SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS AND SOCIAL IMAGINARY
Margarita Robertazzi (2006)
Summary:
INTRODUCTION
Social psychology has evolved oscillating between psychological and sociological approaches. Depending on the era, one of these
poles has been more accentuated, which has led it to be classified as Social Psychological Psychology or Sociological Social
Psychology. For example, Floyd Allport is considered representative of a more psychological orientation, while recent theories such
as social representations emphasize the importance of considering the social origins of knowledge.
After the old nineteenth-century controversy between Tarde and Durkheim, today we can affirm that both disciplines have included
the other pole. Sociology has incorporated the individual perspective, and psychology has integrated the influence of social
experiences and environmental factors into its studies of the individual. Both disciplines benefit and enhance each other,
facilitating the understanding of individual mental processes and allowing them to be analyzed as cultural and historical pro ducts.
In today's social psychology, several concepts are used to illustrate these intersections, although they are sometimes incorrectly
applied synonymously. A more systematic analysis is needed to identify their differences and avoid confusion. Expressions such as
collective attitudes, social representations, social imaginary, ideology, habitus, and mentalities seek to account for how individual
and collective aspects are dialectically articulated.
This work will focus on discriminating and systematizing the concepts of social representations and social imaginary, which are two
of the most used in our country by those who study collective phenomena in psychology.
THE STUDY OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS
The theory of social representations was formulated by Serge Moscovici, who inaugurated a field of theoretical and empirical
research for Social Psychology forty years ago. In his 1961 doctoral dissertation, Moscovici studied the social representation of
psychoanalysis in France, using surveys and content analysis of newspaper articles to understand how society had transformed
psychoanalytic concepts into common-sense knowledge.
Moscovici identified three major stages in the evolution of social psychology: social attitudes, social cognitions, and socia l
representations. According to him, the discipline deals with the conflict between individual and society, addressing ideologi cal and
communication phenomena at various levels of human relations.
In contrast to Durkheim's concept of collective representations, Moscovici's social representations are characteristic of our time
and have a symbolic function and in the construction of reality. These representations are systems of values, ideas, and practices
that help individuals orient themselves in their social world and communicate within their community.
Moscovici defined social representations as shared cognitive constructs that arise from everyday social interaction and provi de a
common-sense understanding. These concepts are not mere opinions or images; They are "theories" of the "collective sciences"
that interpret and construct reality. Basabe, Páez, and other authors call them common-sense proto theories.
DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS
Since Serge Moscovici's classic definition as "the elaboration of a social object by a community" (1961/79), many other defin itions
have emphasized various aspects of social representations.
For Farr (1985), social representations have a dual function: to make the strange familiar and the invisible perceptible. According
to Doise (1991), they are organizing principles of the positions adopted in the symbolic relations between social actors, li nked to
their specific insertions in a defined set of social relations.
Basabe, Páez et al. (1992) consider that the study of social representations allows us to trace a proto theory that facilitates the
finding of a public justification narrative and an explanatory theory of common sense. Jodelet (2003) defines them as a process
and product of a mental activity that a group elaborates, defining objectives and procedures for its members. It is socially
elaborated and shared knowledge that circulates in different communities.
1
Made by MatyBuda
, CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS
In the postgraduate seminar on "Social Representations and Collective Memory" given by Jodelet at the Faculty of Psychology o f
the University of Buenos Aires in 2003, the following characteristics of the concept of social representations were presented :
1. Subject-object relationship: Social representations always refer to something (the object) and are from someone (the subject).
The characteristics of both will influence the representation.
2. Symbolization and interpretation: They take the place of the object, symbolizing it and interpreting it to give it meaning . This
makes them a construction and expression of the subject, allowing the study of psychological aspects such as cognitive processes
and intrapsychic mechanisms, also integrating the social and cultural participation of individuals.
3. Form of knowledge: They are presented as a modelling of the object.
4. Social efficacy: They are practical knowledge used to act on the world and others, performing a function of practical adap tation,
which can be called psychosocial engagement.
DETERMINANTS FOR THE PRODUCTION AND FUNCTIONING OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS
The processes of anchoring and objectification are fundamental to the production and functioning of social representations.
Objectification is the process of giving material reality to an abstract entity, accentuating its iconic aspect, and equating the concept
with the image. Select specific aspects of the information available about the object, creating an iconic figurative or cast model
that represents the abstract in a visual way. This process naturalizes the concept, ratifying the figurative model and socially
elaborating reality.
