From: Andrey Deriabin
Date: 24 Jan 97
To: SOCREP-L@taunivm.tau.ac.il
Subject: Soc. Representations & Soc. Constructionism

  It seems obvious that there are many common things between
  "social constructionism" and social representations theory. […]
  But Gergen and others seem don't refer to Moscovici (an exception
  is 'Discourse & Social Psychology' by Potter) and I haven't met
  references on soc. constructionism in soc.rep's texts.[…]
  It seems like they exist independently and don't pay any
  attention to each other.
  Any ideas? Any readings?

  Andrey Deriabin

  

From: kgergen1@swarthmore.edu (Kenneth Gergen)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 23:18:49 +0100
To: A.A.DERIABIN@lse.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Soc. Representations & Soc. Constructionism

       In my view the primary reasons for the lack of convergence are both
  intellectual and political.  In the former case, the work on social
  representation has vascillated between a structuralist and a cogitive
  theoretical base - with Moscovici's early work on psychoanalysis in the
  former camp, and his later contributions re-writing the orientation to fit
  the dominant (cognitive) paradigm in social psychology. In contrast, most
  social constructionist work derives from a micro-social commitment (which
  for many is antithetical to cognitivism, and problematically related to
  structuralism).
       There are other intellectual differences as well, but they can also
  be viewed in terms of academic politics: the social representation work has
  tended to speak to the traditional social psychology establishment, bent on
  accumulating empirical knowledge, testing hypotheses, and essentially
  "getting it right" in a modernist-competetive context. Most (but not all)
  social constructionists ally themselves with the broader intellectual
  community (the family of "posts"), and remain more reflexively critical
  about competing for "the truth."
       To be sure, if you examine various research papers within these
  domains their differences are often indiscernable. There is every good
  reason for dialogue. And, as the Moscovici school relinquishes aspirations
  for "owning the territory" of social representation, perhaps new breathing
  room will give way to some interesting synergies.
  
                                        Ken Gergen