Vignette d'image

de Saint Laurent, Constance

Nom
de Saint Laurent, Constance
Affiliation principale
Site web
Fonction
Ancien.ne collaborateur.trice
Identifiants
https://libra.unine.ch/handle/123456789/722

Résultat de la recherche

Filtres

4
6
33
Réinitialiser les filtres

Paramètres

Voici les éléments 1 - 6 sur 6
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Beyond collective memory: a sociocultural perspective on historical representations
    (Neuchâtel, 2018)
    de Saint Laurent, Constance 
    ;
    Zittoun, Tania 
    Le sens commun dicte que nous, individus et collectifs, devrions apprendre du passé pour éviter de répéter les erreurs que nous avons pu commettre. Malheureusement, les recherches sur le sujet ont plutôt démontré le contraire : notre mémoire collective, c’est-à-dire nos représentations de l’histoire, a tendance à présenter une version de l’histoire à la fois biaisée, glorifiante, et unilatérale qui reflète nos intérêts nationaux et sociaux. Cette thèse a pour but de dépasser cette conception de la mémoire collective et d’explorer comment exactement les gens construisent, mobilisent, transforment et questionnent les représentations de l’histoire. Pour ce faire, une perspective socioculturelle est adoptée, qui considère que personnes et cultures sont interdépendantes, que le soi et l’autre sont co-constitués et que la personne est un agent qui se développe tout au long de la vie. A partir de cette approche, quatre études sont construites – trois études empiriques et une étude transversale. La première porte sur la construction de la mémoire collective dans les interactions, à travers l’analyse de débats parlementaires sur l’immigration. Dans la deuxième étude, les trajectoires de vie d’intellectuels et d’artistes qui ont remis en question des représentations historiques dominantes sont reconstituées, pour explorer comment la mémoire collective se développe au cours de la vie. Dans la troisième recherche, une expérience dialogique est utilisée, où les participants sont confrontés à divers discours sur un évènement récent (le conflit en Ukraine qui a débuté en 2015), pour analyser comment ils raisonnent sur l’histoire. Enfin, la dernière étude, transversale, analyse comment la mémoire collective est mobilisée pour imaginer le futur et représenter le monde. A partir de ces quatre études, il est conclu que les représentations historiques sont des ressources symboliques dynamiques, construites dans les interactions et tout au long de la vie, à travers l’utilisation de ressources sociales et culturelles et d’une multitude de processus psychologiques, dans le but de donner du sens au monde. Et donc que la question n’est pas tellement ce que nous apprenons du passé, mais comment nous l’apprenons. It is common wisdom that we, both as individuals and as members of societies, should learn from the past in order to avoid repeating the mistakes both us and others have made. Unfortunately, research on the topic has shown that we do quite the contrary: our collective memory, or our lay representation of the past, tends to present a rather biased, glorifying, and unilateral version of history and to reflect our national or social interests over the ones of others. The aim of this thesis is to go beyond this conception of collective memory, and to explore how exactly people construct, mobilise, transform, and challenge representations of history. To do this, I propose to adopt a sociocultural perspective, that considers culture and minds as interdependent, self and other as co-constituted, and the person as agentic and developing throughout the life-course. Based on this approach, four studies are proposed – three empirical and one transversal. In the first study, I look at how collective memory is constructed in interactions by analysing the transcripts of parliamentary debates on immigration. In the second study, I reconstruct the trajectories of intellectuals and artists who came to question hegemonic historical representations, to explore how collective memory develops over the life course. In the third study, I analyse how people reason about a recent event – the Ukrainian conflict that started in 2015 – and history through a dialogical experiment where people were confronted to diverse representations of history. Finally, in a last transversal study, I look at how collective memory is mobilised to imagine the future and represent the world. This leads me to conclude that historical representations are dynamic symbolic resources, constructed in interactions and developed throughout the life-course, through the use of social and cultural resources as well as a wide range of psychological processes, in order to give meaning to the world. And thus that the question is not what we learn from history, but how we learn from it.
  • Publication
    Métadonnées seulement
    Uses of the past: History as a resource for the present
    (Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science: Springer International Publishing, 2018)
    Obradovic, Sandra
    ;
    de Saint Laurent, Constance 
    Research on collective memory – exploring the lay representations of history – has been booming in the past decades, particularly since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In this context, the past has started to be seen as not only interesting in itself, but as especially relevant to understand the present: it weighs on it by shaping our relations with other groups and by defining who we are, to use terms common in collective memory research. The past is thus given authority over the present (and often the future), by assuming that its transformations and deformations play a determining role in the way we understand ourselves and act with others, as members of social groups. In this special issue, we propose to look, on the contrary, at how the past is transformed and mobilised for the present. That is, instead of conceiving the past as weighting on the present, we would like to explore how it is mobilised and brought to the present, as a resource to give meaning to present actions and groups as well as to imagine collective futures. The contributions to this special issue will thus focus on how history is used in the present, for what purpose and with what results. The aim of this special issue is also to offer a space to PhD students and post-doctoral fellows to develop new ideas and to promote them within the scientific community. The issue will thus be composed of two parts: a series of articles proposed by ‘junior’ researchers and a series of commentaries by ‘experts’ in the field.
