The "boomerang" effect of radicalism in Discursive Psychology: A critical overview of the controversy with the Social Representations Theory

Abstract

This article provides a critical overview of the controversy between the Radical approach to Discursive Psychology (RDP) and the Social Representations Theory (SRT). After having analyzed several positions, the first part of the article aims to show what is potentially complementary and contradictory in Discursive Psychology (DP) and the Social Representations Theory , when and why they are incompatible . In the second part of the article, we examine some of the main pillars of the RDP's antagonistic dispute and confutations and describe how the radicalism of the socio-constructionist thesis upheld by Radical Discourse Analysis can give rise to several hard-to-solve problems, which may then be translated into a boomerang effect: a) making relativism relative; b) reflecting on reflexivity; c) reducing the subject's role in a radical "contingentism" perspective; d) affirming the "totalising" and "reifying" role of discourse-action; e) assuming a "tautological" model of the binomium communication and representations, rejecting the concept and metaphor of communication. The paper concludes by arguing for a " dialogical " perspective not only in the terms peculiar to the SRT, but also for a "cross-fertilization" between the researchers inspired by the less radical approach to discursive psychology and those inspired by Social Representation Theory, highlighting the effect of the methodological implication that this would entail if researchers with various "school" memberships would instead of speaking and writing for their own academic circles would also learn to listen and read each other with respect.

Problems in Place: Using Discursive Social Psychology to Investigate the Meanings of Seasonal Homes

“…Such meanings and the processes of their production transcend aggregated individual meanings and may be more likely to be revealed in the kinds of discourse analysis advocated by Stokowski (2008) that rely on public discourses (e.g., documents, hearings). Similar issues animate a vigorous debate about whether discursive social psychology necessarily requires the imposition of a narrow paradigmatic orthodoxy or constitutes a general method that offers supplements and correctives to more conventional (e.g., attitudinal) forms of social scientific research (De Rosa, 2006;Hammersley, 2003;Potter, 2003a). In particular, Hammersley argued that discursive social psychology inappropriately and unnecessarily rejects the view of social actors as possessing or being guided by any "substantive, distinctive and stable mental characteristics" and "rules out the content of what people say about the world as a source of analytically usable information" (p. 752).…”

“…The discursive challenge to mentalism has prompted three distinct positions within social psychology (De Rosa, 2006). First, the emergence of discursive social psychology reflects an antagonistic position that sees no way to bridge the divide between discursive and experimental (i.e., attitudinal) social psychology (Potter, 2003a).…”

“…Discursive social psychology represents an increasingly visible research approach that tries to avoid the mentalism of attitude theory while maintaining a psychological focus on individual-level processes (De Rosa, 2006;Korobov & Bamberg, 2004;Potter, 1998;Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Discursive social psychology refers to "a set of ideas and developments from discourse analysis, conversation analysis and rhetoric" that argues people construct "their worlds through their accounts and descriptions" (Potter,.…”

Social practices and strategizing: a study of produce merchants in the Vila Rubim market

“…In this sense, Rosa (2006) explains that the previous concrete (objects with stabilized senses), that served the objectification process, takes on new meanings (Rosa, 2006). In this process, the conflict between stability and dynamism reflects the ambiguity of the SR, associated with four different concepts presented in the following way (Marková 2000): (a) the formation of the themata is a characteristic of the genres; (b) as it happens, they serve as a basis for dealing with the unknown through the creation of SR that incorporate and articulate the unknown with the themata (the known); (c) this creation results from the anchoring and objectification process inserted in the communicative genres necessary to the symbolical changes that enable these processes and express the SR.…”

La logique déficitaire en intervention sociale auprès des parents

“…Le noyau central désigne l'ensemble des savoirs ou des unités de sens que partage l'en semble des membres d'un groupe ou d'une collectivité et qui font ainsi l'objet d'un consensus (Abric, 1994b). Le noyau central désigne alors le discours commun des individus (De Rosa, 2006). Ce qui les distingue relève plutôt de la structure périphérique.…”