In defence of social psychology attending to the institutional dimension: Potentialities for extending comprehension of the ecological and political

IF 0.2 Q3 Social Sciences
P. Castro
{"title":"In defence of social psychology attending to the institutional dimension: Potentialities for extending comprehension of the ecological and political","authors":"P. Castro","doi":"10.1386/pjss_00002_1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article I have the following goals: to enter the debate on what defines social psychology as a social science, arguing that it is the prominence conceded to a focus on agreed ‐ not natural ‐ limits to human action; to add to this debate a further\n distinction ‐ that between social facts and cultural/institutional facts ‐ together with a theorization of the later highlighting the relevance of attending to the (de)legitimization of institutions; to extract consequences of this position for social psychology; finally, to\n offer two cases illustrating and hopefully clarifying the set of theoretical arguments and concepts I used before: Sophocles' Antigone, and the EU debate on Natura 2000, both evidencing a tension between the legal and the legitimate. I conclude by suggesting that such a social psychology\n can work together with the social sciences to ask questions productive for extending our knowledge of the ecological and the political.","PeriodicalId":51963,"journal":{"name":"Portuguese Journal of Social Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Portuguese Journal of Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1386/pjss_00002_1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract In this article I have the following goals: to enter the debate on what defines social psychology as a social science, arguing that it is the prominence conceded to a focus on agreed ‐ not natural ‐ limits to human action; to add to this debate a further distinction ‐ that between social facts and cultural/institutional facts ‐ together with a theorization of the later highlighting the relevance of attending to the (de)legitimization of institutions; to extract consequences of this position for social psychology; finally, to offer two cases illustrating and hopefully clarifying the set of theoretical arguments and concepts I used before: Sophocles' Antigone, and the EU debate on Natura 2000, both evidencing a tension between the legal and the legitimate. I conclude by suggesting that such a social psychology can work together with the social sciences to ask questions productive for extending our knowledge of the ecological and the political.
为关注制度维度的社会心理学辩护:扩展对生态和政治理解的潜力
摘要在这篇文章中,我有以下目标:进入关于社会心理学作为一门社会科学的定义的辩论,认为这是对人类行为的一致而非自然限制的突出承认;在这场辩论中,进一步区分了社会事实和文化/制度事实,并对后者进行了理论化,强调了关注制度(去)合法化的相关性;提取这种立场对社会心理学的影响;最后,提供两个案例来说明并有望澄清我之前使用的一套理论论点和概念:索福克勒斯的《安提戈涅》和欧盟关于Natura 2000的辩论,这两个案例都证明了合法与合法之间的紧张关系。最后,我建议这样一种社会心理学可以与社会科学合作,提出有助于扩展我们对生态和政治知识的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Portuguese Journal of Social Science is a peer-reviewed cross-disciplinary journal focusing on research about Portuguese society by scholars of any nationality. However, the journal takes a broad view and accepts articles that are not exclusively devoted to the Portuguese case. We particularly welcome comparative studies. While the journal concentrates on research articles it operates a flexible policy in respect of other types of submission, including book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信