Social Representations

Hewstone et al. (1996, p.120)A great deal of information and hence meaning is collectively shared by sets of individuals, groups or societies. Our religious beliefs, political and social ideologies, ideas about right and wrong, and even scientific theories are for the most part defined by the social contexts in which they develop.

Moscovici (1981, p.181) “By social representations we mean a set of concepts, statements and explanations originating in daily life in the course of inter-individual communications. They are the equivalent, in our society, of the myths and belief systems in traditional societies; they might even be said to be contemporary versions of common sense”

First formulated by Moscovici (1961)

Social representations are shared cognitions

Help the individual to master and make sense of the world

Facilitate communication

Moscovici & Hewstone (1983)

The study of social representations is the study of the transformation from knowledge to commonsense – how the strange and unfamiliar become, in time, the familiar

Schopenhauer - any great idea goes through three distinct phases: ridicule, opposition and finally enthusiastic acceptance.

Ideas, thoughts, images, and knowledge which members of a collectively share

Hewstone et al. (1996, p.120)Social representations constitute the principal organising agents for individual thought

Social Representations are realised through two processes

Anchoring Objectification

New ideas are anchored into pre-existing systems of ideas (cf. Piaget)

The abstract ideas must be made concrete – almost visual, by the process of objectifying

Personification Figuration

Moscovici & Hewstone (1983)

e.g. Freud as ‘embodiment/the image of psychoanalysis – Einstein the personification of relativity – though few people know the details of either

e.g. The mind as a three story building - with the ‘id’ as the basement

Or E=MC2 to represent the theory of relativity

Formation of Social Representations (Example)

Special interest group produces a non-obvious technical explanation of some commonplace phenomenon

E.g. Medical practitioners produce an ‘explanation’ of mental illness in terms of biological factors

This attracts public attention (or is directed to public attention after attracting interest of media) and becomes widely shared and popularised (i.e. simplified, distorted, ritualised) through informal discussion amongst non-specialists

As a social representation – it is an accepted, unquestioned common-sense explanation that tends to oust alternatives and become an orthodoxy

Ordinary social interaction may lead to construction of naïve causal theories that are widely shared to explain events

Toblerone Model of Social Representations

Bauer & Gaskell (1999)Representations have 3 elements

1.Subjects, or carriers of the representation

2.An object, activity, or idea that is represented

3. A project of a social group within which the representation makes sense

Moliner (1995) In the French structural approach, every social representation is composed of non-negotiable elements (the nucleus), characterized by stability and resistance to communication pressure, around which the peripheral elements rotate, subject to negotiation and communication on the part of individuals.

Moscovici distinguishes between

Reified Universe Consensual Universe

Society is a continuous creation, permeated with meaning and purpose – it has a human voice – humans are here the measure of all things – each person is free to speak and contribute to the world of meaning – everyone acts as a responsible ‘amateur’ or ‘curious observer’. Provide a commentary on major natural, scientific or urban events – knowledge is developed thru discussion

Society is seen as a system of rules and classes whose members are unequal – only acquired competence determines the right of participation

Contrast between these two has a psychological impact

Understood thru Science – purpose is to chart the forces objects and events which are independent of our desires and outside our awareness

Understood thru Social Representations – events are explained so that they become accessible to everyone

Social Psychology is the science of consensual universes.

This has replaced an earlier distinction between the Sacred (worthy of respect and veneration) and theProfane (a world of trivial and utilitarian activities)

Our social reality is built around these historically & culturally specific forms of knowledgei.e. Science v Common Sense

The sacred was socially institutionalised by a theocratic/religious class who would interpret the divine for the masses

Today the reified universe is constructed through and around a technocratic-scientific elite

How can we imagine the forms of knowledge of the future – when we are embedded in our own historical and cultural specificity?Purkhardt (1993)The reified universe as a social representation of science….implies hierarchies of social representations – differ from group to group – social conflict/scientific progress may revolve around a clash of social representations

Moscovici (2000, p.279)“Marx said that to be radical means to go to the roots, to be critical, and to transform your criticism into a political weapon… This is what I did…

Positivism is a stance which has been dead a long time”Moscovici (2000, p.119) “Psychology cannot attain the true idea of a science unless it also becomes dangerous”

Implications of Social Representations Theory

Relationship with Social Constructionism

Dependent on shared representations – without these nothing can be constructed

Attitudes are grounded wider representational structures which are in turn grounded in social groups. This means that attitudes cannot be conceived as neuro-cognitive structures existing in the mind independent of the social reality in which a person is living and the social structure of that reality

Moscovici (1983, p.5) “Our reactions to events, our responses to stimuli, are related to a given definition, common to all the members of the community to which we belong”

The view of knowledge as data which is socially shared has its origins in the notion of collective representations which was proposed by Durkheim in the19th century

Moscovici (2000) Social Representations Theory is the basis for a social psychology of knowledge – it is a theory which unifies the field of social psychology

Hogg & Vaughan (2005)The collectivist ‘European view of collective representations can be contrasted with the individualist tradition favoured in the US.The European notion stresses how alike we are – the American position how different we are.

1. Van Dijk (2006) Critical discourse analysis of speech by Tony Blair to the UK House of Commons on the eve of the Iraq War.Analysis shows the manipulation of general, socially shared representations.

(a) Ideological polarization (Us/Democracies v Them/Dictatorships, nationalism,supporting the troops);

(b) Positive self-presentation by moral superiority (allowing debate, respect forother opinions, struggling for democracy, holding firm, etc.);

(c) Emphasizing his power, despite the opposition;

(d) Discrediting opponents, the Liberal Democrats, as being opportunistic;

(e) Emotionalising the argument (passionate beliefs).

