psychology. Culture & Psychology, 13, 5-27.

16.

Wagner, W. (1993). Can representations explain social behaviour? A discussion of social representations as rational systems. Papers on Social Representations, 2, 236-249.

17.

Wagner, W. (1995). Description, explanation and methods in social representation research. Papers on Social Representations , 4, pp. 156-176.

18.

Wagner, W. (1998). Social representations and beyond: Brute facts, symbolic coping and domesticated worlds. Culture & Psychology , 4, 297-329.

19.

Wagner, W. , Duveen, G. , Farr, R. , Jovchelovitch, S. , Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. , Marková, I. , & Rose, D. (1999). Theory and method of social representations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 95-125.

20.

Wagner, W. , & Hayes, N. (2005). Everyday discourse and common sense: The theory of social representations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

21.

Wagner, W. , Mecha, A. , & do Rosário Carvlho, M. (2008). Discourse and representation in the construction of witchcraft. In T. Sugiman , K.J. Gergen , W. Wagner , & Y. Yamada (Eds.), Meaning in action: Constructions, narratives and representations (pp. 37-48). New York: Springer .

22.

Wetherell, M. , & Maybin, J. (2002). The distributed self: A social constructionist perspective. In R. Stevens (Ed.), Understanding the self (pp. 219-279). London: Sage.