Themata in science and in common sense

Ivana Marková 1
  • 1 University of Stirling,

Abstract

Human thinking is heterogeneous, and among its different forms, thinking in dyadic oppositions is associated with the concept of themata. Gerald Holton characterises themata as elements that lie beneath the structure and development of physical theories as well as of non-scientific thinking. Themata have different uses, such as a thematic concept, or a thematic component of the concept; a methodological (or epistemological) thema; and a propositional thema. Serge Moscovici has placed the concept of themata in the heart of his theory of social representations which is based on ‘natural thinking’ and on forms of daily knowing, including common sense. In this article I shall explore some features of thematic concepts and of methodological themata in scientific theories and in common sense. More specifically, I shall refer to the significance of the methodological (or epistemological) thema the Self and Other(s) in common-sense thinking and in social practices.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Benedict, R. (1942). Race and Racism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

  • Bohr, N. (1949). Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. New York: Tudor Publishing Company, pp. 199–241.

  • Bohr, N. (1955). Science and the unity of knowledge. In L. Leary (ed.). Unity of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday, pp. 47–62.

  • Bohr, N. (1999). Collected Works. Complementarity Beyond Physics (1928–1962). Vol. 10. Ed. D. Favrholdt. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Crivellato, E. and Ribatti, D. (2008). Body symmetry and asymmetry in early Greek anatomical reasoning. Clinical Anatomy, 21, 279–282.

  • Elkana, Y. (1982). The myth of simplicity. In G. Holton and Y. Elkana (eds.). Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 205–251.

  • Faucheux, C. and Moscovici, S. (1962). Remarques critiques sur la « question microsociale». Arguments, 6, 19–27.

  • Galam, S. and Moscovici, S. (1991). Towards a theory of collective phenomena: consensus and attitude changes in group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 49–74.

  • Galam, S. and Moscovici, S. (1994). Towards a theory of collective phenomena. II: Conformity and power. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 481–495.

  • Galam, S. and Moscovici, S. (1995). Towards a theory of collective phenomena: III: Conflicts and forms of power. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 217–229.

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Holton, G. (1973). Introduction to Concepts and Theories in Physical Science. Second Edition. Reading Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

  • Holton, G. (1974). Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

  • Holton, G. (1975). On the Role of Themata in Scientific Thought. Science, 188, (4186), 328–334.

  • Holton, G. (1978). The Scientific Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Husserl, E. (1913/1962). Ideas : General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, Trsl. W. R. Boyce Gibson. London and New York: Collier, Macmillan.

  • Ichheiser, G. (1940). The image of the other man: A study in social psychology. Sociometry, 111, 277–291.

  • Ichheiser, G. (1949). Misunderstandings in human relations: A study in false social perceptions. Supplement to the September issue of the American Journal of Sociology, Chicago: University Press.

  • Ichheiser, G. (1951). Misunderstandings in international relations. American Sociological Review, 16, 311–316.

  • Jesuino, J.C. (2008). Linking science to common sense. Journal for the Theory of Social Representations, 38, 393–409.

  • Joffe, H. (2011). Public apprehension of emerging infectious diseases: are changes afoot? Public Understanding of Science, 20, 446–460.

  • Joffe, H. and Haarhoff, G. (2002). Representations of far-flung illnesses: the case of Ebola in Britain. Social Science & Medicine, 54, 955–696.

  • Joffe, H., Rossetto, T., Solberg, C., and O’Connor, C. (2013). Social Representations of Earthquakes: A Study of People Living in Three Highly Seismic Areas. Earthquake Spectra, 29, 367–397.

  • Joffe, H., Washer, P., and Solberg, C. (2011). Public engagement with emerging infectious disease: The case of MRSA in Britain. Psychology & Health, 26 (667–683).

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Lindenberg, S. (1987). Common sense and social structure: a sociological view, in F. van Holthoon and D. R. Olson (eds). Common Sense: Foundation for Social Science. Lanham and New York: University Press of America, pp. 199–215.

