Skip to main content
Log in

More than our Body: Minimal and Enactive Selfhood in Global Paralysis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper looks to phenomenology and enactive cognition in order to shed light on the self and sense of self of patients with locked-in syndrome. It critically discusses the concept of the minimal self, both in its phenomenological and ontological dimension. Ontologically speaking, the self is considered to be equal to a person’s sensorimotor embodiment. This bodily self also grounds the minimal sense of self as being a distinct experiential subject. The view from the minimal bodily self presupposes that sociality comes after the self, or that in other words, the essence of self remains independent of our social interactions and relations. In this paper, I rely on the idea of enactive autonomy and Heidegger’s and Merleau-Ponty’s views of human existence as primordially social, to argue for the contrary. The self is fundamentally relational and this is also reflected at the level of the subjective experience of being a self. I indicate how a strong relational view of selfhood can serve as a preliminary heuristic to make sense of the situation of the patient with LIS and conclude with some practical implications concerning patient autonomy, our ethical responsibility toward the patient, and the possibilities for improving the life of patients with LIS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bruno, M.-A., Pellas, F., & Laureys, S. 2008. Quality of life in locked-in syndrome survivors. In Yearbook of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (p. S. 881–890).

  2. Buhrmann, Thomas, and Ezequiel Di Paolo. 2017. The sense of agency–a phenomenological consequence of enacting sensorimotor schemes. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 16 (2): 207–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. De Haan, S. 2010. Comment: the minimal self is a social self. In The Embodied Self, ed. T. Fuchs, H.C. Sattel, and P. Henningsen, 12–17. Stuttgart: Schattauer.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Di Paolo, Ezequiel, Thomas Buhrmann, and Xabier Barandiaran 2017. Sensorimotor life: An enactive proposal. Oxford University Press.

  5. Dreyfus, H. L. 2013. The myth of the pervasiveness of the mental. In J. K. (Ed. . Schear (Ed.), Mind, reason, and being-in-the-world: The McDowell-Dreyfus debate (pp. 15–40). London UK: Routledge.

  6. Entwistle, V.A., S.M. Carter, A. Cribb, and K. McCaffery. 2010. Supporting patient autonomy: The importance of clinician-patient relationships. Journal of General Internal Medicine 25 (7): 741–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1292-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fenton, A., and S. Alpert. 2008. Extending our view on using BCIs for locked-in syndrome. Neuroethics 1 (2): 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Froese, T., and T. Fuchs. 2012. The extended body: A case study in the neurophenomenology of social interaction. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 11 (2): 205–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gallagher, S. 2000. Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4 (1): 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01417-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gallagher, S. 2005. How the body shapes the mind. Clarendon Press.

  11. Gallagher, S. 2018. Deep brain stimulation, self and relational autonomy. Neuroethics 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9355-x.

  12. Gallagher, S., & Zahavi, D. 2005. Phenomenological approaches to self-consciousness. Retrieved from http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/archives/spr2012/entries/self-consciousness-phenomenological/. Accessed 2 Oct 2018.

  13. Grassian, S. 1983. Psychopathological effects of solitary confinement. The American Journal of Psychiatry 140: 1450–1454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Grassian, S. (2006). Psychiatric effects of solitary confinement. Wash. UJL & Pol’y. 22:325.

  15. Guenther, L. 2013. Solitary confinement: Social death and its afterlives. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Gurwitsch, A. 1966. Studies in phenomenology and psychology. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.

  17. Haney, C. 2003. Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime & Delinquency 49: 124–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128702239239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hanna, R., and E. Thompson. 2007. The mind-body-body problem. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum 7 (1): 23–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Heersmink, R. 2011. Embodied tools, cognitive tools and brain-computer interfaces. Neuroethics: 1–13.

  20. Heidegger, M. 1927/2001. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

  21. Heidegger, M. 1982. The Basic Problems of Phenomenology (translated by A. Hofstadter). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Henry, A., & Thompson, E. 2011. Witnessing from here: Self-awareness from a bodily versus embodied perspective. in Gallagher, S. (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of the self. Oxford University Press.

  23. Husserl, E. 1950/1992. Ideen zu einer reinen Phaenomenologie und phaenomenologischen Philosophie 1: Allgemeine Einfuehrung in die reine Phaenomenologie. Text nach Husserliana III/1 und V. In E. (Ed. . Ströker (Ed.), Gesammelte Schriften/ Edmund Husserl (Vol. 5). Hamburg: Meiner.

  24. Jonas, H. 1966/2001. The phenomenon of life: Toward a philosophical biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  25. Krueger, J., & Legrand, D. 2009. The open body. In Antonella Carassa, Francesca Morganti & Guiseppa Riva (eds.), Enacting Intersubjectivity: Paving the Way for a Dialogue Between Cognitive Science, Social Cognition, and Neuroscience. Universita Della Svizzera Italiana. pp. 109–128.

