Chapitre Kalampalikis & Apostolidis 2021

Challenges for social representations theory
The socio-genetic perspective
Nikos Kalampalikis(1), Thémis Apostolidis(2)

(1) University Lumière Lyon 2
(2) Aix-Marseille University
Over the past fifty years, the theory of social representations has been subject to
change, inflection, interpretation and criticism. Few authors in the course of this
period of change have been able to stamp their mark on a theoretical structure whose
conceptual shadow is both rich and imposing. Even fewer have really contributed to
drawing a specific line of thought that is sufficiently strong from an epistemological
and empirical point of view to constitute a real school of thought that gives a reflective
and fertile interpretive perspective to the development of the initial paradigm. Denise
Jodelet belongs to this second category of authors and the aim of this chapter will be
largely inspired by her contribution to the formation of a specific perspective1 .
In recent years many terms have been used to qualify different directions of work
with and on social representations (SR). These terms are inspired by places (mainly
geographical, such as the names of towns, often confused with those of institutions)
or the authors’ names. In this context, the expansion of work on SR over the last
thirty years has resulted in the emergence of a formidable diversity. Furthermore,
these terms more or less completely cover the current research areas without, how-
ever, managing to encapsulate them. Especially since more inclusive models of these
approaches have emerged (cf. Wagner et al., 1999), not to mention studies that ig-
nore them without asking too much about their historicity and their raisons d’être
(cf. Sammut et al., 2015). Without neglecting or minimising the role of these au-
thors, institutions and their geographical locations, we have decided to do something
different in this chapter. We will try to subscribe to the socio-genetic or anthropo-
logical perspective, continuing the trajectory of work on SR carried out over the last
1
This chapter is a revised version of: Kalampalikis, N. & Apostolidis, T. (2016). La perspective so-
ciogénétique des représentations sociales. In G. Le Monaco, S. Delouvée, P. Rateau (Eds.), Les représen-
tations sociales : théories, méthodes et applications (p. 69-84). Bruxelles : De Boeck.
24 Challenges for social representations theory
35 years. We will illustrate it with examples from many classical and more recent
studies and research.
1 Foundations of the socio-genetic perspective

Between 1960 and 1980, the “founding moment” of the emergence of social represen-
tations theory, the first proponents of this approach in France tried to do two things
at once: orientate social psychology epistemologically as a discipline and, at the same
time, give it a specific subject matter, an epistemological horizon, deepening the the-
ory on social knowledge initiated by Moscovici (Kalampalikis, 2013, 2019). The first
summary of trends in the emerging field of SR was outlined by Jodelet in 1982 (cf.
Jodelet, 2015a), clearly laying the groundwork of the socio-genetic and anthropologi-
cal perspective, but without actually naming it. At that time, it was situated in “the
field of study of social representations in the real environment”.
It is now characterised by two specificities: a) the type of objects chosen as targets
of representation (situated, holistic or complex objects or systems) (e.g. a scientific
theory, culture, women, children, health, the body, justice, etc.); b the method chosen
to study them (oral, spontaneous, interviews, pictorial, documentary, epistolary, etc.).
Denise Jodelet recommends a specific direction of SR study, as part of thinking on
common sense and collective ideation, as a form of social thought.
Taking one of Moscovici’s initial propositions from 1961, she considers that social
representations: a) have their own autonomy and effectiveness; b) are modalities of
knowledge; c) “must be related in their genesis, working and function to the processes
that affect social organisation, life and communication, to the mechanisms that con-
tribute to the definition of the identity and specificity of social groups and to the
relationships that these groups maintain with each other” (Jodelet, 2015a, p. 21).
This view of social representations imposes a de facto viewpoint of the researcher and
necessarily directs the choice of methodologies, in order to be in line with the object
from the perspective of social inscription and participation.
This is without doubt one of the two qualifying “socio-genetic” senses of this per-
spective. Understanding the representational object as a dynamic phenomenon, its
genesis as a trajectory in the present and the past, its expression as social and prac-
tical knowledge, a product of historical, political and cultural situations and social
communication.
The second sense of the “socio-genetic” qualifier may more metaphorically orientate
ideas within the social sciences to the genesis of the theory itself in the past and
the present. On the one hand, this perspective required a direct continuity with
Moscovici’s initial paradigm, continuing, in the sense of deepening, the many possible
ways of thinking about knowledge in society. Yet, it very quickly produced a strong
inflection to the initial paradigm, enlarging the scope of the study of the science/com-
mon sense duo, to forms of alterity and symbolic social relationships (1976, 1985), as
well as urban life (1976), public policy (1978), environment (Chiva et al., 1983) and
collective memory (Haas & Jodelet, 2007; Jodelet & Haas, 2014, 2019). On the other
hand, from the epistemological point of view, this perspective attempts to question
Published in : Papastamou, Stamos ; Moliner, Pascal (Eds.), Serge Moscovici’s work. Legacy and perspective, Editions des
Archives contemporaines, ISBN: 9782813004314, doi: 10.17184/eac.9782813004314
N. Kalampalikis, T. Apostolidis 25
the origins of the theory and the original links maintained with other theorisations
from the human and social sciences with the aim of contributing a social psychology
of knowledge. Derived mainly from the work of the Durkheimian school of thought
on collective psychology, this theory carries within it a wholly axiomatic method of
research that enables it to communicate with the other social sciences (Jodelet, 2015a;
Kalampalikis & Haas, 2008; Kalampalikis et al., 2019).
We are then going to present these specificities (objects, methodological posture) with
the aid of classic and recent examples, as well as studies inspired by this perspective.
2 Tensional, holistic and socially anchored objects

