Appropriation des Savoirs et Mémoire Collective
Le Cas des Travaux de Stanley Milgram sur la Soumission à l’Autorité
Abstract
The aim of this study is to understand to what extent soliciting collective memory facilitates the appropriation of knowledge. After being informed about Milgram’s experiment on obedience to authority, students were asked to mention historical or contemporary events that came to mind while thinking about submission to authority. Main results of the factorial analysis show that the students who do not believe in the reproducibility of the experimental results oppose dramatic past events to a peaceful present, whereas those who do believe in the reproducibility of the results also mention dramatic contemporary events, thus linking past and present. Moreover, the students who do not accept the results for today personify historical events, whereas those who fully accept them generalize their impact. Therefore, according to their attitude toward this objet of knowledge, the students refer to two kinds of memory: a “closed memory,” which tends to relegate Milgram’s results to ancient history; and an “open memory,” which, on the contrary, transforms past events into a concept that helps them understand the present. Soliciting collective memory may contribute to the appropriation of knowledge provided the memory activated is an “open” one, linking past to present and going beyond the singularity of the event.
Références
(2011). Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection. New York: Guilford.
(1995). Histoire et géographie: des savoirs scolaires en question, entre les définitions officielles et les constructions des élèves. Spirale. Revue de recherches en éducation, 15, 61–89.
(2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1–11. doi 10.1037/a0010932
(2004). La conceptualisation en histoire au lycée: une approche par la mobilisation et le contrôle de la pensée sociale des élèves. Revue française de pédagogie, 147(1), 57–67. doi 10.3406/rfp.2004.3120
(1987). L’analyse factorielle: analyse en composantes principales et analyse des correspondances. Paris, France: Presses universitaires de France.
(1993). Le PEM, pourcentage de l’écart maximum: un indice de liaison entre modalités d’un tableau de contingence. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 40(1), 43–63. doi 10.1177/075910639304000103
(2003). Analyse des correspondances et variations des contenus de représentions sociales. In , Méthodes d’étude des représentations sociales (pp. 179–199). Ramonville Saint Agne, France: Erès.
(2002). Self and other obedience estimates: Biases and moderators. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 677–689. doi 10.1080/00224540209603928
(2002). La face cachée d’une ville. In , Devoir de mémoire, droit à L’oubli? (pp. 59–71). Paris, France: Complexe.
(2004). Relating to history: An empirical typology. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research, 5(1). Récupéré de centres.exeter.ac.uk/historyresource/journal9/papers/haeberli.pdf
(2009). Le processus de l’ancrage: l’hypothèse d’une familiarisation à l’envers. Les Carnets du GRePS, 1, 19–25.
(2001). Les enjeux de l’apprentissage de l’histoire. Perspectives documentaires en éducation, 53, 61–68.
(2008). La didactique de l’histoire. Revue française de pédagogie, 162, 95–131.
(2006). L’enquête quantitative en sciences sociales: recueil et analyse des données. Paris, France: Dunod.
(2002). Milgram and the Holocaust: A reexamination. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 22, 158–173. doi 10.1037/h0091220
(1974). Soumission à l’autorité: un point de vue expérimental. Paris, France: Calmann-Lévy.
(2004). What can the Milgram obedience experiments tell us about the Holocaust. In , The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 193–239). New York: Guilford.
(1995). Constructions of the obedience experiments: A focus upon domains of relevance. Journal of Social Issues, 51(3), 33–53. doi 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01333.x
(1976). La psychanalyse, son image et son public. Bibliothèque de psychanalyse (2. éd. entièrement refondue). Paris, France: Presses universitaires de France.
(2010). L’Expérience extrême. Paris, France: Don Quichotte éditions.
(2010). Crimes of the past: Defensive temporal distancing in the face of past in-group wrongdoing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 598–611. doi 10.1177/0146167210364850
(2008). Stéréotypes de genre et perception morale: les étudiants face à l’expérience de Stanley Milgram sur la soumission à l’autorité. In , Normativité du sens commun (pp. 383–402). Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.
(2011). Appropriation of knowledge and social psychology: Milgram’s experiment on obedience to authority. In , Education, professionalization and social representations: On the transformation of social knowledge (pp. 228–240). New York: Routledge.
(2003). Autobiographical memory and conceptions of self. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(2), 66–69.
(1980). Attributing evil to the subject, not the situation: Student reaction to Milgram’s film on obedience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 205–209. doi 10.1177/014616728062003
(1998). Les abus de la meìmoire. Paris, France: Arleìa.
(2011). The role of time in self-enhancement and self-protection. In , Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection (pp. 112–127). New York: Guilford.
