a Metaphysical Analysis of Moscovici's Theory of Social Representations

Irish-Rationalist

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
3,205
Moscovici described two main processes by which the unfamiliar is made familiar: anchoring and objectification.

Anchoring involves the ascribing of meaning to new phenomena – objects, relations, experiences, practices, etc. - by means of integrating it into existing worldviews, so it can be interpreted and compared to the "already known". In this way, the threat that the strange and unfamiliar object poses is being erased.

In the process of objectification something abstract is turned into something almost concrete.

Social representations, therefore, are depicted as both the process and the result of social construction. In the socio-cognitive activity of representation that produces representations, social representations are constantly converted into a social reality while continuously being re-interpreted, re-thought, re-presented.

Moscovici's theorisation of social representations was inspired by Émile Durkheim's notion of collective representations. The change from collective representations to social representations has been brought about by the societal conditions of modernity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_representation

That's Moscovici's distinctly vague and abstract theory of social representations thoroughly metaphysically analysed, which might suit some pretentious, pseudo-intellectual types who want to show off.

Personally, I live in the real world, not the world of abstract concepts, and want to know what you did today and what you had for your dinner.
 


Zapped(CAPITALISMROTS)

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
6,493
Twitter
daxxdrake
Be-gobs, I hate theories that offer metaphysical analysis..... Philosophers/social thinkers have many tools of investigation and Social Representations do not deserve that much respect.......If you want the unfamiliar to become FAMILIAR, just spend time with the object of mystery and that will suffice
 

Irish-Rationalist

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
3,205
Be-gobs, I hate theories that offer metaphysical analysis..... Philosophers/social thinkers have many tools of investigation and Social Representations do not deserve that much respect.......If you want the unfamiliar to become FAMILIAR, just spend time with the object of mystery and that will suffice
The object of mystery .....women. I've already spent too much time with them. I know what they're about. Evil-doing and witchcraft.
 

Feckkit

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
5,795
Wasn't I only hoping the other day that one day someone would, somehow, bring all of this to light :?
 

The Herren

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
4,792
Moscovici described two main processes by which the unfamiliar is made familiar: anchoring and objectification.

Anchoring involves the ascribing of meaning to new phenomena – objects, relations, experiences, practices, etc. - by means of integrating it into existing worldviews, so it can be interpreted and compared to the "already known". In this way, the threat that the strange and unfamiliar object poses is being erased.

In the process of objectification something abstract is turned into something almost concrete.

Social representations, therefore, are depicted as both the process and the result of social construction. In the socio-cognitive activity of representation that produces representations, social representations are constantly converted into a social reality while continuously being re-interpreted, re-thought, re-presented.

Moscovici's theorisation of social representations was inspired by Émile Durkheim's notion of collective representations. The change from collective representations to social representations has been brought about by the societal conditions of modernity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_representation

That's Moscovici's distinctly vague and abstract theory of social representations thoroughly metaphysically analysed, which might suit some pretentious, pseudo-intellectual types who want to show off.

Personally, I live in the real world, not the world of abstract concepts, and want to know what you did today and what you had for your dinner.

I find this subject fascinating.

I am involved in building construction all my life and I have always been open to new ideas and systems and materials . I am really keen on the idea you mention in your OP, it could be revolutionary if it is proved: In the process of objectification something abstract is turned into something almost concrete.
 

ergo2

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
14,065
I find this subject fascinating.

I am involved in building construction all my life and I have always been open to new ideas and systems and materials . I am really keen on the idea you mention in your OP, it could be revolutionary if it is proved: In the process of objectification something abstract is turned into something almost concrete.
Concrete, like wine, should be poured only at correct termperature: Confucius
 

Polly Ticks

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
3,268
In what way is this a metaphysical analysis, OP? First off, there was no sage burning.. nor did I see mention of a shaman and to make matters worse, I didn't see the word Being mentioned once.

Besides that I am in complete agreement with whatever it is that was all about.

