This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: bi, 1992), the theory is still sliding bit by bit into the mainstream. It has been argued
that SRT's 'versatility' makes it peculiarly susceptible to different readings (Allansdottir,
Jovchelovitch & Stathopoulou, 1992). I agree, and mainstream social psychologists can be
very versatile when they want to assimilate a new theoretical system to the discipline.
Social representations theory as text
The crucial question that Banchs fails to take seriously throughout the course of her
defence of Moscovici is 'What is the nature of the text that Parker (1989) subjected to a
'deconstructive' reading?' I was not concerned with what we would like Moscovici to mean,
what he really things, what he has said, or what he has written in unpublished mimeos in
France. Despite her promise not to re-phrase the relevant points in her own words ('nos
hemos puesto como norma no resumir en nuestras propias palabras', Banchs, 1994, p. 55),
she resorts to this at several points in the paper (e.g., in the words of Kaes on p. 60, of
Jodelet on p. 62). From now on in this reply I will simply give page numbers from Banchs'
paper when I cite her text.
Let me acknowledge, as we turn to the specific critical points that Banchs makes, the
following errors in my reading of SRT that I would now want to distance myself from.
First, there is a strong implication in my text that Moscovici is a modern writer, and
therefore bad, and that the progressive alternative would be to fall into the arms of the
postmoderns, the good guys ('un cierto maniqueísmo según el cual el modernismo es malo,
y casi que podríamos decir que los modernistas son los malos de la partida, y el
postmodernismo es bueno y los postmodernistas son los buenos', p. 71). I did see
postmodern arguments, as part of the post-structuralist package, as progressive, and do still
think that they are preferable to much that passes for a serious social psychology. SRT is, in
its dominant form in Britain today, still tied to a particular conceptual disciplinary frame
work that is 'modern' (that is, it is, among other things, individualist and cognitivist). My
mistake was to imply that a postmodern Moscovici would be better.
Second, I slide, at times, from treating the text of SRT, specifically that which represents
SRT to British social psychologists, into some claims about what Moscovici has said.
Banchs notices that I accuse Moscovici of failing to follow through the implications of his
appeal to a notion of 'communication', and she points out that Moscovici does show how it
is only in interaction that sense is given to a representation ('Moscovici explica que sólo en
la interacción se da sentido a la representación', p. 64). This I should not have done, and my On M. A. Banchs 3 only defence is that the parameters of my critique were clearly outlined at the outset, and that
a characterization of Moscovici's position should be understood as 'Moscovici' the signifier
of SRT text that was my concern. Banchs, then, is right to pick me up on this.
Third, there are clearly contradictions between different texts that I have signed. Banchs
focusses on five contradictions between the introduction to Parker & Shotter (1990) and my...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 12/13/2012 for the course PSYCHOLOGY 107 taught by Professor Neascu during the Spring '12 term at UMass (Amherst).
- Spring '12
- Social Psychology