IDEAS THAT BECOME OBJECTS
COMMON SENSE
Serge Moscovici (1979)
Summary:
1. OBJECTIFICATION
How do we form the representation of a social object in order to circumvent the threat it represents and restore the identity it
questions? We cannot fully answer this question. Also, the verb "is formed" here has no genetic meaning; rather, it designates a
probable chain of phenomena that can one day be expected to be validated by experimental observation. However, these are not
mere hypotheses. This linkage was obtained from relating a series of analyses and the survey material is present to strengthen our
statements and correct what could be artificial.
A social representation is elaborated according to two fundamental processes: objectification and anchoring. The slow burden on
psychoanalysis exerted by the social body, the influence of its reference values on its evolution, are related to consolidation.
Objectification leads to making a schema-concept real and to duplicating an image with a material counterpart. The result has a
cognitive instance: the provision of indices and signifiers that a person receives, emits, and weaves in the cycle of
infracommunications can be superabundant. To reduce the separation between the mass of words that circulate and the objects
that accompany them, "linguistic signs" are paired with "material structures."
Language, especially scientific language, presupposes a series of conventions that determine its adequacy to reality. For example,
the "Oedipus complex" designates, since Freud, a specific organization of relationships between parents and children.
Psychoanalysts use this formula to group together a set of links between individuals and use it to interpret certain symptoms. But
its use does not imply the presence of this complex in any specific part. Individuals and groups who do not know the rules of
psychoanalysis take this word as the indicator of a proven material phenomenon.
When there is a break between the technical norms of language and the current lexicon, the symbol appears as a sign. It is natural,
then, to try to know what a "reality" corresponds to. Because of this decentralization, the elements of scientific technique pass
into everyday language, where they obey new conventions. The words "complex" and "repression", invested with a new power,
here designate ostensible manifestations of the real. Ultimately, psychoanalysis could be forgotten and, for a long time, permeate
our view of the world and its vocabulary would serve to designate psychological behaviors. To objectify is to reabsorb an excess of
meanings by materializing them, transplanting to the plane of observation what was interference or meaning.
In the preceding chapter we saw how the dissemination of a science questions the integrity of the collectivity, whether it escapes
its control, and how it creates a bond of dependence on the group that represents it. In order for a scientific conception to
harmonize with the behaviors with which we identify, it is necessary that it separate itself from this group of "experts." With the
scientific content of psychoanalysis, society no longer situates itself in relation to it and to psychoanalysts, but in relation to a series
of phenomena that it takes the liberty of treating as it sees fit. The testimony of men becomes the testimony of the senses, the
unknown universe becomes familiar to all.
I will now try to analyze the relationship between objectification and the forms it can take. Objectification is an effort at
classification that places and organizes the parts of the surrounding world and, through its cracks, introduces an order that adapts
to the pre-existing order, attenuating the shock of any new conception. Adapted to beings, gestures or phenomena, classification
responds to a psychic need. It is about cutting off the incessant flow of stimuli in order to arrive at a synthesis in it and decide
which elements are sensorially or intellectually accessible to us. A key is required that allows us to name the various aspects of
reality and, therefore, to define them.
After the advent of psychoanalysis, it is no longer just said that someone is stubborn or complaining, but also that he is aggressive
or repressed. The categories of normal and pathological have changed. Naturalizing, classifying, are essential operations of
objectification. One enriches the range of beings attributed to the person, and in this sense, it can be said that images participate
in our development, the other separates some of these beings from their attributes in order to preserve them in a general
framework according to the reference system that society institutes. In this chapter, and in the next two, I will try to show that
culture spreads in this way, reducing everything to a common denominator.
1
Made by MatyBuda
, 2. FROM THEORY TO SOCIAL REPRESENTATION
I - WHAT IS PSYCHOANALYSIS?
From the beginning, we recognized that transforming a scientific theory into a social representation was the main challenge of our
work. We knew we could answer this question by explaining what an explanatory science is. However, aware of the philosophical
and epistemological pitfalls, we prefer to circumvent these obstacles starting from one postulate: psychoanalysis is an explanatory
science.
To qualify a theory as "explanatory," it is sufficient to show that its laws are implicit in a fundamental principle. For example, in
Newton's system, the phenomenon of universal gravitation explains most of the motions on our planet and the actions between
the planets. The fall of bodies, the trajectory of planets, and gravitation where isolated phenomena before the Newtonian synthesis
gave them a unitary character. Similarly, the "libido" in Freud's psychoanalysis fulfills an epistemological function comparable to
gravitation in Newton's system. The classification of neuroses, symptomatology, family relationships, and the interpretation of
dreams and symbols revolve around this fundamental principle.
When we asked 950 people from various social categories "What is psychoanalysis for you?", we observed that, although some
nuances were varied, the view of psychoanalysis as a science and a theory predominated. However, many respondents were unable
to detail their content, simply placing it in a familiar field. The notion of therapy was common, though not always clear, and
psychoanalysis was perceived as a practice, regardless of whether it was considered beneficial or not.
