The Value of Social Representations Theory to the Social Sciences - Essay Example

Critically discuss the value of social representations theory to the social sciences particularly to the science of history Introduction: This essay deals with critical discussion on social representation theory and the role of social representation theory in analysis and structure of social reality as concerned with communication bringing out both psychological and social aspects of concepts and ideas. The relationship between science and social theory as well as public communication and common sense knowledge shows how public understanding of beliefs could pertain to economics, sociology, politics, science, health and history. In this discussion I will also examine whether social representations theory has an epistemic advantage over other social theories and what are the limitations to social representation. The use of social representation theory by social and political scientists is also studied to understand the limitations of such theories and I discuss how this could be used constructively in different social contexts and situations. Social Representation Theory and Social Reality Social representation is important in communication as communication helps people to interact and social representation provides the common ground of understanding of concepts or ideas. Ideas outside the common understanding or which don't have particular meaning may be difficult to grasp and social representations theory actually provide the meaning of concepts within particular social groups. It aids in understanding of concepts and thus facilitates communication. Social representation has been described as a system of values, ideas and practices that enables individuals to orient themselves in a material and social world and also enable communication among members of a particular community as social representation provides a code for social exchange and classifies various aspects of the world and individual group history (Moscovici, 1973). The meanings of words are concepts that have been established through social and the interpretations of meanings and ideas tend to depend on negotiation largely as related to the social environment. Although these meanings of concepts become fixed and definite, social representation is largely contextual and depends on a social background or environment. Thus certain concepts tend to have cultural connotations so some concepts understood by certain individuals of a community may not be clear to people of other communities. The development of social representations could be psychological and also social as along with provide social context to ideas, social representation theory helps individuals in terms of psychological growth. Howarth (2006) discusses Moscovici (1972) to answer what is the aim of social research and the social representation perspective and whether these theories support or criticize social order and how social theories consolidate or transform social order. The influence of social representation theory on social order or reality or the relation between social representation theory and social order is thus obvious in this discussion. Howarth provides an overview of social representations perspective and suggests that there may be certain underdeveloped issues within the social representation theory and its application that will need addressing. There are certain issues within the analysis of social representation theory for example that which deals with the relationship between psychological processes and social practices, legitimization of different knowledge systems, and resistance or change in construction of self identity (Howarth, 2006) that may not have been discussed in detail by social theorists. The role of representations in reality and idealization is also equally important in deconstruction or analysis of social theories. Thus social theories seem to be dependent on several factors related to representation and construction, knowledge systems and psychological aspects of identity. Several social theorists have given the wider applications of social theories and Lee (1999) proposed that sociology and culture studies could be easily related to social theory in the humanities. Challenges to sociological explanations of social outcomes have been highlighted along with emphasis that social theories must specify the force of social signification. The weaknesses in theoretical approaches and the inadequacy of the various conceptions of the social have been discussed by Lee who also laid the basis of dialogue between culture studies and sociology in his paper. It may be necessary to ask how theoretical approaches of social reality actually relate to culture through social processes and what are the weaknesses or inadequacies of this. The social construction of scientific knowledge tends to depend on theoretical discussions on representation and the study of practices by which scientific representations are produced. Social constructivism on the other hand seems to be meshed in epistemological discussions of representation and brings about the divide of nature and society (Demeritt, 1996). According to Demeritt, social constructivism show the relation between science, knowledge and nature and the scientific practices producing scientific representation promise a critique of science more effective than critiques of representation. It is necessary to understand the representational nature of social theory and draw a comparative account on how science, knowledge and scientific representation can be analyzed in terms of features as also strengths and weaknesses. Scientific representation is about epistemic knowledge and in this context, constructivists and realists take opposing sides to the debate on the status of human knowledge. Lawson (2000) suggests that knowledge acquisition is generation of a pattern idea and cast in the form of verbal argument and follows a specific structure and in the broader context such knowledge acquisition could be successfully used to understand