Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес оригинального документа : http://psyberlink.flogiston.ru/internet/bits/mosc1msg.txt Дата изменения: Fri Apr 18 13:03:38 2008 Дата индексирования: Mon Oct 1 19:47:31 2012 Кодировка:

From: Andrey Deriabin
Date: 24 Jan 97
To: SOCREP-L@taunivm.tau.ac.il
Subject: Soc. Representations & Soc. Constructionism

It seems obvious that there are many common things between
"social constructionism" and social representations theory. […]
But Gergen and others seem don't refer to Moscovici (an exception
is 'Discourse & Social Psychology' by Potter) and I haven't met
references on soc. constructionism in soc.rep's texts.[…]
It seems like they exist independently and don't pay any
attention to each other.
Any ideas? Any readings?

Andrey Deriabin



From: kgergen1@swarthmore.edu (Kenneth Gergen)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 23:18:49 +0100
To: A.A.DERIABIN@lse.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Soc. Representations & Soc. Constructionism

In my view the primary reasons for the lack of convergence are both
intellectual and political. In the former case, the work on social
representation has vascillated between a structuralist and a cogitive
theoretical base - with Moscovici's early work on psychoanalysis in the
former camp, and his later contributions re-writing the orientation to fit
the dominant (cognitive) paradigm in social psychology. In contrast, most
social constructionist work derives from a micro-social commitment (which
for many is antithetical to cognitivism, and problematically related to
structuralism).
There are other intellectual differences as well, but they can also
be viewed in terms of academic politics: the social representation work has
tended to speak to the traditional social psychology establishment, bent on
accumulating empirical knowledge, testing hypotheses, and essentially
"getting it right" in a modernist-competetive context. Most (but not all)
social constructionists ally themselves with the broader intellectual
community (the family of "posts"), and remain more reflexively critical
about competing for "the truth."
To be sure, if you examine various research papers within these
domains their differences are often indiscernable. There is every good
reason for dialogue. And, as the Moscovici school relinquishes aspirations
for "owning the territory" of social representation, perhaps new breathing
room will give way to some interesting synergies.

Ken Gergen