In this paper, I present Bertoldo and Castro’s (2019) epistemological limits in relation to Moscovici’s and propose to develop some of Moscovici’s dynamic aspects. Because Bertoldo and Castro (2019) refer to Boulanger and Christensen’s (2018) work—which aims to schematize the representation processes at different levels of abstraction and develop an aesthetic theory of social representations with respect to Simmel—as a dialogical response, I use this same framework to criticize and push further their effort of extending SRT with regard to the subjective dimension. Bakhtin’s work will be partially used to support my arguments and establish the basis for a dialogical model of aesthetic representation as CHARACTERization. I will quickly illustrate the theoretical propositions regarding the analysis of intergenerational practices in Quebec (Canada), thereby introducing the concept of intergenerational CHARACTERization.
BakhtinM. M. (1981). The dialogical imagination. Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Texas: University of Texas Press.
2.
BakhtinM. M. (1990). Art and Answerability (M. Holquist & V. Liapunov, Eds.). Texas: University of Texas Press.
3.
BakhtinM. M. (1993). Toward a philosophy of the act (V. Liapunov, Trans.). Texas: University of Texas Press.
4.
BertoldoR.CastroP. (2019).
From legal to normative: A combined social representation and sociocognitive approach to diagnosing cultural change triggered by new environmental laws. Culture & Psychology,
25(3), 324–344.
5.
BilligM. (1988).
Social representation, objectivation and anchoring: A rhetorical analysis. Social Behaviour,
3, 1–16.
6.
BilligM. (2008).
Social representations and repression: Examining the first formulations of Freud and Moscovici. Journal of Theory and Social Behaviour,
38(4), 355–368.
7.
BoulangerD. (2016). Dynamiques représentationnelles à l’interface de l’école et de la famille.
Riga:
Éditions Universitaires Européennes.
8.
BoulangerD. (2017a).
Extending social representation theory through dialogical self theory: Subjects’ relationship with space. The International Journal for Dialogical Sciences,
10(2), 9–33.
9.
BoulangerD. (2017b).
Representing the vagueness within dialogical self. The International Journal for Dialogical Sciences,
10(2), 117–130.
10.
BoulangerD. (2017c).
Social representation theory and dialogical self-theory: A dialogue through implicit meta-frames. The International Journal for Dialogical Sciences,
10(2), 193–222.
11.
BoulangerD. (2019a). Imagination beyond social representation: Human encounters amidst virtuality and reality. In ValérioT.BastosA. C.TateoL. (Eds.), From dream to action: Imagination and (im)possible futures.
Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
12.
BoulangerD. (2019b). Public’s social representations of relational professions and their work context: Extension of Moscovici’s study in the New Public Management. InBendassolliP. (Ed.), Culture, work and psychology: Invitations to dialogue. Advances in cultural psychology: Constructing human development (pp. 333–353).
Information Age Publishing.
13.
BoulangerD.ChristensenB. (2018). Social representations as social forms and aesthetic phenomena: Dialogue between Moscovici and Simmel. In TateoL. (Ed.), An old melody in a new song: Aesthetics and psychology (pp. 181–182).
New York:
Springer.
14.
BoulangerD.ValsinerJ. (2017).
The self and society in dialogue: Linking two theories. The International Journal for Dialogical Sciences,
10(2), 1–8.
15.
DeleuzeG. (1968). Différence et répétition.
Paris:
Presse Universitaire de France.
16.
HowarthC.KalampalikisN.CastroP. (2011). 50 Years of Research on Social Representations: Central Debates and Challenging Questions. Papers on Social Representations,
20(2), 919–911.
17.
JahodaG. (2005).
Theodor Lipps and the shift from “sympathy” to “empathy.”Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences,
41(2), 151–163.
18.
JodeletD. (1989). Les représentations sociales.
Paris, France:
Presses Universitaires de France.
19.
JodeletD. (2008).
Le movement de retour vers le sujet et l’approche des representations sociales. Connexions,
89(1), 25–46.
20.
JodeletD. (2011).
Returning to past features of Serge Moscovici’s theory to feed the future. Papers on Social Representations,
20(2), 39.1–39.11.
21.
JodeletD. (2015).
Problématiques psychosociales de l’approche de la notion de sujet. Cadernos de Pesquissa,
45(156), 314–327.
22.
MarkovàI. (2007). Dialogicité et représentations sociales.
Paris, France:
Presses Universitaires de France.
23.
MoscoviciS. (1961). La psychanalyse, son image, son public.
Paris, France:
Les Presses Universitaires de France.
24.
MoscoviciS. (1976). La psychanalyse, son image, son public (2nd ed.).
Paris, France:
Les Presses Universitaires de France.
25.
MoscoviciS. (1984a). Le domaine de la psychologie sociale. In MoscoviciS. (Ed.), Psychologie sociale (pp. 5–22).
Paris, France:
Presses Universitaires de France.
26.
MoscoviciS. (1984b).
The myth of the lonely paradigm: A rejoinder. Social Research,
51(4), 939–967.
27.
MoscoviciS. (1984c). The phenomenon of social representations. In FarrR. M.MoscoviciS. (Eds.), Social representations (pp. 3–70).
Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
28.
MoscoviciS. (1988).
Notes towards a description of social representation. European Journal of Social Psychology,
18, 211–250.
29.
MoscoviciS. (2005).
Le regard psychosocial. Entretien avec Birgitta Orfalli. Hermès,
1(41), 17–24.
30.
MoscoviciS. (2013). Le scandale de la pensée sociale. Textes réunis et préfacés par N. Kalampalikis.
Paris, France:
EHESS.
31.
SimmelG. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel (K. H. Wolff, Trans. & Ed.).
Glencoe, IL:
The Free Press.
32.
SimmelG. (1959). The aesthetic significance of the face. In WolffK. (Ed.), Georg Simmel 1858–1918 (pp. 276–281).
Columbus, OH:
The Ohio State University Press.
33.
SimmelG. (1978/2004). The philosophy of money.
London, England:
Routledge.
34.
VisherR.MallgraveH. F.InonomouE. (1994). Empathy, form, and space. Problems in German Aesthetic, 1873–1893.
Santa Monica, CA:
Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities.
