Imaginary (sociology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see The Imaginary.

The imaginary, or social imaginary is the set of values, institutions, laws, and symbols common to a particular social group and the corresponding society though which people imagine their social whole.

Definitions[edit]

For John Thompson, 'The social imaginary ... [is] the creative and symbolic dimension of the social world, the dimension through which human beings create their ways of living together and their ways of representing their collective life'.[1]

For Manfred Steger and Paul James 'Imaginaries are patterned convocations of the social whole. These deep-seated modes of understanding provide largely pre-reflexive parameters within which people imagine their social existence—expressed, for example, in conceptions of “the global,” “the national,” “the moral order of our time.” '[2]

Authors[edit]

Castoriadis[edit]

In 1975, Cornelius Castoriadis used the term in his book The Imaginary Institution of Society, maintaining that 'the imaginary of the society ... creates for each historical period its singular way of living, seeing and making its own existence'.[3] For Castoriadis, 'the central imaginary significations of a society ... are the laces which tie a society together and the forms which define what, for a given society, is "real"'.[4]

In similar fashion, Habermas wrote of 'the massive background of an intersubjectively shared lifeworld ... lifeworld contexts that provided the backing of a massive background consensus'.[5]

Lacan[edit]

'The imaginary is presented by Lacan as one of the three intersecting orders that structure all human existence, the others being the symbolic and the real'.[6] Lacan was responding to ' L'Imaginaire, which was the title of the "phenomenological psychology of the imagination" published by Sartre in 1940, where it refers to the image as a form of consciousness'.[7] Lacan also drew on the way 'Melanie Klein pushes back the limits within which we can see the subjective function of identification operate',[8] in her work on phantasy - something extended by her followers to the analysis of how 'we are all prone to be drawn into social phantasy systems...the experience of being in a particular set of human collectivities'.[9] 'While it is only in the early years of childhood that human beings live entirely in the Imaginary, it remains distinctly present throughout the life of the individual'.[10]

The imaginary as a Lacanian term refers to an illusion and fascination with an image of the body as coherent unity, deriving from the dual relationship between the ego and the specular or mirror image. This illusion of coherence, control and totality is by no means unnecessary or inconsequential (as something that is illusory). 'The term "imaginary" is obviously cognate with "fictive" but in its Lacanian sense it is not simply synonymous with fictional or unreal; on the contrary, imaginary identifications can have very real effects'.[11]

Taylor[edit]

Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor uses the concept of modern social imaginaries to explore the Western transition from the hierarchical norms of pre-modern social imaginaries to the egalitarian, horizontal, direct access social imaginary of modernity.[12] He sees the Renaissance ideal of civility and self-fashioning as a sort of halfway house[13] on the road to modernity and modern morality. The modern social imaginary he considers comprises a system of interlocking spheres, including reflexivity and the social contract,[14] public opinion and Habermas' public sphere, the political/market economy as an independent force, and the self-government of citizens within a society as a normative ideal.[15]

Taylor has acknowledged the influence of Benedict Anderson in his formulation of the concept of the social imaginary.[16] Anderson treated the nation as 'an imagined political community...nation-ness, as well as nationalism, are cultural artifacts of a particular kind'.[17]

Themes[edit]

Imaginaries and ontology[edit]

While not constituting an established reality, the social imaginary is nevertheless an institution inasmuch as it represents the system of meanings that govern a given social structure. These imaginaries are to be understood as historical constructs defined by the interactions of subjects in society. In that sense, the imaginary is not necessarily "real" as it is an imagined concept contingent on the imagination of a particular social subject. Nevertheless, there remains some debate among those who use the term (or its associated terms, such as imaginaire, as to the ontological status of the Imaginary. Some, such as Henry Corbin, understand the imaginary to be quite real indeed, while others ascribe to it only a social or imagined reality.