Anchoring makes it possible to classify the object of representation within existing social categories. It transforms the object into
something useful, inserting it into a hierarchy of already established norms, values, and social productions. Social represen tations
turn the strange into the familiar and function as a society-specific mode of knowledge. This process is characterized by a form of
reasoning where the conclusion controls the premises, typical of social thought and distinct from scientific reasoning. Howev er,
the two ways of thinking are not only opposites; They also complement and nurture each other, as evidenced by scientific prog ress
and the dissemination of science in society.
OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEORIES OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS
According to Abric's (1985) theorizations, we can conceive of social representation as a socio -cognitive structure regulated by a
double system: the central system and the peripheral system.
The central system has two essential functions. The first is organizing, since it determines the nature of the relationships between
the different elements of representation, acting as a unifier and stabilizer. The second is generative, as it gives meaning to each
element of the representational field.
The peripheral system is made up of flexible elements that allow the representation to be adapted to the reality of the moment.
These peripheral elements, being more flexible, authorize individual modulations of representation and participate in the
processes of defense and transformation of representations.
Despite much research on the peripheral system, the nature and functioning of the central system are not so clearly perceived.
Social representations are conveyed by language, producing, and reproducing the social, and can be analysed in dimensions such
as attitude, information, and field of representation.
Basabe, Páez et al. (1992) propose three dimensions for analysing social representations: information (knowledge about a social
object), nucleus (around which the content is organised) and attitude (evaluative dimension towards the object).
Social communication is impossible without shared social representations, as they provide common meanings and allow groups to
be differentiated. Basabe et al. emphasize that not just any stereotype or set of ideological beliefs constitutes a social
representation, but rather those that justify or explain an intergroup conflict or a conflictive psychosocial reality.
A practical example is research on youth alcohol use, where social representations are used to trace a proto theory that makes it
easier to find a public justificatory narrative. These studies reveal that it is not enough to appeal to ideas or information for a
prevention proposal; It is necessary to construct new social representations.
Although the study of social representations has been widely disseminated, it has provoked controversy and criticism. Harré and
Lamb (1992) suggest that such criticisms are due to the influence of behaviorism and the positivist tradition. Recent studies
2
Made by MatyBuda
Margarita Robertazzi (2006)
Summary:
INTRODUCTION
Social psychology has evolved oscillating between psychological and sociological approaches. Depending on the era, one of these
poles has been more accentuated, which has led it to be classified as Social Psychological Psychology or Sociological Social
Psychology. For example, Floyd Allport is considered representative of a more psychological orientation, while recent theories such
as social representations emphasize the importance of considering the social origins of knowledge.
After the old nineteenth-century controversy between Tarde and Durkheim, today we can affirm that both disciplines have included
the other pole. Sociology has incorporated the individual perspective, and psychology has integrated the influence of social
experiences and environmental factors into its studies of the individual. Both disciplines benefit and enhance each other,
facilitating the understanding of individual mental processes and allowing them to be analyzed as cultural and historical pro ducts.
In today's social psychology, several concepts are used to illustrate these intersections, although they are sometimes incorrectly
applied synonymously. A more systematic analysis is needed to identify their differences and avoid confusion. Expressions such as
collective attitudes, social representations, social imaginary, ideology, habitus, and mentalities seek to account for how individual
and collective aspects are dialectically articulated.
This work will focus on discriminating and systematizing the concepts of social representations and social imaginary, which are two
of the most used in our country by those who study collective phenomena in psychology.
THE STUDY OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS
The theory of social representations was formulated by Serge Moscovici, who inaugurated a field of theoretical and empirical
research for Social Psychology forty years ago. In his 1961 doctoral dissertation, Moscovici studied the social representation of
psychoanalysis in France, using surveys and content analysis of newspaper articles to understand how society had transformed
psychoanalytic concepts into common-sense knowledge.
Moscovici identified three major stages in the evolution of social psychology: social attitudes, social cognitions, and socia l
representations. According to him, the discipline deals with the conflict between individual and society, addressing ideologi cal and
communication phenomena at various levels of human relations.
In contrast to Durkheim's concept of collective representations, Moscovici's social representations are characteristic of our time
and have a symbolic function and in the construction of reality. These representations are systems of values, ideas, and practices
that help individuals orient themselves in their social world and communicate within their community.
