Search

This chapter explores memory as a constructive process occurring at the intersection of a person and their social-cultural world. To do this, it moves away from the traditional metaphor of memory as storage and develops the alternative metaphor of construction. The foundations for this approach are found in Lev Vygotsky’s theory of mediation and microgenesis, together with Frederic Bartlett’s notion of reconstructive remembering and methods of repeated and serial reproduction. Their ideas are combined to develop an approach that analyzes remembering as part of an evolving cultural process, one that is also often conflictual and transformative. This approach is illustrated with studies of the emergence of memories in conversation, the narrative mediation of memory, the role of social positioning, and the dynamics of urban memory during periods of radical social change.

This review examines how we can use the theoretical and methodological tools of Gillespie's book to become better social scientists. We examine ways of approaching intergroup relations by applying the ideas of the book to the context of immigrants moving to Greece. Issues of the mediation of culture in communication and understanding between people are then examined. Specifically, the paths of understanding through the use of symbolic resources are explored through the contexts of Ladakhi tourism and of immigrants in Greece. Finally, we examine the ways in which social scientists move in their understanding of social phenomena. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; Copyright of Culture & Psychology is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) 13 4 488 499

Jaan Valsiner (2010) once described developmental theorist James Mark Baldwin as “a persistent innovator,” a motto that can equally be applied to himself. In Jaan’s publications, lectures, and discussions with students and colleagues, he has always emphasized the need to push ideas forward beyond what has already been established. Building on an impressive depth and breadth of ideas, his writings are attempts to chart a new course for psychology, bringing novel theoretical and methodological approaches into the discipline. Unlike most academics, Jaan does not repeat his lectures (despite giving many) but pushes himself to add something new each time. He also often gives spontaneous and improvised lectures – a skill he learned as a young lecturer in Estonia (Valsiner, this volume). His pedagogical style has a carnivalesque quality that encourages breaking down formal hierarchies and playing with ideas (Murakami, this volume). At the same time, the young students he supervises experience someone who takes their ideas seriously as producers rather than simply consumers of knowledge (the first author owes his early formation to Jaan’s guidance according to this principle). He frequently highlights that innovations in science come from the young, which he actively promotes with his persistent question of what is new in the research under discussion and what can we do to take it forward.

This contribution is a commentary which builds upon the thesis that the worlds-within-worlds that constitute the obvious contents of human culture (play, sport, song, painting, film, theatre, ritual, prayer, pilgrimage, travel, therapy, etc.) have their source and their vocation in liminal experiences between worlds. They are provoked into becoming by the liminal experiences that they in turn serve to resolve. In this respect, cultural experiences are the source of an inventiveness that necessarily transcends personal existence, but that in transcending it, affords the realisation of its continuity. The cultural devices people active use to manage and provoke liminal experience have been called liminal affective technologies. Liminal affective technologies, including ludic, sacred and aesthetic varieties, operate with or on time in a cultural zone that is conceivable as a world-within-a-world. This contribution develops this idea using examples from the current volume, including film, child’s play, pilgrimage, art therapy, ecstatic communion and song. These function as ‘as if’ worlds-within-worlds which - having their source in liminal experiences between worlds - enable the devising of experiences that help people to make new sense of their existence during life transitions. This commentary will give particular attention to operations with or on time, and how these operations are crucial to new sense making.

Since 2011 the world has experienced an explosion of popular uprisings that began in the Middle East and quickly spread to other regions. What are the different social-psychological conditions for these events to emerge, what different trajectories do they take, and how are they are represented to the public? To answer these questions, this book applies the latest social psychological theories to contextualized cases of revolutions and uprisings from the eighteenth to the twenty-first century in countries around the world. In so doing, it explores continuities and discontinuities between past and present uprisings, and foregrounds such issues as the crowds, collective action, identity changes, globalization, radicalization, the plasticity of political behaviour, and public communication.

Drawing on the work of Jacques Rancière, the chapter explores how consensus on the surface is questioned through the introduction of conflict by a community (politics), who challenges the ways of doing, acting, saying, and feeling (aesthetics). Social movements in Spain, after the economic crisis, deploy aesthetic practices in urban spaces in order to make inequality visible and enhance a new sense of community. This is illustrated through three cases: Platform for People Affected by Mortgages (PAH), Invisibles, and “We Are Not Crime.” Three types of subjectivization are developed as a consequence of interrupting the dominant order in specific settings (i.e., the streets as public spaces): the part which has no justice, the part which has no visibility, and the part which has no voice.