Objects of study in the field of SR are not fundamentally different from those of
neighbouring social science disciplines. Alfred Schütz indicated something akin to
this when he wrote “all social sciences are objective meaning-contexts of subjective
meaning-contexts” (1967, p. 241). Examples might be health, work, identity, city,
collective memory or education, even if these are more fields than objects properly
speaking, or even the normative regulation of behaviour and secular knowledge, and
we could take many other examples.
Although the question of the object must affect any study on social representations,
it should be noted that it often constitutes a type of obscure, and therefore blind,
spot in a landscape increasingly dominated by the somewhat iconoclastic principle
of “everything is representation”. Consequently, we can say that the question of the
object is no longer either central to or systematic in the conceptual development
and construction of methods for studying or tools for measuring representational
phenomena.
It is therefore entirely logical to ask at least three questions:
• What is the added value of our approach in the effective conceptual and also
empirical examination of these “shared” objects?
• What is the specific status of the object for the psychology of SR?
• Are there different ways of working objects within the very tradition of SR work?
The systematic examination of these questions largely goes beyond the scope of this
chapter. We are going to try to concentrate on a principle point which, at the present
time, seems a possible point of departure for explaining the socio-genetic perspective.
Here is the first assumption: any representational object in the real environment is
an object traversed by zones of tension, in other words, any representational object is
a tensional object.
And its corollaries:
a) These tension zones are essential, for the kind of object concerned and for the kind
of view we take of it
b) They are the product of the both constituted and constituent nature of social
representations
c) They are studied through numerous suitable methodological approaches.
We are going to try to briefly explain this assumption and its corollaries.
“Social representations are assumed to attribute to ideas, and above all to objects,
properties that do not exist in any form or appearance” (Moscovici, 2013, p. 45). In
other words, we are always in the process of trying to make attributions, allocations
or imputations that go, no doubt fatally, beyond the first appearance of the object’s
contours.
Regardless of the ontological status of the objects of study and classical debate in
the social sciences on the constructed nature of their social reality, objects, such as
national or social identity (cf. Kalampalikis, 2020; Villas Bôas, 2010), risk behaviour
(cf. Apostolidis & Dany, 2012), violence (de Souza Santos et al., 2010), transmission
of knowledge (Haas, 2006), ecological practices (Caillaud et al., 2010), urban life
(Jodelet & Milgram, 1977), etc. exist for our subjects, influence how they think and
act, condition, to varying degrees, their own life within the groups to which their
belong and construct a shared school of thought. We understand by this that the
social construction of our reality does not affect the experienced or perceived reality
of objects for those who experience them from within. From this, our work is situated
on the subtle identification of this tension zone which created the context from which
the meanings and practices of subjects arise in relation to this object. These meanings
and practices may be consensual, varied, polarised, in a word, plural, conveying the
living heritage of cultural and historic frameworks of appropriation, membership and
interpretation. They are, in any case, instituting and instituted for those who are
involved in their appropriation, negotiation and communication.
We should return for a moment to the stated assumption, as it merits further clarifi-
cation. In fact, at least three tension zones can be identified: one linked to the status
of the object in the social, cultural and subjective sphere, the second related to the
nature of SR and the third, linked to the status of the perspective employed to study
and analyse the object.
The example of some national multi-centre research carried out at the Laboratory
of Social Psychology at the University of Lyon will serve to illustrate the first zone
of tension. It concerns research on the psycho-social issues of sperm donation (cf.
Kalampalikis et al., 2010, 2013). This is a polemic, socially sensitive, subject that
takes on very different aspects according to the legislative frameworks that regulate
the same medically assisted procreation technique. Should access be given to unmar-
ried people and same-sex couples, should donors be paid, should couples be given the
option to determine the criteria of their future donor according to hair colour, size,
educational qualifications, religion, IQ test score? Should children be able to access
information that might identify the donor? How should parents construct the story
of conception?
These are some of the multitude of question that arise and that different societies
ask when constructing the reference legislative framework that conditions the type of
experience and coping strategies that confront individuals wanting to start a family
in this way. These bioethical questions are fundamental and receive very different an-
swers depending on the country constructing a social context loaded with norms,
morals, taboos and of course above all, ways of life. An examination of international
literature (Golombok et al., 2002) has shown that in spite of legislative differences,
there is a close convergence of parental practices. This is the first psychosocial win-
dow to open. It consists of questioning the meaning and practice systems shared by
cultural groups without direct contact, but with the same experience beyond what is
imposed on them or permitted to them by law. However, in addition to bioethics and
law, recent anthropological literature on kinship transformations teaches us an impor-
tant lesson. Thus, according to Godelier (2004), an at first sight surprising invariable
traverses societies across time: “nowhere in any society, are a man and a woman
sufficient in themselves alone to make a child” (op. cit., p. 325). The intervention of
other intangible, imaginary agents (spirit, divine, ancestors) ensures the passage and