[video=youtube;3ajAvDJSGqc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ajAvDJSGqc[/video]
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,836
Twitter
No
Must read up more on this Sean Moscovici fellow... When you consider the role of superstition in our early society you can understand how places in the landscape acquire a reputation and give birth to new representations.

We have a huge mythology that emerged from our attempt to ascribe a story and a common meaning to what we saw. Look at the Giant's Causeway and the mythology around that- for the lack of knowledge on how such rocky shapes came to be we simply constructed stories around it that attempted to explain it.

The dark pool and the gloomy passage through the trees acquired mythical beasts and ghosts superimposed on them as a way of anthropomorphising fears.

No better people for inventing social representations.
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,359
Why isn't this stuff in the Political Philosophy forum?
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,836
Twitter
No
Why isn't this stuff in the Political Philosophy forum?
We were all going to say the same thing but someone constructed a new social representation around it and it ended up in chat.
 

publicrealm

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
5,900
Moscovici described two main processes by which the unfamiliar is made familiar: anchoring and objectification.

Anchoring involves the ascribing of meaning to new phenomena – objects, relations, experiences, practices, etc. - by means of integrating it into existing worldviews, so it can be interpreted and compared to the "already known". In this way, the threat that the strange and unfamiliar object poses is being erased.

In the process of objectification something abstract is turned into something almost concrete.

Social representations, therefore, are depicted as both the process and the result of social construction. In the socio-cognitive activity of representation that produces representations, social representations are constantly converted into a social reality while continuously being re-interpreted, re-thought, re-presented.

Moscovici's theorisation of social representations was inspired by Émile Durkheim's notion of collective representations. The change from collective representations to social representations has been brought about by the societal conditions of modernity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_representation

That's Moscovici's distinctly vague and abstract theory of social representations thoroughly metaphysically analysed, which might suit some pretentious, pseudo-intellectual types who want to show off.

Personally, I live in the real world, not the world of abstract concepts, and want to know what you did today and what you had for your dinner.
De Selby likens the position of a human on the earth to that of a man on a tight-wire who must continue walking along the wire or perish, being, however, free in all other respects. Movement in this restricted orbit results in the permanent hallucination known conventionally as 'life' with its innumerable concomitant limitations, afflictions and anomalies.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
Moscovici described two main processes by which the unfamiliar is made familiar: anchoring and objectification.

Anchoring involves the ascribing of meaning to new phenomena – objects, relations, experiences, practices, etc. - by means of integrating it into existing worldviews, so it can be interpreted and compared to the "already known". In this way, the threat that the strange and unfamiliar object poses is being erased.

In the process of objectification something abstract is turned into something almost concrete.

Social representations, therefore, are depicted as both the process and the result of social construction. In the socio-cognitive activity of representation that produces representations, social representations are constantly converted into a social reality while continuously being re-interpreted, re-thought, re-presented.

Moscovici's theorisation of social representations was inspired by Émile Durkheim's notion of collective representations. The change from collective representations to social representations has been brought about by the societal conditions of modernity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_representation

Using the methodological and theoretical concepts of habitus and field in order to make an epistemological break with the prominent objective-subjective antinomy of the social sciences Bourdieu reconciled the objective (field) and the subjective (habitus).. He wanted to effectively unite social phenomenology and structuralism. Habitus and field are proposed to do so.

It is scandelous that you fail to address these pivotal concepts of Bourdie and because of this I want to have nothing further to do with this OP.
 

Irish-Rationalist

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
3,205
Must read up more on this Sean Moscovici fellow... When you consider the role of superstition in our early society you can understand how places in the landscape acquire a reputation and give birth to new representations.

We have a huge mythology that emerged from our attempt to ascribe a story and a common meaning to what we saw. Look at the Giant's Causeway and the mythology around that- for the lack of knowledge on how such rocky shapes came to be we simply constructed stories around it that attempted to explain it.