The value our society attaches to the pursuit of happiness spurs ongoing impetus in the everyday discourse around this topic on social media and in other arenas of society. However, happiness is also an empirical matter, and it is thus defined, measured, and discussed in the in the realm of social scientific research as well. The aim of this PhD study is twofold: first, to examine the contemporary images and ‘wisdoms’ related to being happy and pursuing happiness that are circulated and negotiated spontaneously, and second, to investigate the everyday discourse around happiness elicited by its empirical investigation. In pursuit of these aims, this PhD study explores what kinds of understandings of happiness – as an everyday and empirical matter – are circulated among Finns in various digital media arenas, which have become central in the shaping of and communication about socially and psychologically relevant issues. Considering that Finland has maintained its top position in the United Nations’ World Happiness Report (WHR) for five years in a row (2018–2022), conducting this research within the Finnish context is inarguably both timely and relevant. The study comprises three qualitative sub-studies employing Social Representation Theory (Moscovici, 1961/2008) as a theoretical framework, with a specific focus on its core elements – themata structures (i.e. antinomies like good/bad) along with anchoring and objectification (i.e. the two mechanisms that generate social representations). Social Representations Theory recognizes the coexistence of ‘scientific’ and ‘common-sense’ forms of knowledge and their functions in different epistemic fields, and it is thus a suitable theoretical framework for the study of lay understandings of abstract or salient phenomena like happiness. Each sub-study focuses on a different aspect of happiness. Sub-study I focuses on how ‘being happy’ is conceptualized on social media by analysing Instagram photos and related hashtags and captions tagged with the hashtag “#happy” (#onnellinen in Finnish). Sub-study II explores current ‘wisdoms’ about how to achieve happiness, analysing quotes, proverbs, and aphorisms that circulate on Instagram and Facebook in the form of inspirational ‘memes’, both in Finnish and Italian cultural contexts. By examining how Finnish online news and their readers have received and made sense of Finland’s ranking in the WHR, Sub-study III aims to discover what happens when common-sense notions of happiness encounter scientific notions of happiness. The overall findings show that the different contexts in which happiness is represented activate different objectifications, anchorings, and antinomies, which construct a social representation of happiness with both hegemonic and polemic aspects. Sub-study I shows that ‘being happy’ is organized around the antinomy self/others, which anchors happiness to the feeling of pride (towards oneself) on the one hand and feelings of gratitude (towards others and the world around us) on the other. Sub-study II demonstrates that current ‘wisdoms’ about how to achieve happiness circulating on social media are anchored to a sense of agency and gratitude, resulting in diverging advice on whether happiness can (and should) be pursued: do it/stop. Together, these antinomies give structure to what I have identified as the hegemonic representation of happiness, which combines the appeal to rely on the agentic self to become your own ‘happiness blacksmith’ with a plea for gratitude and acceptance of life circumstances. Finally, Sub-study III reveals that online articles dealing with the WHR construct a narrative centred on Finland as ‘winner’ while simultaneously adopting an ambivalent stance towards both the WHR and the conceptualization of happiness. Readers’ views on the WHR are instead split into two different ‘publics’ adopting a positive or negative stance. The public adopting a positive stance reiterates the hegemonic aspect of happiness that emerged in Sub-studies I and II. In contrast, the public’s adoption of a negative stance problematizes the role of agency and gratitude in connection to happiness, moving the spotlight away from the agentic and grateful self and re-directing it to external circumstances (political, financial, and societal), and thus constructing an aspect of happiness which I have identified as polemic. On the whole, the study offers new perspectives and ways to explore everyday understandings of happiness, starting from naturally occurring data retrieved from new media, thereby allowing the meaning(s) of happiness to emerge from user-generated material without imposing ready-made categories as often happens when relying on elicited data obtained through scaled instruments. Yhteiskuntamme onnellisuuden tavoittelulle antama arvo tuottaa jatkuvasti tästä aiheesta käytävää keskustelua sosiaalisessa mediassa ja muilla yhteiskunnallisilla areenoilla. Onnellisuus on kuitenkin myös suosittu empiirisen tutkimuksen