Moscovici defined social representations as shared cognitive constructs that arise from everyday social interaction and provi de a
common-sense understanding. These concepts are not mere opinions or images; They are "theories" of the "collective sciences"
that interpret and construct reality. Basabe, Páez, and other authors call them common-sense proto theories.
DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS
Since Serge Moscovici's classic definition as "the elaboration of a social object by a community" (1961/79), many other defin itions
have emphasized various aspects of social representations.
For Farr (1985), social representations have a dual function: to make the strange familiar and the invisible perceptible. According
to Doise (1991), they are organizing principles of the positions adopted in the symbolic relations between social actors, li nked to
their specific insertions in a defined set of social relations.
Basabe, Páez et al. (1992) consider that the study of social representations allows us to trace a proto theory that facilitates the
finding of a public justification narrative and an explanatory theory of common sense. Jodelet (2003) defines them as a process
and product of a mental activity that a group elaborates, defining objectives and procedures for its members. It is socially
elaborated and shared knowledge that circulates in different communities.
1
Made by MatyBuda
, CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS
In the postgraduate seminar on "Social Representations and Collective Memory" given by Jodelet at the Faculty of Psychology o f
the University of Buenos Aires in 2003, the following characteristics of the concept of social representations were presented :
1. Subject-object relationship: Social representations always refer to something (the object) and are from someone (the subject).
The characteristics of both will influence the representation.
2. Symbolization and interpretation: They take the place of the object, symbolizing it and interpreting it to give it meaning . This
makes them a construction and expression of the subject, allowing the study of psychological aspects such as cognitive processes
and intrapsychic mechanisms, also integrating the social and cultural participation of individuals.
3. Form of knowledge: They are presented as a modelling of the object.
4. Social efficacy: They are practical knowledge used to act on the world and others, performing a function of practical adap tation,
which can be called psychosocial engagement.
DETERMINANTS FOR THE PRODUCTION AND FUNCTIONING OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS
The processes of anchoring and objectification are fundamental to the production and functioning of social representations.
Objectification is the process of giving material reality to an abstract entity, accentuating its iconic aspect, and equating the concept
with the image. Select specific aspects of the information available about the object, creating an iconic figurative or cast model
that represents the abstract in a visual way. This process naturalizes the concept, ratifying the figurative model and socially
elaborating reality.
Anchoring makes it possible to classify the object of representation within existing social categories. It transforms the object into
something useful, inserting it into a hierarchy of already established norms, values, and social productions. Social represen tations
turn the strange into the familiar and function as a society-specific mode of knowledge. This process is characterized by a form of
reasoning where the conclusion controls the premises, typical of social thought and distinct from scientific reasoning. Howev er,
the two ways of thinking are not only opposites; They also complement and nurture each other, as evidenced by scientific prog ress
and the dissemination of science in society.
OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEORIES OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS
According to Abric's (1985) theorizations, we can conceive of social representation as a socio -cognitive structure regulated by a
double system: the central system and the peripheral system.
The central system has two essential functions. The first is organizing, since it determines the nature of the relationships between
the different elements of representation, acting as a unifier and stabilizer. The second is generative, as it gives meaning to each
element of the representational field.
The peripheral system is made up of flexible elements that allow the representation to be adapted to the reality of the moment.
These peripheral elements, being more flexible, authorize individual modulations of representation and participate in the
processes of defense and transformation of representations.
Despite much research on the peripheral system, the nature and functioning of the central system are not so clearly perceived.
Social representations are conveyed by language, producing, and reproducing the social, and can be analysed in dimensions such
as attitude, information, and field of representation.
Basabe, Páez et al. (1992) propose three dimensions for analysing social representations: information (knowledge about a social
object), nucleus (around which the content is organised) and attitude (evaluative dimension towards the object).
Social communication is impossible without shared social representations, as they provide common meanings and allow groups to
be differentiated. Basabe et al. emphasize that not just any stereotype or set of ideological beliefs constitutes a social
representation, but rather those that justify or explain an intergroup conflict or a conflictive psychosocial reality.
A practical example is research on youth alcohol use, where social representations are used to trace a proto theory that makes it
easier to find a public justificatory narrative. These studies reveal that it is not enough to appeal to ideas or information for a
prevention proposal; It is necessary to construct new social representations.
Although the study of social representations has been widely disseminated, it has provoked controversy and criticism. Harré and
Lamb (1992) suggest that such criticisms are due to the influence of behaviorism and the positivist tradition. Recent studies
2
Made by MatyBuda