transformation of an anonymous foetus into an eponymous child. From this perspec-
tive, for the case that concerns us here, sperm donation, this invariable becomes more
salient since the third “agent” which intervenes in the first phase of the procreation
process is a tangible “other”, in the form of a donation of genetic material originat-
ing from another person. The parents, the child, the institution and the donor, the
protagonists of the process of this type of procreation, thus form an unusual parental
configuration, traversed by zones of not only societal but also cultural, political and
private tensions.
This is an example of a zone of tension that somehow traverses the object of study in
spite of itself. It is precisely this zone that makes its study necessary, given the societal
repercussions of this issue of medical, technological and also third-party intervention
in the phenomenon of kinship. Jodelet expressed exactly this idea when she intro-
duced a phenomenological concept par excellence, the horizon: “…the same object
or event, when looked at in different horizons gives rise to exchanges of interpreta-
tion, confrontations of position by which individuals express an identity or allegiance.
Each horizon brings out a central meaning of the object according to trans-subjective
representation systems specific to the social or public spaces in which the subjects
move. They appropriate these representations due to their adherence and allegiance
to these spaces” (2015, p. 77, our translation).
This aspect can be illustrated by taking the example of thematically related, socially
sensitive research on the human embryo as an object of representation in France and
Brazil, carried out at the Laboratory of Social Psychology at the University of Aix-
Marseille (Alessio et al., 2011). Analysis of the representational states studied shows
the effect of sociocultural context and religious belief on the composition and organ-
isation of the representational field of the human embryo. From the anthropological
point of view, it is these social controversies that provide an interpretative framework
by which the human embryo will be endowed with meaning (Morgan, 2001). The
representational states studied are thus symptomatic of the salient societal issues in
each sociocultural context. Moral and scientific issues, antithetical in the Brazilian
context (e.g. the embryo as a person versus an object of research), refer to two sepa-
rate dimensions in the French context. The Brazilian semantic world shows the image
of life encompassing the symbolic theme of “the origin” in contrast with the French
semantic world invested by the question of not only the origin, but also “the future”.
These results show the advantage of considering the horizon in which the object is
situated, i.e. the perspective from which it is viewed. This perspective notably permits
representational states studied to be related to the sphere of sociocultural adherence
and issues related to the social context. This construction of the human embryo as
life “already there” may be interpreted as the manifestation of an axiological process
that traverses individuals, a process attesting to the influence of the religious horizon.
In fact, religious belief intervenes analogously in the formation of semantic worlds and
in the anchoring dynamic of the representational field of the human embryo in Brazil
and in France.
Now let’s try to examine the second zone of tension. A note is needed here. It con-
cerns the basic assumption of the theory or theories used for this purpose. If we
consider that the theory of social representations is trying to investigate common
sense knowledge as a socio-cognitive development and cultural product of social sub-
jects, defined by their group membership, operating under the influence of the social
frameworks of thought and the collective norms of behaviour including the data of
their practice and immediate experience, there are a number of consequences. The
first is an orientation marked by the desire to study the formation and operation of
SR in social subjects. This presupposes consideration of the knowledge and repre-
sentation processes related to the dynamic inclusion of social and cultural elements
that form the reference and supporting universe from which social subjects are going
to construct their posture and their experience. This undoubtedly explains why we
are interested, from this perspective, in complex objects, i.e. objects which entirely
systematically engage the subjects as members of a group that becomes a place of
psychological and social investment (Jodelet, 2015a).
A short example of research on medicalised male contraception (MMC) may allow us
to illustrate this second zone of tension. For fifty years, the medical world has been
promising a MMC, often called “pill for men”. It generates little discussion in the
public space and is characterised by a strong collective lack of knowledge, and even
suspicion. It is a kind of “virtual” object that nevertheless conveys an imaginary world
full of projections, desires and fears about its modus operandi, action and efficacy and
possible changes to social gender relations. Results show the anchoring, by natural
transfer, of its effects in the universe of female contraception, the imaginary fears it
raises in men and women alike and the threat it represents for virility, male power
and the delicate balance of social roles. In these projections, power relationships
and social positions are played out which, as objects of conflict and anxiety for both
sexes, are governed by strong social normativity. Thus, the fantastical fear of the
introduction of a new method of birth control is itself regulated by the socio-symbolic
matrix that governs social relationships between the sexes (cf. Apostolidis, Buschini
& Kalampalikis, 1998; Kalampalikis & Buschini, 2007).
From this, it is difficult to talk of “the” social representation of a single, unique object
or even to reflect on floating and errant representations. Many authors are mistaken,
and even more readers have undoubtedly barely noticed a significant detail in the title
of Jodelet’s famous monograph (1989) on mental illness: Folies et représentations so-
ciales (Madness and social representations). Yet, the use of the plural in the original
French (folies) and the conjunction precisely refers to this “double movement, aiming
on the one hand to isolate views that orientate the relationship with the mentally
ill, and on the other hand to specify how the situation in which this relationship is