At times, the distinction between science and therapy was blurred, replaced by a practice related to the human person in general.
Psychoanalysis was perceived through attributes that, rather than defining its field, distinguished it by its novelty and originality in
comparison with other psychological conceptions. It was seen as a modern technique, a drug-free medicine, and a practice that
involved exploring the personal history of individuals.
In short, psychoanalysis was grasped primarily by its outward manifestations, without a deep understanding of its theory, but with
greater precision when it was recognized as a particular conception of the personality or the "soul."
Psychoanalysis, as a science of personality with unprecedented structural characteristics, appears in the public mind associated
with multiple relationships that human beings have with themselves in an imaginary dimension of depth. These relationships are
like foci of symbolism: hidden-apparent, voluntary-involuntary, authentic-false, superficial-fundamental, among others. Opposition
characterizes these relations, arranging the similarities in such a way that representation emerges from them in a refined form.
The pairs of oppositions correspond term to term (apparent to false, hidden to authentic) and are embodied in one of the instances
of the person, helping to understand its functioning.
We asked ourselves "what is psychoanalysis?" and found answers that define it as an in-depth investigation of the human being,
seeking to understand reactions and behaviors influenced by past experiences. It is perceived as an inner study of the subject and
his involuntary side in relation to his voluntary side, allowing us to know the most intimate and secret reactions to the
subconscious.
Psychoanalysis is molded as a new face, codified and rational, on the old myth of the "faculties" and "forces" inherent in each. We
embody the hope of breaking away from the oppression of everyday life over the finite and microscopic history of the individual.
The internal, the implicit, the possible, and the exterior are covered with the desire to live, to liberate oneself, and to re-establish
the true, that which is "beyond" appearances. Thus, psychoanalysis is distinguished as a sign of the re-establishment of subjectivity
and as a practice of undressing the authentic personality.
The definitions provided better delimit the role of the unconscious and the conscious as actors in the psychic organization. The
features of this organization are outlined: the unconscious and the conscious, as parts of the psychic structure, are seen as hidden-
apparent, involuntary-voluntary, inner-outer, elevated to worthy concepts. These concepts, imbued with concrete imagery and a
dynamism of contradiction, reflect both theory itself and a stylized and pre-established conception of existential processes.
From the set of definitions, a structure of the personality associated with psychoanalysis emerges, composed of two parts:
unconscious and conscious, between which there is an action of pressure, or a conflictive relationship expressed by notions of
repression or rejection.
It is possible to ask ourselves what the result of its operation is; The answer is immediate: the complex. Overall, the scheme is as
follows:
2
Made by MatyBuda
COMMON SENSE
Serge Moscovici (1979)
Summary:
1. OBJECTIFICATION
How do we form the representation of a social object in order to circumvent the threat it represents and restore the identity it
questions? We cannot fully answer this question. Also, the verb "is formed" here has no genetic meaning; rather, it designates a
probable chain of phenomena that can one day be expected to be validated by experimental observation. However, these are not
mere hypotheses. This linkage was obtained from relating a series of analyses and the survey material is present to strengthen our
statements and correct what could be artificial.
A social representation is elaborated according to two fundamental processes: objectification and anchoring. The slow burden on
psychoanalysis exerted by the social body, the influence of its reference values on its evolution, are related to consolidation.
Objectification leads to making a schema-concept real and to duplicating an image with a material counterpart. The result has a
cognitive instance: the provision of indices and signifiers that a person receives, emits, and weaves in the cycle of
infracommunications can be superabundant. To reduce the separation between the mass of words that circulate and the objects
that accompany them, "linguistic signs" are paired with "material structures."
Language, especially scientific language, presupposes a series of conventions that determine its adequacy to reality. For example,
the "Oedipus complex" designates, since Freud, a specific organization of relationships between parents and children.
Psychoanalysts use this formula to group together a set of links between individuals and use it to interpret certain symptoms. But
its use does not imply the presence of this complex in any specific part. Individuals and groups who do not know the rules of
psychoanalysis take this word as the indicator of a proven material phenomenon.
When there is a break between the technical norms of language and the current lexicon, the symbol appears as a sign. It is natural,
then, to try to know what a "reality" corresponds to. Because of this decentralization, the elements of scientific technique pass
into everyday language, where they obey new conventions. The words "complex" and "repression", invested with a new power,
here designate ostensible manifestations of the real. Ultimately, psychoanalysis could be forgotten and, for a long time, permeate
our view of the world and its vocabulary would serve to designate psychological behaviors. To objectify is to reabsorb an excess of
meanings by materializing them, transplanting to the plane of observation what was interference or meaning.
In the preceding chapter we saw how the dissemination of a science questions the integrity of the collectivity, whether it escapes
its control, and how it creates a bond of dependence on the group that represents it. In order for a scientific conception to
harmonize with the behaviors with which we identify, it is necessary that it separate itself from this group of "experts." With the
scientific content of psychoanalysis, society no longer situates itself in relation to it and to psychoanalysts, but in relation to a series
of phenomena that it takes the liberty of treating as it sees fit. The testimony of men becomes the testimony of the senses, the
unknown universe becomes familiar to all.
