Social Actors and Social Groups - A Return to Heterogeneity in Social Psychology

Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour

38:40021–8308

© 2008 The Author

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008. Published by Blackwell

Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford, UKJTSBJournal for the Theory of Social Behaviour0021-83081468-5914© 2008 The Author Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008XXX Original Article

Social Actors and Social GroupsGerard Duveen

Social Actors and Social Groups: A Return to

Heterogeneity in Social Psychology

GERARD DUVEEN

ABSTRACTFor the contemporary reader of

Psychoanalysis: Its Image and Its Public

the analyses of communicative systems in the book provides a challenging occasion for reconsidering current social psychological thinking about the character of social groups. In Moscovici’s careful delineation of the communicative systems of diffusion, propagation and propaganda through hiscontent analysis of the French press, one can also see the description of different types of group structured through distinctive social psychological organisations. Moscovici himself suggests that the genres of diffusion, propagation and propaganda are each linked to the construction of a specific type of social-psychological object, opinion, attitude and stereotyperespectively. But one can also identify different forms of affiliation corresponding to each communicative genre, and consequently also different representations of the people who constitute both the in-group and the out-group in each instance. The affiliative bonds might be described as forms of

sympathy, communion

and

solidarity

.Key words: different types of group; communicative systems; sympathy; communion; solidarity

GROUPS AND COMMUNICATIVE GENRES

What is it that holds collectives together? Is it simply a shared identity of belonging

to the same collective? Or do we need to call upon some other resources to

understand the forms of collective functioning? Contemporary social psychology

has opted fairly unanimously for the former of these alternatives, and chosen to

ignore the second. Yet an attentive reader of Serge Moscovici’s (1961/1976/2008)


will find a focus on precisely this second

alternative, which is elaborated through the analyses of communicative systems

which occupies Part II of the book. As Willem Doise (1993) remarked in his

comments on the reception of the theory of social representations in the

Anglo-Saxon world, it was notable how little attention had been paid to this part

of the book. It is here that Moscovici formulates a set of original hypotheses about

the communicative systems of diffusion, propagation and propaganda as distinct

communicative genres. Through his content analysis of the French press, one can

see Moscovici tracing the outlines of different types of groups structured through

distinctive forms of social-psychological organisation. What is challenging here is

a recognition that there can be different types of social-psychological organisation,

each founded on a particular form of communication.

The forms of communication which Moscovici describes appear as types of

communicative genres within the mass media of the French Press of the 1950’s.

Two points about this focus for his analysis stand in need of clarification. First,

the French press of the 1950’s was a more differentiated body of opinion than we

are used to finding today in the press as we have come to know it. France in those

years was a country recovering from a war, but more importantly, also a country

divided by social schisms of considerable force and intensity. A rightwing dominated

by the Catholic Church confronted a leftwing dominated by the Communist

Party, with a middle ground of liberal professionals. Within the framework estab-

lished by the relations between these political forces, a topic such as psychoanalysis

could not escape scrutiny and re-presentations. In this context, the division and

370

Gerard Duveen

© 2008 The Author

Journal compilation © The Executive Management Committee/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008

confrontation between these forces meant that even such a seemingly obscure

topic as psychoanalysis could become a focus for creative re-imagination. Each of

these three powerful forces sought to harness a truth about psychoanalysis and

project it into the world through the mass media. For the liberal professionals, the

truth was wrapped in a kind of ironic detachment which allowed them to frame

the theme as much in a positive as in a negative light. For the rightwing, psycho-

analysis was a complex form, which they sought to define by its relationship to

the priestly function of the Church, on the one hand, and its social utility on the

other. For the leftwing, it was regarded with unremitting hostility as a force, which

was a representative of the bourgeois ideology of the United States. There is some

caricature in these descriptions, but not much. The three frameworks each took

in psychoanalysis, and projected its own version outwards again.

This brings me to the second point I want to make. To whom were these

images of psychoanalysis projected? Or in other words, what was the relation

between the mass media and the individual? The main object of these projections

were the people who constituted each of these three social forces. By recognising

the image which was being projected at them, these people also contributed to

the solidification of these images. As this phrase implies, there is a circularity here,

with individuals being constituted and re-constituted through the messages

projected by the media. But this is the circularity of the social actor, of the form

called into being by the communications that circulate through a divided culture.