forged contributes to the development of these views”. In other words, “taking the
representations as production, expression and instrument of a group in its relation to
alterity” (op. cit., p. 40). Here we see the advantage of a view of social representa-
tions both as products and processes, simultaneously studying the contents and the
processes. In other words, seriously taking into account that social thought is both
constituted and constituting, describing social reality as it is constructed through our
interactions, actions and communications and forming an “environment of thought”
which determines our perception and view of reality and guides our actions. The
third corollary requires more detailed explanation.
3 Methodological postures
The idea that the study of social representations cannot be satisfied by a single method
is not new. As Moscovici suggested (1961, 2013), studying the knowledge that individ-
uals possess on the subject of a complex object and the way it is organised and used by
others and groups, involves the essential perspective of “methodological polytheism”.
Not forgetting an important data set: in methodology, “it is necessary to rely on the
creativity of researchers more than on the products” (ibid., 2013, p. 168). We should
remember that the advantage and necessity of the multi-method approach for delin-
eating representational phenomena in their complexity are issues constantly developed
and discussed not only within social psychology (i.e. Abric, 2003a; Jodelet, 2003), but
also more widely within the social sciences (Flick, 2007). This methodological orien-
tation (mixed methods, systematic triangulation of perspectives) is fundamental for
thinking the object and producing valid and transferable knowledge, particularly in
the context of the perspective presented here. Especially since a lot of classical re-
search (one of the most emblematic being that of Jodelet on mental illness) on social
representations used the triangulation approach, before it had emerged under that
name in social science literature.
The methodology of complementarity has as its criteria of choice the adaptability and
pertinence of strategies and tools in relation to the objects, objectives and conditions
of the research. It is based on the principle of methodological polymorphism, made of
discoveries, trial and error, and attempts at ad hoc operationalisation, in the face of
intrinsically complex phenomena that are difficult to delimit using just one method.
Methodological polymorphism is constructed in the tensions of the theoretical contin-
uum between methods, with a certain conviction regarding the impossibility of objec-
tivising the topological dynamic and the holistic nature of phenomena monolithically.
It is manifested by an open, discovery approach that leaves room for analysis of the
factuality of the object (understand it as it appears, as it emerges in a context, as it
seems to be; Merleau-Ponty, 1945) and tries to foster a kind of justified methodolog-
ical eclecticism and inventiveness of procedures according to the research objectives
and the nature of studied phenomenon.
From this point of view, triangulation is of vital importance in the study of social
representations when examining the content of representation concerning the con-
struction of a social world object (Apostolidis, 2006). The theoretical (status of
contents – variant/local – and processes – invariant/universal -; multi-level reading)
and methodological (accessibility, creation of ad hoc procedures, operationalisation of
multi-level linkage systems) issues of such a perspective are widely attested. These is-
sues are at the heart of wider epistemological discussions concerning the production of
knowledge in social psychology (descriptive versus explicative, opposition in terms of
validity and legitimacy between qualitative and experimental procedures, predictive
or interpretive value of the theory). It is therefore clear that in order to demonstrate
the scientific advantage of the study of content s of representation and devising varied,
adapted methods for their analysis, the application of triangulation constitutes a pro-
ductive, transposable approach. Moreover, as an inductive research strategy, it seems
appropriate to the epistemological specificity of social representations, a generally
explicative paradigmatic theory of only local predictive scope (Moscovici, 2001).
From this perspective, triangulation through the different forms it can take (Flick,
2007), makes it possible to implement research practices based on:
a) a posture of openness and understanding on the part of the researcher who must
remain sensitive to discovery and try to question and analyse the internal logic of the
production and actualisation of representations, their subjective and social aspects ;
b) the implementation of intersection and blending operations (of methods, tech-
niques, data, disciplinary contributions, theoretical orientations) enabling the research
to be oriented (objectives, issues) and to study the different aspects of contextual
influences exerted on the production and dynamic of representations (Apostolidis,
2006).
Thus, for example, triangulation can present a relevant methodological strategy for
studying the relationship between the processes and products of representational ac-
tivity. Although experimental work has shown the role of representations “already
there” as host systems for the appropriation of new information (Abric, 1987; Fla-
ment, 1984), “there is a tendency to neglect the fact that the procedural aspect is
found both up and downstream of the product, and only consideration of the content
permits a systematic study of procedural aspects” (Jodelet, 2015a, p. 24).
From this perspective, the work on content makes it possible to consider the repre-
sentations and other pre-existing “theories” of the subjects and thus to study their
role as socio-cognitive filters, i.e. as systems of hosting, decoding and interpreting in-
formation coming from social reality. This area of work requires the linkage between
“cognitive operations” and “social data”, which enables us to show that the social
dimension is present in both product/process aspects of social knowledge. It can be
operationalised by means of approaches that use (even as a quasi-experimental stimu-
lus) social material. An approach of this kind requires, on the one hand, the location
of an “ideologically” (symptom of the structure, regulating social and interpersonal

