<strong>The</strong> "totalis<strong>in</strong>g" and "reify<strong>in</strong>g" role <strong>of</strong> <strong>discourse</strong>-action 22
<strong>The</strong> "totalis<strong>in</strong>g" and "reify<strong>in</strong>g" role <strong>of</strong> <strong>discourse</strong>-action. Ins<strong>of</strong>ar as it is beyond question that cognition is manifest <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> action, to totally identify <strong>the</strong> cognition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> action seems to be an operation no less criticable that <strong>the</strong> contrary one, namely to lead back, tout court, <strong>the</strong> action to an underly<strong>in</strong>g cognitive process. Potter and Edwards (1999) expla<strong>in</strong> this passage, demarcat<strong>in</strong>g one aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> conceptual territorial that separates <strong>the</strong> DP from <strong>the</strong> SRT. “In SRT, representations are primarily cognitve phenomena (...) which enable people to make sense <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world (...). In DP, representations are discursive objects which people construct <strong>in</strong> talk and texts.” (Potter & Edwards, 1999, p. 449) “Cognition is a feature <strong>of</strong> participants’ practices (...). <strong>The</strong> sense-mak<strong>in</strong>g role <strong>of</strong> representation is not excluded <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciple” (Potter and Edwards, 1999, p. 448-449) <strong>The</strong>se statement deserve a reflection. <strong>The</strong> operation <strong>of</strong> "putt<strong>in</strong>g" a representation <strong>in</strong>to "shape", <strong>of</strong> translat<strong>in</strong>g and articulat<strong>in</strong>g it <strong>in</strong> a <strong>discourse</strong> or <strong>in</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r textual modality, exerts an <strong>in</strong>fluence on <strong>the</strong> representation itself, transform<strong>in</strong>g it. It is, accord<strong>in</strong>gly, reasonable to uphold that <strong>the</strong> representation may be also a characteristic <strong>of</strong> an act <strong>of</strong> construction. It is equally obvious that <strong>in</strong> a socio-constructionist perspective this cannot occur as a mere exchange <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> neural networks, but as exchange <strong>of</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>gs symbolically connotated <strong>in</strong> a social scenario. However, <strong>the</strong> representation is not only a product <strong>of</strong> action. It guides also <strong>the</strong> action, determ<strong>in</strong>es <strong>the</strong> choice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> objectives and <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> means, builds <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ter-action context, steers <strong>the</strong> contents <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>discourse</strong>. And it is, above all, this capacity to steer and guide <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual more or less, that makes <strong>the</strong> action someth<strong>in</strong>g more than, and diverse from, <strong>the</strong> elementary construct <strong>of</strong> behaviour (see Amerio, 1991, 1996, Amerio & Ghiglione, 1986; von Cranach, 1992; Wagner, 1993, 1998). 23
- 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 and 18: It is undeniable that the articulat
- Page 19 and 20: The subject's role in a radical "co
- Page 21: of any structure intra-individual h
- 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