I will now try to analyze the relationship between objectification and the forms it can take. Objectification is an effort at
classification that places and organizes the parts of the surrounding world and, through its cracks, introduces an order that adapts
to the pre-existing order, attenuating the shock of any new conception. Adapted to beings, gestures or phenomena, classification
responds to a psychic need. It is about cutting off the incessant flow of stimuli in order to arrive at a synthesis in it and decide
which elements are sensorially or intellectually accessible to us. A key is required that allows us to name the various aspects of
reality and, therefore, to define them.
After the advent of psychoanalysis, it is no longer just said that someone is stubborn or complaining, but also that he is aggressive
or repressed. The categories of normal and pathological have changed. Naturalizing, classifying, are essential operations of
objectification. One enriches the range of beings attributed to the person, and in this sense, it can be said that images participate
in our development, the other separates some of these beings from their attributes in order to preserve them in a general
framework according to the reference system that society institutes. In this chapter, and in the next two, I will try to show that
culture spreads in this way, reducing everything to a common denominator.
1
Made by MatyBuda
, 2. FROM THEORY TO SOCIAL REPRESENTATION
I - WHAT IS PSYCHOANALYSIS?
From the beginning, we recognized that transforming a scientific theory into a social representation was the main challenge of our
work. We knew we could answer this question by explaining what an explanatory science is. However, aware of the philosophical
and epistemological pitfalls, we prefer to circumvent these obstacles starting from one postulate: psychoanalysis is an explanatory
science.
To qualify a theory as "explanatory," it is sufficient to show that its laws are implicit in a fundamental principle. For example, in
Newton's system, the phenomenon of universal gravitation explains most of the motions on our planet and the actions between
the planets. The fall of bodies, the trajectory of planets, and gravitation where isolated phenomena before the Newtonian synthesis
gave them a unitary character. Similarly, the "libido" in Freud's psychoanalysis fulfills an epistemological function comparable to
gravitation in Newton's system. The classification of neuroses, symptomatology, family relationships, and the interpretation of
dreams and symbols revolve around this fundamental principle.
When we asked 950 people from various social categories "What is psychoanalysis for you?", we observed that, although some
nuances were varied, the view of psychoanalysis as a science and a theory predominated. However, many respondents were unable
to detail their content, simply placing it in a familiar field. The notion of therapy was common, though not always clear, and
psychoanalysis was perceived as a practice, regardless of whether it was considered beneficial or not.
At times, the distinction between science and therapy was blurred, replaced by a practice related to the human person in general.
Psychoanalysis was perceived through attributes that, rather than defining its field, distinguished it by its novelty and originality in
comparison with other psychological conceptions. It was seen as a modern technique, a drug-free medicine, and a practice that
involved exploring the personal history of individuals.
In short, psychoanalysis was grasped primarily by its outward manifestations, without a deep understanding of its theory, but with
greater precision when it was recognized as a particular conception of the personality or the "soul."
Psychoanalysis, as a science of personality with unprecedented structural characteristics, appears in the public mind associated
with multiple relationships that human beings have with themselves in an imaginary dimension of depth. These relationships are
like foci of symbolism: hidden-apparent, voluntary-involuntary, authentic-false, superficial-fundamental, among others. Opposition
characterizes these relations, arranging the similarities in such a way that representation emerges from them in a refined form.
The pairs of oppositions correspond term to term (apparent to false, hidden to authentic) and are embodied in one of the instances
of the person, helping to understand its functioning.
We asked ourselves "what is psychoanalysis?" and found answers that define it as an in-depth investigation of the human being,
seeking to understand reactions and behaviors influenced by past experiences. It is perceived as an inner study of the subject and
his involuntary side in relation to his voluntary side, allowing us to know the most intimate and secret reactions to the
subconscious.
Psychoanalysis is molded as a new face, codified and rational, on the old myth of the "faculties" and "forces" inherent in each. We
embody the hope of breaking away from the oppression of everyday life over the finite and microscopic history of the individual.
The internal, the implicit, the possible, and the exterior are covered with the desire to live, to liberate oneself, and to re-establish
the true, that which is "beyond" appearances. Thus, psychoanalysis is distinguished as a sign of the re-establishment of subjectivity
and as a practice of undressing the authentic personality.
The definitions provided better delimit the role of the unconscious and the conscious as actors in the psychic organization. The
features of this organization are outlined: the unconscious and the conscious, as parts of the psychic structure, are seen as hidden-
apparent, involuntary-voluntary, inner-outer, elevated to worthy concepts. These concepts, imbued with concrete imagery and a
dynamism of contradiction, reflect both theory itself and a stylized and pre-established conception of existential processes.
From the set of definitions, a structure of the personality associated with psychoanalysis emerges, composed of two parts:
unconscious and conscious, between which there is an action of pressure, or a conflictive relationship expressed by notions of
repression or rejection.
It is possible to ask ourselves what the result of its operation is; The answer is immediate: the complex. Overall, the scheme is as
follows:
2
Made by MatyBuda