John R. Searle considered the ontology of the social imaginary to be complex, but that in practice 'the complex structure of social reality is, so to speak, weightless and invisible. The child is brought up in a culture where he or she simply takes social reality for granted....The complex ontology seems simple'.[18] He added the subtle distinction that social reality was observer-relative, and so would 'inherit that ontological subjectivity. But this ontological subjectivity does not prevent claims about observer-relative features from being epistemically objective'.[19]

Imaginaries and technology[edit]

In 1995 "Technoscientific Imaginaries" was used as the title of a volume ethnographically exploring contemporary science and technology. A collection of encounters in the technosciences by a collective of anthropologists and others, edited by George Marcus, the goal was to find strategic sites of change in contemporary worlds that no longer fit traditional ideas and pedagogies and that are best explored through a collaborative effort between technoscientists and social scientists. While the Lacanian imaginary is only indirectly invoked, the interplay between emotion and reason, desire, the symbolic order, and the real are repeatedly probed. Crucial to the technical side of these imaginaries are the visual, statistical, and other representational modes of imaging that have both facilitated scientific developments and sometimes misdirected a sense of objectivity and certitude.[citation needed]

Such work accepts that 'technological meaning is historically grounded and, as a result, becomes located within a larger social imaginary'.[20]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ John B. Thompson, Studies in the Theory of Ideology (1984) p. 6
  2. ^ Steger, Manfred B.; James, Paul (2013). "‘Levels of Subjective Globalization: Ideologies, Imaginaries, Ontologies’". Perspectives on Global Development and Technology. vol. 12 (no. 1–2): 23. 
  3. ^ Quoted in Thompson, p. 23
  4. ^ Thompson, p. 24
  5. ^ Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms (1996)p. 322 and p. 22
  6. ^ David Macey, "Introduction", Jacques Lacan, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis (London 1994) p. xxi
  7. ^ Macey, p. xxi
  8. ^ Jacques Lacan, Écrits: A Selection (London 1997) p. 21
  9. ^ R. D. Laing, Self and Others (Penguin 1969) p. 38-40
  10. ^ J. Childers/G. Hentz eds., The Columbia Dictionary of Modern Literary and Cultural Criticism (1995) p. 152
  11. ^ Macey, p. xxi
  12. ^ Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (2007) p. 164-5 and p. 209
  13. ^ Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (2007) p. 112
  14. ^ Michael McKeon, The Secret History of Domesticity (2005) p. 107
  15. ^ Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (2007) p. 176-207
  16. ^ Poovey, M. "The Liberal Civil Subject and the Social in Eighteenth-Century British Moral Philosophy." Public Culture 14.1 (2002): 125-45, p. 132
  17. ^ Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (London 1991) p. 6 and p. 4
  18. ^ John R. Searle, The Construction of Social Reality (Penguin 1996) p. 4
  19. ^ Searle, p. 12-3
  20. ^ R. T. A. Lysioff et al, Music and Technoculture (2003) p. 10

Further reading[edit]

  • Andacht, Fernando. A Semiotic Framework for the Social Imaginary. Arisbe: The Peirce Gateway, 2000.
  • Flichy, Patrice. The Internet Imaginaire. Translated by Liz Carey-Libbrecht. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007 [2001].
  • Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. "Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea." Minerva 47, no. 2 (June 1, 2009): 119-146.
  • Marcus, G.E. Technoscientific Imaginaries. Late Editions Vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. With contributions by Livia Polanyi, Michael M.J. Fischer, Mary-Jo DelVecchio Good, Paul Rabinow, Allucquere Rosanne Stone,Gary Lee Downey, Diana and Roger Hill, Hugh Gusterson, Kim Laughlin, Kathryn Milun, Sharon Traweek, Kathleen Stewart, Mario Biagioli, James Holston, Gudrun Klein, and Christopher Pound.
  • Salazar, Noel B. "Envisioning Eden: Mobilizing Imaginaries in Tourism and Beyond". Oxford: Berghahn Books.
  • Steger, Manfred B.; James, Paul (2013). "‘Levels of Subjective Globalization: Ideologies, Imaginaries, Ontologies’". Perspectives on Global Development and Technology. vol. 12 (no. 1–2.). 
  • Steger, Manfred B., 2008. The Rise of the Global Imaginary: Political Ideologies from the French Revolution to the Global War on Terror, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Strauss, Claudia. "The Imaginary". Anthropological Theory vol. 6 issue, 3 September 2006, p. 322–344.
  • Vries, Imar de. Tantalisingly Close: An Archaeology of Communication Desires in Discourses of Mobile Wireless Media. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2012. "Tantalisingly Close". 

External links[edit]