"Monological" versus "dialogical" perspectives "<strong>in</strong>" and "with<strong>in</strong>" RDA and SRT paradigm 32
"Monological" versus "dialogical" perspectives "<strong>in</strong>" and "with<strong>in</strong>" RDA and SRT paradigm However <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g (and philosophically legitimate) br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g all back to <strong>the</strong> <strong>discourse</strong> may be, it can leave one perplexed. It is undeniable that diverse <strong>discourse</strong>s exist, that <strong>the</strong> representations and <strong>the</strong> aims pursued <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> specific communicative circumstance can orient a <strong>discourse</strong>, and that <strong>the</strong> social representations can be identified <strong>in</strong> recurr<strong>in</strong>g elements <strong>in</strong> several <strong>discourse</strong>s. Never<strong>the</strong>less <strong>the</strong> sensation <strong>of</strong> "monologism" or clos<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> "circular loop" rema<strong>in</strong>s. In <strong>the</strong> same way as <strong>the</strong> sensation rema<strong>in</strong>s that <strong>the</strong> <strong>discourse</strong> is "reified", s<strong>in</strong>ce immanent to <strong>the</strong> discursive practices observable (or to <strong>the</strong> message, if it is preferred to resort to <strong>the</strong> "metaphor" <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> communication). Never<strong>the</strong>less <strong>the</strong> accusation <strong>of</strong> "circularity" between <strong>the</strong> def<strong>in</strong>itions <strong>of</strong> SR and <strong>the</strong> social subjects (groups, categories) which produce <strong>the</strong>m was directed precisely by <strong>the</strong> upholders <strong>of</strong> RDA to <strong>the</strong> social representations, s<strong>in</strong>ce expressed by socially positioned groups, which, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir turn, were already prelim<strong>in</strong>ary identified on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> social representations. “In particular, Litton and Potter (1985) have polemicized on <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> study <strong>of</strong> social representations, contrast<strong>in</strong>g elements have been m<strong>in</strong>imized and “consensual universes” created. Next to <strong>the</strong> ambiguity regard<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> extent to which SRs are shared, <strong>the</strong> authors lament <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> explicit, external criteria for identify<strong>in</strong>g groups <strong>in</strong>dependent <strong>of</strong> shared SRs, which creates circularity <strong>in</strong>s<strong>of</strong>ar as a group is identified by its SRs and at <strong>the</strong> same time is assumed to be <strong>the</strong> generator <strong>of</strong> those SRs.” (de Rosa, 1994 p. 285 ) But it is to be demanded how <strong>the</strong> champions <strong>of</strong> such a radical socio-construtionist approach can <strong>in</strong>voke ""external" criteria that re-echo <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> "<strong>in</strong>dependent variables" specific <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> experimental approach <strong>the</strong>y deny. <strong>The</strong> circularity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> S.R. <strong>the</strong>ory is considered as "dialogism” to <strong>the</strong> extent <strong>in</strong> which very clearly - by epistemological roots - it was def<strong>in</strong>ed by Ivana Markova (2000) and, earlier still, by Ragnar Rommetveit (1984). "Dialogism" which may be <strong>in</strong>voked precisely because - unlike <strong>the</strong> RDA approach - a totallis<strong>in</strong>g role is not attributed to <strong>the</strong> social representation, as construction that - as <strong>the</strong> equal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>discourse</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> RDA - <strong>in</strong>corporates and negates all <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r constructions and processes (behaviour, op<strong>in</strong>ion, common sense, communication, cognition, action, memory, etc.) and levels (<strong>in</strong>dividual and social, <strong>in</strong>terpersonal and <strong>in</strong>trapersonal, external and <strong>in</strong>ternal, past-present-future, stability and change, etc.). On <strong>the</strong> contrary, to <strong>the</strong> extent <strong>in</strong> which it recognises <strong>the</strong>m and assumes <strong>the</strong>m, it can set itself <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> condition <strong>of</strong> articulat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>m dia-logically. “(...) <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory is based on an epistemology which br<strong>in</strong>gs to <strong>the</strong> centre <strong>of</strong> attention <strong>the</strong> dynamic <strong>in</strong>terdependence between socio-culturally shared forms <strong>of</strong> th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g, communicat<strong>in</strong>g and act<strong>in</strong>g and heir transformation through activities <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual and groups. All <strong>the</strong>se phenomena have a double orientation? <strong>The</strong>y are embedded <strong>in</strong> culture and history and thus have a tendency towards stability. At <strong>the</strong> same time, <strong>the</strong>y live through <strong>the</strong> activities, tensions and conflicts <strong>of</strong> groups and <strong>in</strong>dividuals, who actively appropriate, <strong>in</strong>novate and create new phenomena. On <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> this epistemology, social representations <strong>the</strong>ory develops orig<strong>in</strong>al dialogical (dialectic) concepts like <strong>the</strong>mata, communicative genres, objectification as appropriation and creation <strong>of</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g, which <strong>in</strong> turn are relevant to <strong>the</strong> study <strong>of</strong> phenomenon <strong>in</strong> social change.” (Markova, 2000, p.455) That <strong>the</strong> dialogic conception derives for <strong>the</strong> classic dialectic <strong>of</strong> Hegelian stamp (as <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> position assumed by Markova) or <strong>in</strong>stead exceeds <strong>the</strong> l<strong>in</strong>earity (as <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> position 33
- 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 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: Pol-lu-tion, s. Effect of defilemen
- 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