Theory & Psychology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stephenson, N.
Right arrow Articles by Kippax, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Theory & Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 3, 391-415 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354306064285
© 2006 SAGE Publications

Transfiguring Relations

Theorizing Political Change in the Everyday

Niamh Stephenson

Susan Kippax

University of New South Wales

What is the relationship between social action initiatives and theory? In this paper we suggest that, like social action, theory is a means of intervening in social problems and is integrally linked with future possibilities. Devising the means of effective intervention requires the ability to understand and harness people's ways of actively striving to deal with the social problems which emerge in their everyday lives. Such efforts involve communicating across difference. For example, regarding the problems of HIV prevention and positive living, gay men in Sydney are positioned differently from each other in relation to the virus, sexual practice, understanding and use of biomedical developments in the development of safe-sex strategies. How do everyday struggles to communicate across difference feed into effective social action, and what is the role of theory in supporting and driving these efforts? In this paper we consider the limitations of notions of intersubjectivity which overemphasize the role of ‘mutual recognition’ in the development of relationships between actors. Talk of ‘mutual recognition’ overlooks the fact that communication is essentially ambiguous. The result is a failure to theorize the emergence of productive connections between people which work through openness to this ambiguity. The absence of recognition can give rise to confusion, but it also an important element in the development of new ways of connecting with others. In turn, the mechanisms of socio-political change can be affected through the development of new forms of connection between actors. That is, modes of intersubjectivity which are based on misrecognition and difference can function as transfiguring relations, opening new possibilities for actively tackling social problems. We argue that effective social action harnesses transfiguring relations. This approach to social action demands that we develop our understanding of social relations, and take account of the productive role of misrecognition.

Key Words: HIV prevention • intersubjectivity • shared responsibility • transfiguring relations


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Theory PsychologyHome page
K. J. Gergen and B. Zielke
Theory in Action
Theory Psychology, June 1, 2006; 16(3): 299 - 309.
[Abstract] [PDF]