relationships) meaningful and relevant represented “already there”, and on the other,
analytical work that can be done from a problematised back and forth between various
operations that intersect theoretically, methodologically and in relation to their data.
From the theoretical and methodological view point these developments show the ad-
vantage of studying socio-cognitive processes by conceptualising and operationalising
cognition from the point of view of society as situated product. The triangulation
strategy raises the essential issue of a multi-method approach that enables us to work
on the complexity of representational phenomena and their holistic character from
their naturality.
An operationalisation perspective consists of studying the content of representation
from spontaneous and/or interactive oral (verbal associations, associative cards, semi-
directive interviews, focus groups), documentary (newspapers, archives) iconographic
(pictures), aesthetic (literature, music) material to analyse the construction of a “state
of knowledge and meanings” and examine the mechanisms of their production and
their connection to social practices, interactions and stances. From an operational
point of view, ordinary thought can be analysed by means of two notions: meaning
and filter (Apostolidis, 1994). The notion of meaning refers to the meaning assigned
to a given object, at individual and social level. The notion of a filter, constituted
by the anchoring networks of information and meaning concerning the object, refers
to the interpretive “already there” framework for practical purposes (controlling the
situation, guide for action, expression). This notion enables us to envisage how con-
structions of social thought, in the form of implicit theories affect how new meanings
of social objects are dealt with. This aspect can be illustrated by the example of a
multi-method research combining qualitative and experimental procedures to study
the relationship to cannabis among young French. The results show how the perceived
addiction of a regular cannabis user in socially normed contexts of consumption (soli-
tary or group) varies according to the pre-existing representations of the substance,
representations that are symptomatic of the polemical and tensional debates that cross
French society (cf. Apostolidis & Dany, 2012). From the theoretical and methodolog-
ical point of view, material must be collected in a reasoned framework in order to
analyse: (a) the processes of meaning development through the play of anchoring
and objectivation which constructs the objects; (b) the nature of their historically,
culturally and socially situated knowledge; (c) their instrumentalisation in the inter-
pretation and control of social reality, and in particular their role as mediator and
regulator of interactions with others.
Triangulation approaches are constructed in a situated and particular way, from spe-
cific real ground, according to the research issue and objectives, on the basis of the
theoretical and epistemological choices of researchers. It is difficult to define a single
triangulation approach and to formally present the steps and operations to be under-
taken. Heterogeneity and the systematic non-overlapping of triangulation procedures
from a predefined framework are required in a non-positivist posture. This posture
refers to the prerogatives of the approach and the ability of the “researcher-bricoleur”
(Denzin & Lincoln, 1998) to make reasoned use of specific tools in each situation to
study the complexity of the phenomena with which he is confronted. In this sense, tri-
angulation is above all an inductive research strategy (from a particular phenomenon,