scientific representation and the relation between science and knowledge in reality. This brings us to the core of understanding social reality through social representation theory and it will be necessary to ask what are the advantages and disadvantages of such social theory. Humans are social animals and live through interaction and communication, and thinking of humans being done in shared basis, there is always a framework of shared meanings, references, interpretations of concepts, structures and ideas which show how people generally think and why communities or whole social unit feels or thinks in a particular way. This manner of shared social networking processes and interaction as well as development of concepts through shared frameworks would be considered as social representation. Rose et al (1995) however challenged the notion of the centrality of consensus or agreement in opinions of various individual within a community as essential for the theory of social representation. The belief that agreement in opinion or a sort of consensus between people of social community is at the centre of social representation theory may not be true. Rose et al (1995) suggested that the problem of consensus is a complex aspect of social life, requiring appraisal and does not refer to agreement or shared attitudes, opinions and values of a social group. The study highlights the different levels of analysis required to understand the social construction of symbolic realities and realities especially as they relate to social construction and social representation. Rose et al (1995) proposed an alternative view of social representation which is seen not merely as consensus but consensus in a refined manner as it exists at several levels. The paper suggests that in the social representation theory, the representational field is characterized not just by consensus but also have elements of inconsistency and ambivalence, thus any representational field as shown by a social context or community seems to be heterogeneous and also have inherent power to transform concepts in a certain way. Rose et al (1995) emphasizes on how consensus is not just the central feature of social representation as it is especially applicable in case of sciences as there may be different representation of different scientific facts and concepts creating ambivalence and inconsistency even in empirical science. This is however even more so in economics and other social subjects in which ambivalence and inconsistency would be commonplace even in established theories. Thus how is truth or objective knowledge understood in terms of social representation theory Social representation being dependent on subjective perceptions and understanding, the concept of objective knowledge and knowledge representation within any social theory may not even be relevant as social representation theory is about epistemic understanding of knowledge or how a kind of social structure is given to thoughts, ideas and concepts. In this sense the advantages of social representation theory would be its contextual nature and the fact that social representation is about a shared understanding within communities. Social representation theory brings out the social structure, the fabric of society and community and also represents how people tend to think, interact, communicate or understand. It is one of the most important tools for understanding social order and change and how concepts are created by societies. Thus social representation is about people or communities creating conceptual forms and ideas which would be one of the most advantageous ways of understanding social representation theory. Yet this would be the very reason for which social representation theory could be disadvantageous. Social representation theory represents that which is structured or formed by society and community and thus such theory may lose objectivity, social representation being completely dependent on how people create meanings for concepts and ideas. Social representation is thus subjective, representing contexts and societies or communities and this would be an advantage and disadvantage of the theory as it would relate to subjectivity as the basis of social construction of thoughts and ideas. The more philosophical aspects of social representation has been discussed and critically analyzed by Redding (2005) who argued extensively on the nature and philosophy of the work of Pierre Bourdieu through the earliest structuralist and post structuralist phases. Redding suggests that Bourdieu has a distinctly Hegelian approach to social constructivism and this is a shift from his more neo-Kantian stance. Redding believes that Bourdieu's appeal to the body disposition would be based on Kant's intuition concept and distinction in terms of logic and negation. Bourdieu's opposition to Hegel as Redding brings out was due to the fact that Hegel remained trapped in the dynamics of mythopoeic thought (Redding, 2005). Redding suggests that as Hegel is criticized, the gap between Hegel and Bourdieu could be narrowed especially as Hegel's philosophy and an understanding of it has been rejected by contemporary scholars. Bourdieu is thus a philosopher who successfully used social constructivism in its more contemporary form yet according to Redding is not distinctly anti-Hegelian as normally considered as Bourdieu depends on Hegel's philosophy to bring out social constructivism in its contemporary forms. Social constructivism shows how any valid concept or thought does not have any essential independence but is made by human beings for human beings. Realist intuitions are prompted with the idea that any thought or concept is not completely at the disposal of human beings (Cooke, 2007) and there is an objective element to it. Cooke however brings out the role of autonomous thinking in social theory suggesting the power of human independence in structuring thoughts. Autonomy refers to self realization and self determination and would play a major part in social constructivism although not in social