  • Publication
    Métadonnées seulement
    Thinking through time: From collective memories to collective futures
    (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018)
    de Saint Laurent, Constance 
    ;
    de Saint Laurent, Constance 
    ;
    Obradovic, Sandra
    ;
    Carriere, Kevin
    In this chapter I look at the links between collective memory and the imagination of collective futures. Drawing on works on imagination and autobiographical memory, I first discuss the role of past experiences in imagining the future. I then explore the consequences of such a perspective for collective memories and collective futures, which will lead me to argue that the former provides the basis for the latter. Three case studies are presented, each illustrating a different type of relation between collective memory and collective imagination: 1) collective memory as a frame of reference to imagine the future; 2) collective memory as a source of experiences and examples to imagine what is likely, possible or desirable; and 3) collective memory as generalisable experience from which representations of the world – Personal World Philosophies – are constructed and in turn used to imagine the collective future. This will lead me to the conclusion that representations of the world are characterised by “temporal heteroglossia”, the simultaneous presence of multiple periods of time, and that they mediate the relation between collective memory and collective imagination, allowing us to “think through time”.
  • Publication
    Métadonnées seulement
    Collective remembering: new developments and future perspectives
    (Culture & Psychology: Sage, 2017)
    de Saint Laurent, Constance 
    ;
    Bresco de Luna, I.
    ;
    Awad, Sarah
    ;
    Wagoner, B
    From discussions in the media about this year’s 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War to debates about the content of school history textbooks, collective memory is a topic that permeates public and scientific forums alike. What we remember and, most importantly, how we remember the past, seems fundamental for the way in which we come to understand our present and imagine our future as individual, groups, and societies (Liu & Hilton, 2005). And yet, the debate concerns not only the content of collective memory but the concept of collective memory itself, its definition, applicability, and its future (Brockmeier, 2010). Collective remembering can be broadly defined as the process by which discourses on the historical past are produced. Beyond the questions of ‘who’ does the remembering, ‘how’, and ‘for what purposes’, this broad understanding might sound like a solid starting point for this research area. However, it is not so much shared definitions that unify the field, but rather a critique of old approaches to collective memory, accused of turning it into static, reified representations about the past (Wertsch, 2002). Beyond this critique, important questions remain concerning the content of collective memory (is it a narrative, a form of meaning-making, a representation?), its functions (is it a way to define ourselves, to give meaning to the world, to imagine what may come next?), and its boundaries (does it concern only recent events, only the past of one’s social group, or does it refer to a global understanding of history?). Answers to such questions tend to vary from researcher to researcher. However, they are not always contradictory and could actually complement each other. This makes dialogue between scholars all the more important for understanding and articulating the different aspects of collective memory. In addition, there is also value in looking ‘outwards’ for inspiration, beyond the area of collective memory. Plagued by a narrow definition of memory in psychology (as recall), the field of collective memory tends to operate with a broader understanding of what remembering is. From a sociocultural perspective, to remember involves much more than memory alone (Wagoner, 2015) and engages one’s imagination and creativity in a complex act of future-making. As such, it becomes important to have an inter-disciplinary dialogue between collective memory scholars and colleagues working in related fields within social and cultural psychology. This special issue aims to bring together a small group of junior and senior researchers who share both a common interest for collective remembering and connected topics, as well as a set of theoretical assumptions about the social and cultural nature of human activity and the future-oriented nature of constructing meaning about self and world. Its primary aim is to open up a space for discussion between cultural psychologists interested in how discourses on history are used and produced and for their theoretical and practical consequences.
  • Publication
    Accès libre
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Dialogue and debate in psychology: Commentary on the foundational myth of psychology as a science
    (Ontario: Captus, 2015)
    de Saint Laurent, Constance 
    ;
    Cresswell, James
    ;
    Haye, Andres
    ;
    Larrain, Antonia
    ;
    Morgan, Mandy
    ;
    Sullivan, Gavin
    This paper proposes to consider the discourses surrounding the “birth” of psychology, especially the stories around the Leipzig laboratory, as collective memory. It argues that analysing this ‘foundational myth’ of psychology may shed light on the current oppositions and divisions within the field. Seeing psychology as the product of an original and necessary separation between two distinct branches may indeed have sterilised the debate far beyond those who started it. Finally, drawing on dialogism and pragmatism, it considers that the recognition of the legitimacy of the knowledge of the other and the reopening of the epistemological debate are necessary steps towards the instauration of a fruitful dialogue within the field.