Semiosis, thought and codes: A theoretical framework for social knowledge

Abstract

I present a theoretical social psychological framework for social knowledge based mainly on the triadic concept of sign relations and the process of semiosis. The framework is based on concepts from authors aligned with interpretative semiotic approaches, such as Peirce, Deely and Eco. After defining signs and sign relations, I propose to conceive social knowledge as sign relations happening in communication processes, and employ the notion of code to account for socially shared group conventions. I suggest that the analysis of code properties such as content, social acknowledgment and history can identify differences in social knowledge forms and the concrete contexts that sustain them. The framework is discussed in comparison with other social and cultural psychological approaches based on semiosis. Finally, methodological implications are commented.

Does social psychology need a new semiotic overarching framework for grasping social knowledge? Commentary on J. Wachelke: Semiosis, thought and codes: A theoretical framework for social knowledge

“…Following Wachelke's (2022) claims, the core feature of his ambitious theoretical proposal is rooted in the use of a triadic model of semiosis to develop a general framework for understanding social knowledge, assuming the perspective of social psychology. However, since the enormous impact of semiotics in explaining human interactions in social sciences in the twentieth century, many psychological trends were developed which have considered its high heuristic value for understanding the relationships of individuals with each other, with their cultural environment, and even with themselves.…”

“…Hence, it seems important to reflect on why a new semiotic psychological framework is needed. Which novelties do Wachelke's (2022) ideas introduce in comparison with the already available psychological theoretical developments to understand social knowledge?…”

“…On the one hand, as Wachelke (2022) mentions, the triadic scheme (object‐ego‐alter), depicted as a metaphor for the construction of meanings, constitutes one of the basic theses of the theory of social representations (hereinafter SR), which also states that social knowledge is constructed in and by communicative processes (Moscovici, 2001; Moscovici & Hewstone, 1985). At this point, it would be fruitful to know Wachelke's (2022) ideas more deeply, to understand more about why he thinks the theoretical model he proposes may be superior to Moscovici's proposal in conceptualizing social knowledge construction, and what are the assumptions they share. Moreover, even though Wachelke's (2022) analysis recognizes the relevance of Markova's (2003, 2017) dialogic approach to SR, he does not take it up when considering the object‐ego‐alter triangle at the core of SR construction process.…”

“…At this point, it would be fruitful to know Wachelke's (2022) ideas more deeply, to understand more about why he thinks the theoretical model he proposes may be superior to Moscovici's proposal in conceptualizing social knowledge construction, and what are the assumptions they share. Moreover, even though Wachelke's (2022) analysis recognizes the relevance of Markova's (2003, 2017) dialogic approach to SR, he does not take it up when considering the object‐ego‐alter triangle at the core of SR construction process. It is possible, that approaching such a triad from a dialogical epistemology could be a more fruitful counterpart for Wachelke's semiotic approach than original Moscovici's ideas.…”

“…Markova's dialogical epistemology emphasizes the interactions and interdependencies between the Self and Others (ego‐alter), highlighting the constitutive relations between action and social experience, which in turn are understood as dialogical exchanges in communicative daily practices. In this vein, the presentation of SR theory in Wachelske's (2022) paper seems somewhat disjointed, making it difficult to perform a profound and broad comparative analysis with the theoretical frameworks he proposes. The contributions of Moscovici, Markova, Wolker, Rosa and Pievi are not framed all together as representatives of the same research tradition, each of them is analyzed in isolation, insofar as they approach or depart from Wachelke's theoretical model.…”