  • Lloyd, G.E.R. (1966). Polarity and Analogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Marková, I. (2003). Dialogicality and Social Representations: The Dynamics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Marková, I. (2012). Epistemologia delle rappresentazioni sociall. Implicazioni per la ricerca empirica. In I. Galli (ed.). Cinquant’Anni di Rappresentazioni Sociali. Milano: Edizioni Unicopli, pp. 45–57.

  • Marková, I. (2014). Complementarity as an epistemology of life, in B. Wagoner, N. Chaudhary and P. Hviid (eds.). Cultural Psychology and Its Future: Complementarity in a New Key. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, pp. 33–50.

  • Marková, I. (2016). The Dialogical Mind: Common Sense and Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Marková, I., Wilkie, P.A., Naji, S., and Forbes, C. (1990). Self- and other-awareness of the risk of HIV/AIDS in people with haemophilia and implications for behavioural change, Social Science and Medicine, 31, 73–79.

  • Marková, I., McKee, K., Power, K. and Moodie, E. (1995). The self, the other and perceived risk: Lay representations of HIV/AIDS in Scottish prisons. In Marková, I. and Farr, R.M. (eds.). Representations of Health, Illness and Handicap. New York: Harwood, pp 111–129.

  • Moloney, G., Hall, R., and Walker, I. (2005). Social representations and themata: The construction and functioning of social knowledge about donation and transplantation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 415–441.

  • Moloney, G., Williams, J. and Blair, D. (2012). Cognitive Polyphasia, Themata and Blood Donation: Between or Within Representation. Papers on Social Representations, 21, 4.1–4.12

  • Moloney G., Walker, I., and Charlton, T. (2013). Social Understandings of Organ donation: Implications for practice. In M. A. Lauri (ed.) Organ Donation and Transplantation: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Hauppauge NY: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 141–150.

  • Moloney, G., Gamble, M., Hayman, K. and Smith, G. (2015). Without anchor: Themata and blood donation, Papers on Social Representations, 24, 2, 2.1–2.21.

  • Moscovici, S. (1961). La Psychanalyse: son image et son public. [Psychoanalysis: its image and its public]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

  • Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R.M. Farr and S. Moscovici (eds.). Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–69.

  • Moscovici, S. (1993). Introductory Address. Papers on Social Representations, 2, 160–170.

  • Moscovici, S. (2011). An essay on social representations and ethnic minorities. Social Science Information, 50, 442–461.

  • Moscovici, S. and Hewstone, M. (1983). Social representations and social explanations: From the ‘naïve’ to the ‘amateur’ scientist’, in M. Hewstone (ed.). Attribution Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 98–125.

  • Moscovici, S. and Vignaux, G. (1994/2000). ‘Le Concept de Thêmata’, in C. Guimelli, Structures et transformations des représentations sociales [Structures and transformations of social representations]. Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé, pp. 25–72. Reprinted in Moscovici, S. Social Representations. Ed. G. Duveen. London: Polity Press, pp. 156–183.

  • Moodie, E., Marková, I. and Plichtová, J. (1995). Lay representations of democracy: A study in two cultures, Culture & Psychology, 1: 423–454.

  • Nambu, Y. (2008) Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Particle Physics: a Case of Cross-Fertilization. Nobel Prize lecture (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2008/nambu-slides.pdf.).

  • Ricoeur, P. (1990/1992). Oneself as Another. Trsl. K. Blamey. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Rosenfeld, L. (1963/1979). Niels Bohr’s contribution to epistemology. In Selected Papers of Leon Rosenfeld. Ed. R. S. Cohen and J. J. Stachel. Dordrecht and London: D. Reidel (1979), pp. 522–535.

  • Smith, N. and Joffe, H. (2013). How the public engages with global warming: a social representations approach. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 16–32.

  • Smith, N., O’Connor, C. and Joffe, H. (2015). Social representations of threatening phenomena: the self-other thema and identity protection. Papers on Social Representations, 24, 2, 1.1–1.23.

  • Vico, G. (1744/1948). The New Science of Giambattista Vico. Trsl. T. G. Bergin and M. H. Fisch. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

  • Weyl, H. (1952). Symmetry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Whitehead, A. N. (1929/1979). Process and Reality. Ed. D. R. Griffin and D. W. Sherburne. New York and London: Free Press.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search