SOCIAL ACTORS AND SOCIAL GROUPS

An immediate question arises as to where did Moscovici uncover the resources

for such a distinctive vision? One response is to note that the work was originally

published in 1961, that is at a time when such a question would have been

thought to be absurd. What characterised thinking about social actors and social

groups in the early 1960’s was precisely a recognition of some multiplicity of

conceptual forms. In the course of a chapter (not much cited), Moscovici (1963)

outlines an overview of the field, in which it is interesting to see how he characterises

research in this area. Following some attempts at disposing of uninteresting

questions, he comes to focus on dissonance theory, which provides a central frame

of reference for the chapter as a whole, for it is here that some of the most

productive questions are articulated. The structure of the review is interesting in

itself, since each section closes with questions which open to the next section. In

this instance, the section on dissonance follows the section on structural issues,

which ends with the questions: “What is meant by structure in social psychology,

and what are the important social psychological structures?” (Moscovici, 1963, p. 248).

It is in responding to these questions that the issues of (cognitive) dissonance

appear. Equally modestly, the section on dissonance, which ends with a call from

the reviewer for a “more thorough and broader theoretical discussion” (Moscovici,

Social Actors and Social Groups

371

© 2008 The Author


1963, p. 251), is followed by a section on social representations—then a quite

recent topic of research making almost its first appearance in the English

language. [And in parenthesis, we can add that this is the penultimate section of

the review, which ends with a discussion of the open and closed mind].

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this chapter is the fact that the

terms “social actors” and “social groups” do not make any appearance in it. Why

should this be so? Perhaps it is no more than that these terms designate fields

of study, which have emerged since 1963, but this would not necessarily be the

best answer.

For the contemporary reader of


the analyses

of communicative systems in Part II of the book provide a challenging occasion

for reconsidering current social psychological thinking about the character of

social groups. In Moscovici’s careful delineation of the communicative systems of

diffusion, propagation and propaganda through his content analysis of the French

press, one can also see the description of different types of group structured

through distinctive social psychological organisations. What is challenging here is

the recognition that there can be different types of social-psychological organisation,

for one of the consequences of the dominance of Social Identity Theory/Self-

Categorisation Theory in recent years has been the homogenisation of the social

psychological concept of the group itself. While SIT/SCT have certainly made a

contribution to our understanding of the group, following John Turner’s proposal

for the cognitive redefinition of the social group it has become common practice

to consider all groups as sharing the basic form of social psychological structure.

Moscovici’s work has the benefit of predating this approach, drawing as it does

on the traditions of Kurt Lewin and the study of group dynamics, as well as on

earlier theories of communication and opinion. What one sees in

Psychoanalysis

is

not only the way in which distinct social representations both generate and are

sustained by different communicative genres, but that these different communicative

systems also reveal different forms of affiliation amongst the publics drawn

together around each communicative system.

SYMPATHY, COMMUNION AND SOLIDARITY

In the hypothesis he develops in Chapter 6, Moscovici himself suggests that the

genres of diffusion, propagation and propaganda are each linked to the construction

of a specific type of social-psychological object, opinion, attitude and stereotype

respectively. But the interest in this part of the book extends even further, since

the discussion of these different communicative genres also invites some reflection

on the way in which the concept of group itself is conceptualised. As I have

pointed out, in contemporary social psychology the notion of group has taken on

a rather homogenous form, so that all groups are considered equal in their pattern

of social-psychological functioning, differing only in the set of values, ideas or

372

Gerard Duveen

© 2008 The Author


attitudes they espouse. Yet the identification of these different communicative

genres, and the different patterns of social-psychological functioning associated

with each of them, suggests that we need to expand our understanding of the

character of the group to consider also the ways in which they may also be

characterised by distinctive communicative processes. In short, we need to recognise

that there is an intimate relation between the values and attitudes of a group and

the characteristic patterns of communication which sustain it. To do so, of course,

brings with it the implication that groups are more heterogeneous forms of

social-psychological organisation than is envisaged in contemporary theorising.

But one can also identify different forms of affiliation corresponding to each

communicative genre, and consequently also different representations of the people

who constitute both the in-group and the out-group in each instance.

Diffusion, for instance, is characterised by the voluntary association of inde-

pendently minded individuals, where the in-group is characterised by the possession

of a certain sceptical intelligence, while the out-group is seen as seen as embracing

various forms of dogmatism. The affiliative bonds linking the members of this

group might be described as a form of

sympathy

.

