Résultat de la recherche
Imagination and social movements
Whether explicitly mentioned or not, imagination plays a key role in social movements. People’s dissatisfaction with what is, their imagining of how things once were better, or of how things may become, often supports social movements. Social movements can, in turn, bring about new imaginations for people. After defining the notion of imagination and social movements, drawing on recent research, we review the literature along three main axes: the role of temporality in the relation between social movements and imagination; the relation between collective identities, social movement and imagination; and the resources that support imagination and social movements. We conclude by highlighting further dimensions to analyse the dynamics of imagination, which may open new ways to analyse the trajectories of social movements.
On "Creative writers and day-dreaming" by Sigmund Freud (1908)
Relatively early in his career, Freud wrote a short text on creativity, arguing that, far from being the privilege of a few artists, it was part of a process naturally developing as a continuation of children’s play. After presenting that text, this chapter discusses it in the light of past and recent developments, focusing on the idea that creativity is a process. British psychoanalysis has examined that idea, with an emphasis on what may hinder creativity and its variations. In Russia, however, Vygotsky’s work, without quoting them explicitly, has largely drawn on Freud’s intuitions, yet including them in a more socioculturally aware psychology. Three ideas need further theoretical and empirical investigation: the continuum between child and adult creativity; the nuances between daydream, imagination, and creativity; and the role of emotions and personal motives in any creative endeavor.
Imagining the future. A sociocultural psychological study of im/mobilities in and around Suðuroy
L’imagination permet aux individus et aux sociétés de donner une forme au futur incertain et de guider leurs pratiques et discours dans le présent. Les modèles psychologiques socioculturels de l’imagination se concentrent sur des processus sémiotiques abstraits, mais les situent dans des initiatives matérielles et sociales tangibles. De plus, l’imagination se développe non seulement dans le temps, mais également à travers, entre et en relation avec les espaces, c’est-à-dire par le biais et en contact des im/mobilités. Dans cette dissertation, je poursuis les tentatives d’articulation d’une perspective d’im/mobilité avec l’étude de l’imagination en explorant comment cette dernière génère, transforme, et gouverne la première. Bien que les études sur la migration et l’im/mobilité aient identifié l’importance de l’avenir, elles l’ont principalement fait d’une manière statique et centrée sur la migration, ce qui incite à proposer un modèle dynamique. J’adopte une perspective psychologique socioculturelle qui suppose que le développement psychologique ne peut être dissocié du contexte social et culturel. Je présente une étude de cas axée sur l’île féroïenne de Suðuroy caractérisée par ce que je qualifie de emptying (vidage). Sur la base d’observations participantes, d’entretiens qualitatifs et d’une recherche documentaire approfondie, j’explore l’interaction entre l’imagination et l’im/mobilité à l’interface entre sociogenèse et ontogenèse. Tout d’abord, j’identifie plusieurs initiatives — conceptualisées comme des technologies de l’imagination — qui abordent la question du emptying. Ces initiatives engendrent la sédentarité et stimulent les mobilités, toutes deux devenues manifestes dans l’augmentation de la population et du tourisme depuis 2013 environ, mais avec des effets inégaux qui créent une synchronisation externe et une désynchronisation interne. Ensuite, je me concentre sur les villages de Vágur et Suðuroy dans lesquels le emptying est accentué par une transformation sociétale plus large. Je démontre comment les initiatives locales visent à synchroniser et à signaler un avenir prometteur. Puis, en utilisant la construction potentielle d’un tunnel sous-marin comme exemple, j’illustre comment les forces qui influencent l’imagination sont réfractées par les différentes expériences et positionnements individuels. Enfin, je suis les trajectoires d’im/mobilité des personnes, en argumentant que les enchevêtrements d’im/mobilité dépendent des imaginaires dynamiques du futur. Je conclus que les technologies de l’imagination ancrent cette étude dans des initiatives concrètes et montrent les différentes manières dont les relations entre les temporalités sont modifiées, et je propose que l’imagination soit une forme de gouvernementalité qui façonne les régimes d’im/mobilité. Abstract: The imagination enables individuals and societies to give form to the unknowable future and guide efforts in the present. Sociocultural psychological models of the imagination focus on abstract semiotic processes but situate them in tangible material and social initiatives. Moreover, just as imagination develops over time, so it does across, between, and in relation to spaces; that is, through and in contact with im/mobilities. I expand on attempts to introduce an im/mobility perspective to the study of the imagination by exploring how the latter is generative of, transformed in, and govern the former. While migration and im/mobility studies have identified the future’s importance, they have primarily done so in a migration-centric and static manner, which lends further impetus to proposing a dynamic model. I adopt a sociocultural psychological perspective that assumes psychological development cannot be dissociated from sociocultural context. I present a case study centred on the Faroese island of Suðuroy characterised by what I describe as emptying. Based on participant observations, qualitative interviews, and extensive desk research, I explore the interaction between imagination and im/mobility at the interface between sociogenesis and ontogenesis. First, I identify several initiatives—conceptualised as technologies of the imagination—that address the emptying. Such initiatives engender sedentariness and stimulate mobilities, both of which became manifest in population and tourism increases from approximately 2013, though with uneven effects that create external synchronisation but internal desynchronisation. Second, I focus on the villages of Vágur and Suðuroy, where the emptying is accentuated by the wider societal transformation. I demonstrate how localised initiatives aim to synchronise and signal a hopeful future. Third, using a sub-sea tunnel’s potential construction as an example, I illustrate how forces impinging on the imagination are refracted through people’s experiences and positions. Fourth, I follow people’s im/mobility trajectories, arguing that the entanglements of im/mobility depend on dynamic imaginings of the future. I conclude that technologies of the imagination ground the study in concrete initiatives and show the ways the relations between temporalities are altered, and I propose that imagination as a form of governmentality that shapes regimes of im/mobilities.