The dark pool and the gloomy passage through the trees acquired mythical beasts and ghosts superimposed on them as a way of anthropomorphising fears.

No better people for inventing social representations.
To the right honourable gentleman: It's about bloody well time someone used the term "anthropomorphising" on this forum. In fact, the under-use of such terminology is directly responsible for many of society's ills. And I can say that in full confidence without a smidgen of evidence to substantiate such an assertion.
 

Irish-Rationalist

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
3,205
Why isn't this stuff in the Political Philosophy forum?
If you'd read the full OP, you'd realise that this thread is not in fact about a "Metaphysical Analysis of Moscovici's Theory of Social Representations." It's about what you did/are going to do today and what you had/are going to have for your dinner.
 

Irish-Rationalist

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
3,205
De Selby likens the position of a human on the earth to that of a man on a tight-wire who must continue walking along the wire or perish, being, however, free in all other respects. Movement in this restricted orbit results in the permanent hallucination known conventionally as 'life' with its innumerable concomitant limitations, afflictions and anomalies.
Excellent. So what are you having for your dinner?
 

Irish-Rationalist

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
3,205
Using the methodological and theoretical concepts of habitus and field in order to make an epistemological break with the prominent objective-subjective antinomy of the social sciences Bourdieu reconciled the objective (field) and the subjective (habitus).. He wanted to effectively unite social phenomenology and structuralism. Habitus and field are proposed to do so.

It is scandelous that you fail to address these pivotal concepts of Bourdie and because of this I want to have nothing further to do with this OP.
I can only apologise, and for this oversight, beg for your forgiveness. Please, do stick around and furnish the fora with further insights into methodology, habitus and field, epistemology, phenomenology, structuralism and what other abstract conceptual ologies may be circulating within and around one's erudite and sagacious mind.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
I can only apologise, and for this oversight, beg for your forgiveness. Please, do stick around and furnish the fora with further insights into methodology, habitus and field, epistemology, phenomenology, structuralism and what other abstract conceptual ologies may be circulating within and around one's erudite and sagacious mind.
Thank you for that apology.

However I remain disgusted that the postmodernists are equivocal about whether they are producing serious theory or literature;
[as you know they are animated by normative sentiments but the nature of those sentiments remains concealed from the reader]

I also accuse postmodernists, of which i suspect you might be one, of a totalizing perspective that fails "to differentiate phenomena and practices that occur within modern society".

ARE YOU GOING TO EVEN ADDRESS THIS?
 

Irish-Rationalist

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
3,205
Thank you for that apology.

However I remain disgusted that the postmodernists are equivocal about whether they are producing serious theory or literature;
[as you know they are animated by normative sentiments but the nature of those sentiments remains concealed from the reader]

I also accuse postmodernists, of which i suspect you might be one, of a totalizing perspective that fails "to differentiate phenomena and practices that occur within modern society".

ARE YOU GOING TO EVEN ADDRESS THIS?
Yes, and don't get me started on postmodernism *spits*; the artistic, literary and architectural sediment of today's degenerative social milieu.

As you are more than well aware, whilst encompassing a broad range of ideas and projects, postmodernism is typically defined by an attitude of skepticism or distrust toward grand narratives, ideologies, and various tenets of Enlightenment rationality, including the existence of objective reality and absolute truth, as well as notions of rationality, human nature and progress.

Candidly, this sh1t has got to stop.
 

publicrealm

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
5,900
Excellent. So what are you having for your dinner?
It may be too late to address this question or in any event it may be somewhat moot, being after midday. On the more substantive matter, according to Levi-Strauss, we make meaning out of the most unlikely objects which exist in a different space.

The bricolage is a kaleidoscopic actualization of possibilities which is a primal activity of the human mind and people are bricoleurs interrogating all the heterogeneous objects to discover what each of them could signify and contribute to a set which has yet to materialize. Succinctly put, I'm sure you will agree

It appears to me that this settles the matter (the eccentric du Garbandier aside).
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top