  26. Kyselo, M. 2014. The body social: An enactive approach to the self. Frontiers in Psychology 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00986.

  27. Kyselo, M. 2016. The minimal self needs a social update. Philosophical Psychology 29 (7): 1057–1065. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2016.1214251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kyselo, M., and E. Di Paolo. 2015. Locked-in syndrome: A challenge for embodied cognitive science. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14 (3): 517–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-013-9344-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Laureys, S., F. Pellas, P. Van Eeckhout, S. Ghorbel, C. Schnakers, F. Perrin, et al. 2005. The locked-in syndrome: What is it like to be conscious but paralyzed and voiceless? Progress in Brain Research 150: 495–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Legrand, D., and P. Ruby. 2009. What is self-specific? Theoretical investigation and critical review of neuroimaging results. Psychological Review 116 (1): 252–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. León-Carrión, J., P. van Eeckhout, and M. Del Rosario Domínguez-Morales. 2002. The locked-in syndrome: A syndrome looking for a therapy. Brain Injury 16: 555–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Levy, N. 2012. Autonomy, responsibility and the oscillation of preference. In Addiction Neuroethics, 139–151. Elsevier.

  33. Lucci, G., and M. Pazzaglia. 2015. Towards multiple interactions of inner and outer sensations in corporeal awareness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00163.

  34. Mackenzie, C., & Stoljar, N. (Eds.). 2000. Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. Oxford University Press.

  35. Maiese, M. 2015. Embodied selves and divided minds. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Markus, H.R., and S. Kitayama. 2010. Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5 (4): 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Maturana, H.R., and F.J. Varela. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science). Boston studies in the philosophy of science 42. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). The primacy of perception: And other essays on phenomenological psychology, the philosophy of art, history, and politics. Northwestern University Press.

  39. Meurleau-Ponty, M. 1962/2002. The phenomenology of perception. London and New York: Routledge.

  40. Murakami, Y. 2018. Phenomenological analysis of a Japanese professional caregiver specialized in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neuroethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9379-2.

  41. Nizzi, M. C., Demertzi, A., Gosseries, O., Bruno, M. A., Jouen, F., & Laureys, S. 2011. From armchair to wheelchair: How patients with a locked-in syndrome integrate bodily changes in experienced identity. Consciousness and Cognition. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810011002704.

  42. Nizzi, M.-C., V. Blandin, and A. Demertzi. 2018. Attitudes towards personhood in the locked-in syndrome: From third- to first- person perspective and to interpersonal significance. Neuroethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9375-6.

  43. Ruhnke, G.W., S.R. Wilson, T. Akamatsu, T. Kinoue, Y. Takashima, M.K. Goldstein, et al. 2000. Ethical decision making and patient autonomy: A comparison of physicians and patients in Japan and the United States. CHEST 118 (4): 1172–1182. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.118.4.1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sass, L.A., and J. Parnas. 2003. Schizophrenia, consciousness, and the self. Schizophrenia Bulletin 29 (3): 427–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Schütz, Alfred. 1971 "Das problem der transzendentalen Intersubjektivität bei Husserl." Gesammelte Aufsätze III. Springer, Dordrecht. 86–118.

  46. Thompson, E. 2001. Empathy and consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8 (5–6): 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Thompson, E. 2005. Sensorimotor subjectivity and the enactive approach to experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 4 (4): 407–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Thompson, E. 2007. Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Harvard University Press.

  49. Thompson, E., and F.J. Varela, 2001. Radical embodiment: neural dynamics and consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5(10):418–425.

  50. Varela, F.J., Thompson, E., and Rosch, E. 1991/2017. The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT press.

  51. Vidal, F. 2018. Phenomenology of the locked-in syndrome: An overview and some suggestions. Neuroethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9388-1.

  52. Walter, S. 2010. Locked-in syndrome, BCI, and a confusion about embodied, embedded, extended, and enacted cognition. Neuroethics 3 (1): 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Zahavi, D. 2010. The experiential self. Objections and clarifications. In Mark Siderits, Evan Thompson & Dan Zahavi (eds.), Self, No Self?: Perspectives From Analytical, Phenomenological, and Indian Traditions. Oxford University Press.

  54. Zahavi, D. 2014. Self and other: Exploring subjectivity, empathy, and shame. First ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  55. Zahavi, D. 2016. Openness versus interdependence: A reply to Kyselo. Philosophical Psychology 29 (7): 1066–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Zaner, R.M. 2003. Sisyphus without knees: Exploring self-other relationships through illness and disability. Literature and Medicine 22 (2): 188–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miriam Kyselo.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kyselo, M. More than our Body: Minimal and Enactive Selfhood in Global Paralysis. Neuroethics 13, 203–220 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-019-09404-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-019-09404-9

Keywords

Navigation