Propagation is more circumscribed since it is an association founded on belief,

which sets limits to the intellectual curiosity of individuals, or to their creativity in

responding to new problems. The limits of belief are established by a central

authority, though on the margins or the periphery the legitimacy of this authority

may also be questioned. The out group(s) are characterised either by their lack of

belief or by their adherence to alternative beliefs or commitment to a political

ideology incompatible with the belief. This group can be characterised as being

affiliated through some form of

communion

.

Propaganda draws together people who not only share a specific political

commitment, but also envisage the appropriate form of political organisation as

one in which the centre dominates by defining realities. The in-group is thus

composed of militants who may be active in various forms of agitation, but who

are dependent on the centre for the intellectual content of their representation.

The out-group(s) are defined either by their lack of commitment to this ideology,

or by their commitment to a different ideology. The group constituted through

propaganda can therefore be seen to be affiliated through a particular form of

solidarity

.

Considered in this way, sympathy, communion and solidarity can be seen as

identifying distinct types of group structured through distinct forms of social-

psychological organisation.

SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS AND INFLUENCE

The analyses of communicative genres in Part II of the book also bring us back to

another feature of Mosocovici’s social-psychological imagination, the relationship

Social Actors and Social Groups

373

© 2008 The Author


between representation and influence. It is tempting to consider diffusion,

propagation and propaganda as also constituting different forms of social influence.

Certainly, if, as I have suggested before, the shape and form of representations is

structured by the balance of influence processes operating in the communicative

practices of a group at a particular time (Duveen, 2000), then it would seem

appropriate to consider these communicative genres as forms of social influence.

Yet a word of caution is also necessary before making the link directly to Moscovici’s

(1976) genetic model of social influence processes. The communicative genres

analysed in Part II of the book emerge from the content analysis of mass media,

while the genetic model of social influence stems from an analysis of face-to-face

communication within a controlled experimental paradigm. While we might

expect to see some continuity in the form of social influence as we move from the

interpersonal to mass-mediated communication, we should also be attentive

to significant differences between these contexts. In the experimental studies

individuals are engaged precisely in attempts to change the thoughts or behaviour

of other individuals, whereas the influence exercised through the mass media is

often less immediate or more indirect. In relation to the mass media people find

themselves surrounded by a flowing current of influence which sustains their

affiliation with a particular group and a particular way of seeing things rather

more than finding themselves exposed to a direct challenge to their point of view. We

choose which magazines or newspapers we read, or which television programmes

we watch, and our choices are already an expression of our affiliation with a

specific social group or section of society. In this sense the contexts which frame

participation in these different communicative encounters need to be examined

more closely if we are to articulate a theory of social influence which can extend

from the interpersonal to mass-mediated forms of communication.

CONCLUSION

As well as serving to engage in a critical discussion about the concept of the

group, these reflections also suggest two significant questions which need to be

addressed if the perspective of

Psychoanalysis

is to be extended to the contemporary

world. First, what repertoire of communicative genres can be identified in current

mass communication? Do we still find diffusion, propagation and propaganda?

And have any other forms appeared? Secondly, the perspective of

Psychoanalysis

is

derived from the analyses of texts, undertaken at a time when mass communication

was largely based on the circulation of texts. In the contemporary world it is not

so much that texts have disappeared (though the circulation of newspapers has

decreased, the internet or the verbal communication of television and radio still

carry much that is textual), as that mass communication has seen an extraordinary

increase in the circulation of images. Is the circulation of images linked to distinctive

forms of social-psychological organisation?

374

Gerard Duveen

© 2008 The Author


Dr. Gerard Duveen

Social and Developmental Psychology,

Free School Lane,

CAMBRIDGE CB2 3RQ

e-mail:[email protected]

REFERENCES

D

oise

, W. 1993. Debating Social Representations. In G.M. Breakwell and D.V. Canter(Eds.),

Empirical Approaches to Social Representations

(pp. 157–170). Oxford: Clarendon.D

uveen

, G. 2000. The Power of Ideas. Introduction to S. Moscovici (Ed. G. Duveen)

Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology

(pp. 1–17). Cambridge: Polity Press.M

oscovici

, S. 1963. Attitudes and Opinions.

Annual Review of Psychology

, 14, 231–260.M

oscovici

, S. 1976.

Social Influence and Social Change

. London: Academic Press.M

oscovici

, S. 1961/1976/2008.


. Cambridge: PolityPress.

Social Actors and Social Groups - A Return to Heterogeneity in Social Psychology

Documents

Transcript of Social Actors and Social Groups - A Return to Heterogeneity in Social Psychology