Daydreaming
Daydreaming can be defined as the process by which we partly or fully decouple from what seems to be one’s current activity in the world. It usually designates “anything one may be thinking about that does not pertain to the task in which one is currently involved” (Pereira and Diriwächter, 2008). Occurring within our flow of consciousness, it entails fantasy or a form of diurnal dreaming. Daydreaming can be more or less deliberate, have more or less clear goals, be more or less structured, and have diverse types of outcomes. Authors usually distinguish daydreams that may enrich people’s relation to themselves, or their relation to the world, from those which seem not to enrich experiences. Most authors admit that daydreaming participates to our capacity to deal with our experiences and opens up new possibilities.
Handbook of Imagination and Culture
Imagination allows individuals and groups to think beyond the here-and-now, to envisage alternatives, to create parallel worlds, and to mentally travel through time. Imagination is both extremely personal (for example, people imagine unique futures for themselves) and deeply social, as our imagination is fed with media and other shared representations. As a result, imagination occupies a central position within the life of mind and society. Expanding the boundaries of disciplinary approaches, the Handbook of Imagination and Culture expertly illustrates this core role of imagination in the development of children, adolescents, adults, and older persons today. Bringing together leading scholars in sociocultural psychology and neighboring disciplines from around the world, this edited volume guides readers towards a much deeper understanding of the conditions of imagining, its resources, its constraints, and the consequences it has on different groups of people in different domains of society. Summarily, this Handbook places imagination at the center, and offers readers new ways to examine old questions regarding the possibility of change, development, and innovation in modern society.
Art, imagination, et les limites du dialogue
Le dialogisme est à la fois une épistémologie, une perspective théorique et une éthique (Grossen, 2007; Marková, 2016). Il invite à examiner les conditions relationnelles du mouvement de la pensée, de l’expérience, et de leur expression. Dans cette contribution, je me propose de relire les données de deux terrains, l’un portant sur le développement de jeunes adolescents, l’autre sur celui des personnes âgées (Grossen, Zittoun, & Ros, 2012; Zittoun, Grossen, & Salamin Tarrago, In press). Dans les deux cas, l’objet d’étude est devenu la relation des personnes à des objets culturels spécifiques, dans des institutions particulières. Les institutions sont en effet le lieu de déploiement de dialogues entre personnes, entre personnes et objets culturels, et entre celles-ci et le monde social dans lequel d’inscrit l’institution. Etant donné qu’elles concentrent toujours des tensions socioculturelles plus larges, les institutions peuvent souvent mettre en danger les dialogues que chacun mène avec soi-même et avec les autres. Pourtant, nos observations montrent aussi comment, en entrant en dialogue avec un objet culturel – un roman, une chanson, une œuvre d’art – les personnes peuvent soutenir et renforcer une forme de dialogicité fondamentale. Dans ce chapitre, je commence par présenter le dialogisme aujourd’hui, la manière dont il a été travaillé par Michèle Grossen, et comment il nous permet de problématiser les institutions. J’examine ensuite deux situations tirées des terrains cités plus haut, et je montre comment l’institution peut menacer le dialogue, mais aussi, la manière dont les personnes parviennent à maintenir une dialogicité malgré tout. Comme il est parfois difficile de faire des analyses fines de ce type de situations, je me tourne alors vers un exemple tiré de la littérature, et qui montre comment, même dans une situation institutionnelle totalitaire et donc monologisante, des personnes peuvent maintenir et déployer une très grande dialogicité.
On Bartlett's (1928) "Types of imagination"
Known for his work on memory, Sir Frederick C. Bartlett also repeatedly wrote about imagination as part of his attempt to understand the dynamics of mind. Bartlett’s 1928 text explores autobiographical and literary material so as to identify three types of imagination (assimilative, creative, and constructive) on a continuum, depending on how much passive or intentional these are. This chapter discusses how three of Bartlett’s propositions have been taken on by research: processes of imagination, typology of people, and methodological choices. Finally, it is proposed that researchers pursue the exploration of variations of processes involved in imagination as proposed by Bartlett, as well as his original methodologies.
Imagining the collective future: A sociocultural perspective
The present chapter examines how groups imagine their future from a sociocultural perspective. First, we present our sociocultural model of imagination and its three dimensions, before building on it to account for how collectives imagine the future. We maintain that it is a mistake to assume that because imagination is “not real”, it cannot have “real” consequences. Imagination about the future, we argue, is a central steering mechanism of individual and collective behaviour. Imagination about the future is often political precisely because it can have huge significance for the activities of a group or even a nation. Accordingly, we introduce a new dimension for thinking about collective imagination of the future— namely, the degree of centralization of imagining—and with it, identify a related aspect, its emotional valence. Based on two examples, we argue that collective imaginings have their own developmental trajectories as they move in time through particular social and political contexts. Consequently, we suggest that a sociocultural psychology of collective imagination of the future should not only document instances of collective imagining, but also account for these developmental trajectories— specifically, what social and political forces hinder and promote particular imaginings.