Social Representations Theory - Applications

According to Moscovici the character of social representations is more clearly revealed during times of crisis and upheaval

2. Roberts (2007)The ‘War on Terror’ and the current period of international instability would seem to provide an opportune moment for examining these.

Social representations of Fascism/Totalitarianism in the UK render UK citizens vulnerable to the erosion of democracy here

Associated with 1. Charismatic Leaders2. Foreign countries3. Political Extremes (Left & Right)

Plus widespread belief 4. In Benevolence of British Ruling Elite5. That democratic electoral system

provides protection for democratic & civilian rule

Contemporary British Reality

Safe from Totalitarianism???

Ali (2005) UK Government policy and its stated objectives bear all the hallmarks of a concerted war on freedom. These include

1. Reduction of the right to trial by jury, 2. Attacks on the independence of the judiciary, 3. Limitations on suspects’ right to silence, 4. Abolition of the double jeopardy principle, 5. Cuts to legal aid, 6. neighbourhood curfews on young people 7. + Mass Surveillance

Proposals for the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (House of Commons 2005/6) sought to grant ministers the right to amend, repeal or replace existing legislation without parliamentary scrutiny. Had these proposals remained unaltered they would have effectively created a legal framework for totalitarian government in the UK.

Roberts (2007)

3. Hewer & Taylor (2007, p199-200) Social Representations of Suicide Terrorism“Producing explanations at the level of the individual…limits understanding because it moves analysis away from an examination of the significance of language, which within both a social constructionist critique & social representations theory, is important…

The central idea is that the selective use of language and discourse, the arbitrary identification of historical precedent and the formation of culturally derived constructs actively structure and generate cultural meaning. This form of knowledge, which may be laden with political and/or religious import, is systematically endorsed by the culture to provide a basis for collective explanation and understanding. The result is a subjective view of the world that ultimately accounts for a broad repertoire of social behaviour including politically motivated violence.”

…knowledge is not just represented within a culture; it is manufactured by the culture. The culture, therefore, determines what is true and false, what is of value and what is not.

“…once the veil and obfuscation of terrorism and all its rhetorical properties are stripped away, what remains are the actions of an unconventional war, waged by an oppressed and relatively powerless minority limited in economic resource. Consequently, what is deemed a terrorist atrocity carried out by fanatics by one side is seen as legitimate military activity carried out by soldiers on the other…  …Thus, ‘terrorism’ is a marker that is used to distinguish between legitimate and non-legitimate politically motivated violence; it is a linguistic tool that serves the interests of the state and those who wish to maintain the status quo and obscure the political import“

4. Augoustinos (1991)Mapped social representations of social class in Australian students (using the technique of multidimensional scaling)

12 societal groups (e.g. working class, middle class, Upper class, Trade Unions, Politicians, Big business, Refugees, Unemployed, Aborigines, Migrants, Men, Women)

Results suggest that it takes years for young people to develop a social representation of social class in a way that is widely held amongst adults

Dimension of socio-economic status accounted for 26% of the variance in judgements for the younger group but 61% for the older students.

Younger students (aged 13-14 years) and older students (3rd level University) Rated these on 17 scales (similar to semantic differential)

The Role of Social Representations of History in Identity Politics

5. Liu & Hilton (2005)

Socially shared representations of history have been important in creating, maintaining and changing a people's identity. Their management and negotiation are central to interethnic and international relations.

Collectively significant events become (selectively) incorporated in social representations that enable positioning of ethnic, national and supranational identities.

Liu (1999b); Liu et al., 2005) Survey work shows that warfare is privileged above all other categories in open ended lay nominations of the most important events in world history.

The idea of social representations creates links between the functional (e.g. realistic conflict theory), social identity, and cognitive perspectives on intergroup relations. The charters (an account of its origin and historical mission) embedded in these representations condition nations with similar interests to adopt different political stances in dealing with current events.

Such charters are constitutional: they serve the function of a foundational myth for a society

May influence the perceived stability and legitimacy of social orders. Are instrumental in determining social identity strategies for reacting to negative social comparisons, Can influence the relationships between national and ethnic identities

Charters

Charters help explain a group's present and shape its future, they help define the timeless essence of a group (Hamilton, Sherman, & Castelli, 2002) - their shared experience and culture transmitted across generations and to newcomers such as immigrants through education and other media.The prescriptive aspect of charters are more than just collective memories or shared perceptions

They define roles for a group ('defender of the free world', 'light of civilization', or 'beacon against militarism', etc.)

and legitimize actions (e.g. 'send troops to Afghanistan', that are justified as the 'right thing to do' through reference to historical experience.

Charters may become formalized and incorporated in legal institutions:

The claims of Britain and France to be 'world policemen' are institutionalized through their permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council.

A group's representation of its history can explain how its world has come to be the way it is and justify its responses to current challenges.

“Social representations of history invite theorists to consider how threat may be built into a group's historical representations, and how degree of identification may become an issue if a group is perceived as the cause of historical injustice.

Social representations of history invite theorists to ground their experiments and theories in collective remembrances that form a people's shared experiences and wisdom about the past. They underline Moscovici's warning that content and process may not be entirely separable.”

Liu & Hilton (2005, p.552)

Implications for Cognitive Psychology!!!

Voelklein & Howath (2005)

The main criticisms directed to SRP arise from a difficulty in understanding and integrating the complex, dynamic and dialectical relationship between individual agency and social structure that forms the core of social representations theory.

We suggest that empirical work in the field should build upon an explicitly critical agenda that promotes a social psychology of conflict, resistance and social participation in our understanding of the interconnections between social structures and subjectivities, culture and cognition, the social and the psychological.