observed on the ground to describe and understand it), the general purpose of which
is to construct relevant and consistent knowledge about the phenomenon from differ-
ent operations intersecting theoretically, methodologically and/or in relation to the
data production. At the heart of this approach is the notion of the ground, this real
environment of the genesis and emergence of representations and natural experience
in a situation, which occupies a central place within the perspective presented here.
4 Conclusions
The socio-genetic and anthropological perspective, inspired by social phenomenology,
is differentiated from other research orientations on and with SR by the specificity
assigned to the studied object, seen from the viewpoint of the phenomenon. Rep-
resentative phenomena “are mental products that can be tackled individually and
collectively, as knowledge, know-how and meaning systems. At the individual level,
they are considered to be based on social allegiances, the place in social relationships
and intersubjective exchanges leading to ideal and practical commitments. At the
collective level, they correspond to shared visions, common to a social training and
distributed within the group through communication. This leads to the emphasis be-
ing placed on social thought, as mental constructions of objects of the world and as a
source of ways of life affecting the social future” (Jodelet, 2015a, p. 7, our translation).
This perspective implies a holistic view and a polymorphic way of action from a
methodological point of view for dealing with representative phenomena. It invites us
to come out of the theoretical-methodological and classical discipline compartments
and to attempt to practice open-air social psychology. In the past 35 years it has
given rise to numerous research works that cannot be summarized or presented ex-
tensively in this chapter. It has permitted conceptual advances to be made in recent
years (e.g. meaning/filter, stigmatic/symbolic anchoring, memory/forgetfulness, ex-
periential knowledge, epochal representations, total social representations, etc.) and
influenced numerous studies inspired by this contribution (cf. Duveen, 2000; Jovch-
elovitch, 2007; Wagner et al., 1999). To it we owe the introduction of certain key
notions (horizons, phenomenon, ways of life, and also representational primitives, sig-
nificant practices) that become operative in the analysis of everyday experience of the
world as a symbolic form of thought for practical purposes.
It has operatively reintroduced the place of the subject and significant practices in
order to produce conceptualization that brings together subjective and objective fact
by focusing on the relationship between subjectivity and ways of life. Finally, we
must realize the connection between subjective and objective reality, the dynamic co-
determination between individual existence and social structure (Berger & Lukmann,
1996; González Rey, 2015). This approach finally enables us to examine social thought
from a contextual, comprehensive and interpretive perspective, this thought being so
efficient in ordinary global relationships and the daily experience that fashions life in
society. We think it is one of the best perspectives for continuing the dialogue opened
within this theory with other social sciences (cf. Augé, 1994; Becker, 2007; Boltanski
& Thevenot, 2015; Descola, 2006) and carrying out the plan, according to Moscovici
(2012b), leading to a real anthropology of our culture.

Chapitre Kalampalikis & Apostolidis 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapitre Kalampalikis & Apostolidis 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapitre Kalampalikis & Apostolidis 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Challenges for social representations theory

The socio-genetic perspective

Nikos Kalampalikis(1), Thémis Apostolidis(2)

1 Foundations of the socio-genetic perspective

2 Tensional, holistic and socially anchored objects

of an “ideologically” (symptom of the structure, regulating social and interpersonal

angulation is above all an inductive research strategy (from a particular phenomenon,

You might also like