representation theory which seems to depend on consensus and community shared understanding of what concepts would mean. Considering social and historical explanation, the prospects of a new social history and explanatory practices of molecular biology, neurobiology etc would be important. Specification is considered as a philosophical problem, as through standard forms of representation of causal processes through diagrams have been considered to be not specific enough. The explanation of mechanism has been considered as symptomatic for visualizing forms of historical representation (Norkus, 2007). According to Norkus, in representational forms, diagrams which although may not be specific tend to communicate stories and provides a challenge for the theory of historical representation. On the other hand, theories of scientific explanation focus on explanatory practices of life sciences providing examples on historical and social explanation going beyond known or established frameworks. Thus historical or social explanations could be provided in terms of diagrams, or any other representational form and these would be considered as yet another dimension of social theory. Social representation as opposed to historical or scientific representation would be based on societal understanding, shared beliefs and values. Historical or scientific or even diagrammatic representation even if completely accurate may nevertheless face challenges of specificity. Weymans (2004) discussed the limits to historical representation considering Certeau's philosophy that rejects constructs in social sciences in favor of diversity. Weymans shows that Certeau does not discard these constructs completely but simply highlights the strangeness of the past. Certeau's work shows how the historian's construction of interactions of different people helps in bringing out the complexity of the past and according to Weymans Certeau raises theoretical and epistemological problems bringing forth a practicing theory of history. Weymans shows that Certeau extensively uses scientific methods and highlights limits of representation and Certeau's writing of history seems to focus on understanding historiography. Thus in historical representation, the historian looks for remains lost to us and is also a scientist using models and concepts that are put to tests. Unlike social representation thus, historical representation goes through testing of models and concepts but the limitations are in the theoretical and inherent epistemological problems in historiography. Here one might say that scientific representation is also plagued equally by such epistemological problems so these seem to be commonplace across representational forms and theories. Social representation theory is thus based on epistemological problems as much as scientific or historical representational theories. On the other hand other social theories as critical theories of realism and constructivism tend to have ontological problems of whether the objective is truly out there or simply a construction and take up descriptive issues of reality. Yet as can be seen theory of social constructivism is closely related to social representation theory as one merges into the other. Social constructivism is on how we construct concepts and theories through the use of knowledge and social representation is about how social concepts and ideas are represented by social communities when people reach a consensus on thoughts and structures. Social representation is thus about consensus although not without the ambivalence and ambiguity as seen in any representational or social theory. Social representation relates directly to the sciences and to history, philosophy, economics and general structure of social reality, reality as perceived in every day life. Scientific representation as discussed has more to do with the subjective-objective distinction and the role of the experimenter and how diagrams can accurately or specifically represent certain phenomena. In most cases, scientific representation could be quantitatively accurate yet as discussed earlier diagrams face challenges as lacking accuracy raising questions on objectivity. However Healy (1997) provided an adequate argument on the problem of scientific representation suggesting that science is about development and is not static but dynamic. However scientific development lies in the identification of weaknesses and strengths of science and scientific practice as also in practice of institutional structures and settings (Healy, 1997). Uncertainty, contextual issues and broader societal involvement as well interdisciplinary concerns would represent the broader characterization of science. The interdependence of contextual and societal issues in any form of enquiry becomes obvious even in the sciences and actually facilitates integration between the technical and the contextual and this sort of interdependence would require reflexive practices in social theory as also a dialogue between scientists and broader community (Healy, 1997). The relationship between natural and social sciences and between sciences and philosophy becomes important here as emergent changes in science will have to be in accordance with the emergent changes in social theories. Scientific representation being associated with contexts in this case and the technical being associated with the contextual, scientific representation would be very close to social representation when the contextual element is added. So how do we differentiate a scientific theory and a social theory or rather a scientific representational theory from a social representational theory if contexts are added in both cases. Possibly an integration of the scientific and social representational theories would be more appropriate for a future development of a social theory which is also compatible with science. This would however merge the separate boundaries of the objective knowledge of science and the subjective knowledge of societal representations as through social interaction and shared conceptual