kohde, joten sitä määritellään, mitataan ja siitä keskustellaan myös sosiaalitieteiden kentillä. Tällä väitöskirjatutkimuksella on kaksi tavoitetta. Ensimmäinen tavoite on tutkia nykyajan mielikuvia ja "viisauksia", jotka liittyvät onnellisena olemiseen ja onnellisuuden tavoittelemiseen, ja joita kierrätetään ja joista neuvotellaan spontaanisti. Toinen tavoite on analysoida empiirisen tutkimuksen synnyttämää jokapäiväistä keskustelua onnellisuudesta. Näiden tavoitteiden saavuttamiseksi tämä väitöskirjatutkimus selvittää, millaisia käsityksiä onnellisuudesta – jokapäiväisenä ja empiirisenä merkityksellistämisen kohteena – muodostetaan suomalaisten keskuudessa digitaalisen median eri areenoilla. Ottaen huomioon, että Suomi on säilyttänyt kärkipaikkansa YK:n Onnellisuusraportissa (WHR) viisi vuotta peräkkäin (2018-2022), tämän tutkimuksen toteuttaminen Suomen kontekstissa on kiistatta sekä ajantasaista että relevanttia. Tutkimus koostuu kolmesta kvalitatiivisesta osatutkimuksesta, joissa käytetään sosiaalisen representaation teoriaa (Moscovici, 1961/2008) teoreettisena viitekehyksenä. Näissä tarkasteluissa keskitytään erityisesti teorian ydinelementteihin – teemarakenteisiin (eli antinomioihin, kuten hyvä/paha) sekä ankkurointiin ja objektivointiin (eli kahteen mekanismiin, jotka luovat sosiaalisia representaatioita). Sosiaalisten representaatioiden teoria tunnistaa "tieteellisen" ja "maalaisjärjellisen" tiedon muotojen rinnakkaiselon ja niiden funktiot eri episteemisillä kentillä ja on siten sopiva teoreettinen kehys kun tutkitaan maallikkojen käsityksiä abstrakteista tai sosiaalisesti merkittävistä ilmiöistä, kuten onnellisuudesta. Jokainen osatutkimus keskittyy onnellisuuden eri osa-alueisiin. Osatutkimuksessa I keskitytään siihen, kuinka onnellisena oleminen käsitteellistyy sosiaalisessa mediassa analysoimalla Instagram-kuvia ja niihin liittyviä hashtageja ja kuvatekstejä, jotka on merkitty hashtagilla #onnellinen. Osatutkimuksessa II tarkastellaan nykykonteksteissa ilmeneviä "viisauksia" onnen saavuttamiseksi analysoimalla lainauksia, sananlaskuja ja aforismeja, jotka kiertävät Instagramissa ja Facebookissa inspiroivien "meemien" muodossa, sekä suomalaisessa että italialaisessa kulttuurisessa kontekstissa. Osatutkimuksen III tavoitteena on selvittää, mitä tapahtuu, kun ”maalaisjärjen” käsitykset onnellisuudesta kohtaavat tieteelliset käsitykset onnellisuudesta. Tämä tapahtuu tutkimalla, miten suomalaiset verkkouutiset ja niiden lukijat ovat ottaneet vastaan ja tulkinneet YK:n Onnellisuusraportin tuloksia. Kokonaisuudessaan nämä osatutkimukset osoittavat, että erilaiset kontekstit, joissa onnellisuudesta keskustellaan aktivoivat erilaisia ankkurointi- ja objektivointiprosesseja ja antinomioita, jotka rakentavat onnellisuuden sosiaalisen representaation, sisältäen sekä hegemonisia että poleemisia elementtejä. Osatutkimus I osoittaa, että "onnellisena oleminen" rakentuu antinomian minä/muut ympärille, mikä ankkuroi onnellisuuden toisaalta ylpeyden tunteeseen (itseään kohtaan) ja toisaalta kiitollisuuden tunteeseen (toisia ihmisiä ja ympärillämme olevaa maailmaa kohtaan). Osatutkimus II osoittaa, että sosiaalisessa mediassa kiertävät nykyiset "viisaudet" onnen saavuttamiseksi ankkuroituvat tahdonvapauden ja kiitollisuuden tunteisiin, mikä johtaa erilaisiin neuvoihin siitä, voidaanko (ja pitäisikö) onnellisuutta tavoitella: tee se/lopeta. Yhdessä nämä antinomiat muodostavat rakenteen, jonka olen tunnistanut onnen hegemoniseksi esitykseksi. Se yhdistää kehotuksen luottaa agenttiminään jotta tulisit oman "onnesi sepäksi" sekä vetoomuksen kiitollisuudesta ja elämänolosuhteiden hyväksymisestä. Lopuksi tutkimus III paljastaa, että WHR:tä käsittelevät verkkoartikkelit rakentavat narratiivia, joka keskittyy Suomeen "voittajana", samalla kun omaksutaan ristiriitainen asenne sekä YK:n Onnellisuusraportin tuloksia että raportissa hyödynnettyä onnellisuuden käsitteellistämistä kohtaan. Lukijoiden näkemykset YK:n Onnellisuusraportista jakautuvat kahteen eri "yleisöön", jotka omaksuvat positiivisen tai negatiivisen kannan. Positiivisen asenteen omaksuva yleisö hyväksyy hegemonista tulkintaa onnellisuudesta, joka ilmeni osatutkimuksissa I ja II. Sitä vastoin kielteisen kannan omaksuva yleisö kyseenalaistaa tahdonvapauden ja kiitollisuuden korostumista onnellisuuden yhteydessä, siirtäen valokeilan pois agenttisesta ja kiitollisesta yksilöstä ja suunnaten sen ulkoisiin olosuhteisiin (poliittisiin, taloudellisiin ja yhteiskunnallisiin). Siten he muodostavat vaihtoehtoista representaatiota onnellisuudesta, jonka olen tunnistanut poleemiseksi. Kaiken kaikkiaan tutkimus tarjoaa uusia näkökulmia ja tapoja tutkia arjen käsityksiä onnellisuudesta, hyödyntäen uusien medioiden tutkijasta riippumattomasti tuotettua aineistoa, joka sallii onnellisuuden merkitysten analysoimisen käyttäjien tuottamasta materiaalista ilman ennalta määrättyjä kategorioita, joita puolestaan onnellisuutta kvantitatiivisesti mittaavissa tutkimuksissa keskeisesti hyödynnetään.