<strong>The</strong> subject's role <strong>in</strong> a radical "cont<strong>in</strong>gentism" perspective 18
<strong>The</strong> subject's role <strong>in</strong> a radical "cont<strong>in</strong>gentism" perspective. It may be asked what may be <strong>the</strong> role - <strong>in</strong> a perspective or radical "congentism" - <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual: that <strong>of</strong> act<strong>in</strong>g entity (namely an actor <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>discourse</strong>, producer <strong>of</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g, a "<strong>discourse</strong> producer" or at least a "<strong>discourse</strong>-user") or that <strong>of</strong> an acted-upon entity (a "by-<strong>discourse</strong>-used, an entity def<strong>in</strong>ed by <strong>the</strong> <strong>discourse</strong>, which only <strong>the</strong> analysts can reveal)? In order to reply several po<strong>in</strong>ts must be considered. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> RDA is to deny <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> an <strong>in</strong>ternal guide <strong>of</strong> cognitive type that orients <strong>the</strong> social <strong>in</strong>dividual's behaviour (Potter and We<strong>the</strong>rell, 1987; Potter, 1996; Potter and Edwards, 1999). To a typically cognitivist conception, <strong>the</strong> RDA opposes <strong>the</strong> assumption that <strong>the</strong> same cognition may be a characteristic <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> social action (Potter and Edwards, 1999). “DP rejects perceptual-cognitivism <strong>in</strong> favour <strong>of</strong> a systematic reformulation <strong>of</strong> cognition as a feature <strong>of</strong> participants’ practices.” (Potter & Edwards, 1999, p. 449) <strong>The</strong> idea that "cognitive facts" are an action (and more precisely a "performative" activity <strong>of</strong> discursive type) is moreover closely l<strong>in</strong>ked to <strong>the</strong> assumption <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> variability. On vary<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> contexts <strong>the</strong> social practices vary also. “We merely have to deal with a socially occasioned variability from one time to ano<strong>the</strong>r.” (Middleton & Edwards, 1990, p. 43) Accord<strong>in</strong>g to this assumption <strong>the</strong> behaviours, <strong>the</strong> beliefs and <strong>the</strong> representations change as a function <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> "performative" activity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>discourse</strong> and, consequently, <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>gent aims l<strong>in</strong>ked to a particular context. However, <strong>the</strong> <strong>discourse</strong> (with its emerg<strong>in</strong>g properties, namely <strong>the</strong> cognition) are not considered only as a cont<strong>in</strong>gent product l<strong>in</strong>ked to a specific <strong>in</strong>teractive situation, it reproduces <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> more ample <strong>discourse</strong>s circulat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> social sphere (<strong>the</strong> "<strong>in</strong>terpretative repertoires") Through <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretative repertoires, <strong>the</strong> RDA b<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual to <strong>the</strong> social. In pursu<strong>in</strong>g his aims (consciously or unconsciously) <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual uses <strong>the</strong> rhetorically proven and coherent discursive structures which are reified <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> language and which are, <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> way, suggested by <strong>the</strong> micro-context <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpersonal relation. This conception, although extremely articulated, seems to raise a problem. Paradoxically, <strong>in</strong> criticis<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> cognitivist ontology, <strong>the</strong> RDA ends up by creat<strong>in</strong>g a new ontology, this time <strong>of</strong> contestualist type, based on two complementary assumptions: all is a social practice, all is relative and variable. What plac<strong>in</strong>g has <strong>the</strong> subject with<strong>in</strong> this new ontology? In our op<strong>in</strong>ion, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> RDA <strong>the</strong> subject: (a) is transformed, from constructor <strong>of</strong> reality, <strong>in</strong>to construction <strong>of</strong> reality; (b) from speak<strong>in</strong>g subject, it transformed <strong>in</strong>to subject constantly spoken to by contextuallly variable micro-<strong>discourse</strong>s. <strong>The</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual's role, which <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> constructivist approach was <strong>in</strong>tended to be actor and protagonist <strong>in</strong>tentionally active <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> scenario <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> social life, becomes <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> RDA problematical. On <strong>the</strong> one hand <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual seems to be conceived as a rhetorical 19
- Page 1 and 2: EAESP SMALL GROUP MEETING Theory an
- Page 3 and 4: A scientific dialogue or monologue?
- Page 5 and 6: potential for contributing to a soc
- Page 7 and 8: identified with the discursive prac
- Page 9 and 10: The misunderstanding of the Moscovi
- Page 11 and 12: “monologue”, nor “dialogue st
- Page 13 and 14: The auto-confutation of radical rel
- Page 15 and 16: Sherrard, 1991; Marks, 1993, Figuer
- Page 17: It is undeniable that the articulat
- Page 21 and 22: of any structure intra-individual h
- Page 23 and 24: The "totalising" and "reifying" rol
- Page 25 and 26: No Communication without Representa
- Page 27 and 28: transferring messages occurs on the
- Page 29 and 30: The refusal of the communication co
- Page 31 and 32: Pol-lu-tion, s. Effect of defilemen
- Page 33 and 34: "Monological" versus "dialogical" p
- Page 35 and 36: Although the role of the action and
- Page 37 and 38: RDA, and even more the conversation
- Page 39 and 40: And even before in Arguing and Thin
- Page 41 and 42: Conclusion 41
- Page 43 and 44: Augoustionos, M. , Innes, J.M. (199
- Page 45 and 46: Jodelet, D. (1991) “L’idéologi
- Page 47: Wagner, W. (1998) Social representa