Social Identities and Social Representations

Abstract

Doise (in press) has emphasised that researchers have focused empirical work on only one aspect of the theory of social representations. They have mainly been concerned either with describing the content of existing representations or they have been interested in examining how anchoring and objectification operate. They have left largely unexplored Moscovici's hypotheses concerning the ways in which, at the level of the metasystem, social groups generate representations which serve group purposes. Representations serve different types of group interest and Moscovici describes three: diffusion, propagation and propaganda. Representations serving these three communicative purposes have different structures and organisation. They differ particularly in the extent to which they are consensually shared within a group or a subgroup. The defining property of a social representation is not simply that it should be shared. The predicted internal structure of the representation and the extent to which it is dispersed within a recognisable group or social category will depend upon the functions it is serving. This has major implications for the empirical approaches which should be adopted when exploring social representations. It suggests that intra-group dynamics and inter-group relations will direct or channel the formation of any specific social representation. This requires that the theorist should formulate clear predictions concerning the structure of a representation as revealed in the thought, utterances and action of the individual in relation to that individual's position in a group. It calls for the analysis of likely implications of changes in group structure for the representation. It necessitates consideration of the inter-group processes which promulgate the social representation and afford it a venue in which to be used. It emphasises that representations are embedded in complex representational networks and that they are liable to change, whether subtle or global, as a result of their relationships to each other. Social Identity Theory and Social Representation Theory Having emphasised the importance of intra-and inter-group processes in shaping social representations, it is hard to avoid asking whether it is now timely to seek to integrate the theory of social identity (Tajfel, 1978) and the theory of social representations. In their original forms, these two theories represent two distinct paradigms. The word "paradigm" is used loosely by psychologists. We talk about paradigms which are models of methods of discovery. We also talk about paradigms which are models of description or explanation. In both senses, Social identity theory and Social representation theory reflect different paradigms. Social identity theory, while it attempts to explain intergroup relationships, is a model which focuses upon individual needs and motivation (the need for a positive social identity) * Position paper presented at