framework. This sort of merger or approach to the study of representational theory would be necessary as it can broaden the reach of social theories and also include the sciences and economics or other technical and empirical subjects within its ambit. Social representational theory based on context would thus be largely derived from societal understanding and development of conceptual ideas and scientific representation theories are derived from scientific theories although inclusion of context in science as proposed here would help us to reach theoretical limits that could cover history, philosophy, sciences, sociology and economics all in one theoretical representation. The philosophy of postmodernism and the application of such principles to social science and management or organizational theory bring out the analytical perspectives of post-modernism and post-structuralism. These have direct bearing on the social representation theory which could be analyzed from postmodernist/poststructuralist perspectives. This shows how social representation and post modernist theories apply to science and organizational theory and management. Social representation as well as any other poststructuralist theories relate to epistemology and ethno-industrial changes so the concepts at the centre of postmodernist philosophies would be representation and reflexivity as also deconstruction and de-centering (Hassard, 1999). In fact Hassard provides a paradigm for postmodernist perspectives on management and organization theory. It would be however necessary to include social representation theory in modern principles of management and organizational theory as management and organizational principles are based on representation and shared ideas of concepts as well. If social representation is about a consensus, in management or organizational setting this consensus is reached through a shared understanding of management concepts and principles that could help in better working of the organization or company. Conclusion: In conclusion there are many issues that could be brought into perspective. Social representation theory could be applicable for explanation of social reality along several dimensions and is relevant for science, economics, management, sociology, and politics. Social representation and shared concepts as this would represent would apply to management principles as management and organizational settings usually tend to have shared concepts on human resource. In politics as in sociology the problem of social representation is central or at the core of the subjects a social representation theory having to do with cultural connotations and community perceptions as also social context, would be able to provide insights on sociology and the practical application of politics. Here in this discussion, several aspects of social representation theory have been highlighted. Social representation as a system of values and practices as shared community based concepts and ideas, as also that related to historical and scientific representation has been considered. The use of social concepts and representation through communication highlights the importance of social representation in every aspect of social life and reality. Bringing out the postmodernist/poststructuralist psychological aspects of social theory, this analysis also focuses on scientific and historical representations, management principles of social representation and the cultural or ethnographic changes that tend to adequately explain social representation theory. This essay brings forth the philosophical distinction between realism and social constructivism, and the position of social representation theory in philosophy and politics, science and history. The power of agreement and perception as also a distinction between objective and subjective knowledge as also the importance of knowledge acquisition and representation has been emphasized. The aim of this essay has been to show how post modernism in philosophy applies to management principles and how social representation as a theory could be applicable along a wide range of subjects. Bibliography Demeritt D. (1996) Social theory and the reconstruction of science and geography Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Volume 21,Number 3, September pp. 484-503(20) Garfield, Jay L.;Peterson, Candida C.;Perry, Tricia (2001) Social Cognition, Language Acquisition and The Development of the Theory of Mind Mind & Language, Volume 16,Number 5, pp. 494-541(48) Hassard, John (1999) Postmodernism, philosophy and management: concepts and controversies International Journal of Management Reviews, Volume 1,Number 2, pp. 171-195(25) Healy S.A. (1997) Changing science and ensuring our future Futures, Volume 29,Number 6, pp. 505-517(13) Howarth, Caroline (2006) A social representation is not a quiet thing: Exploring the critical potential of social representations theory British Journal of Social Psychology, Volume 45,Number 1, pp. 65-86(22) Lawson A.E. (2000) How Do Humans Acquire Knowledge And What Does That Imply About the Nature of Knowledge Science and Education, Volume 9,Number 6, pp. 577-598(22) Lee O. (1999) Social Theory Across Disciplinary Boundaries: Cultural Studies and Sociology Sociological Forum, Volume 14,Number 4, pp. 547-581(35) Norkus, Zenonas (2007) Troubles with Mechanisms: Problems of the 'Mechanistic Turn' in Historical Sociology and Social History Journal of the Philosophy of History, Volume 1,Number 2, pp. 160-200(41) Redding, Paul (2005) Pierre Bourdieu: From Neo-Kantian to Hegelian Critical Social Theory Critical Horizons, Volume 6,Number 1, pp. 183-204(22) Rose, Diana; Efraim, Danielle; Gervais, Marie-Claude; Joffe, Helene; Jovchelovitch, Sandra; Morant, Nicola (1995). Questioning consensus in social representations theory [online]. London: LSE Research Online. accessed 2008 Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2590 Weymans W. (2004) Michel de Certeau and the Limits of Historical Representation History and Theory, Volume 43,Number 2, pp. 161-178(18) Read More