Advertisement

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 95–110 | Cite as

Thinking-is-moving: dance, agency, and a radically enactive mind

  • Michele Merritt
Article

Abstract

Recently, in cognitive science, the enactivist account of cognition has been gaining ground, due in part to studies of movement in conjunction with thought. The idea, as Noë (2009), has put it, that “cognition is not something happening inside us or to us, but it’s something we do, something we achieve,” is increasingly supported by research on joint attention, movement coordination, and gesture. Not surprisingly, therefore, enactivists have also begun to look at “movement specialists”—dancers—for both scientific and phenomenological accounts of thinking with and through movement. In this paper, I argue that a serious exploration of dance and movement does not merely bolster the enactivist view, but rather, it suggests a radical enactivism, as envisaged by, e.g., Hutto (2011). To support this claim, I examine an account of “Thinking in Movement” provided by Maxine Sheets-Johnstone (1981, 2009) in order to highlight the ways in which intentional agency and meaning-making occur in improvisational dance. These processes, I further argue, closely mirror some of the key components of participatory sense making, as described by De Jaegher and Di Paolo (Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6(4):485–507, 2007). This is beneficial to my case, because it permits a discussion of “thought-full action” that does not depend upon standard cognitivist frameworks for explanation. By carefully focusing on how agency can help to separate mere “thrashing about” from meaningful movement, this paper aim to strengthen the position of radical enactivism from the unique perspective and dance and sense-making.

Keywords

Dance Movement Radical enactivism Agency Sense-making Gesture Embodiment 

References

  1. Alibali, M. W., Spencer, R. C., Knox, L., & Kita, S. (2011). Spontaneous gestures influence strategy choices in problem solving. Psychological Science, 22(9), 1138–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beilock, S. L., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Gesture changes thought by grounding it in action. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1605–1610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calvo-merino, B., Grèzes, J., Glaser, D., Passingham, R., & Haggard, P. (2005). Action observation and acquired motor skills: An fMRI study with expert dancers. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1243–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calvo-merino, B., Grèzes, J., Glaser, D., Passingham, R., & Haggard, P. (2006). Seeing or doing? Influence of visual and motor familiarity in action observation. Current Biology, 16, 1905–1910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, A. (1998). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world back together again. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  6. Currie, G. (2007). Narrative frameworks. In D. D. Hutto (Ed.), Narrative and understanding persons: Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 60 (pp. 17–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Di Paolo, E., Rohde, M., & De Jaegher, H. (2010). Horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social interaction, and play. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Towards a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  9. Gallagher, S. (2005a). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gallagher, S. (2005b). Dynamic models of body schematic processes. In H. De Preester & V. Knockaert (Eds.), Body image and body schema (pp. 233–250). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton.Google Scholar
  12. Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 1–55.Google Scholar
  13. Glenberg, A. M. (1999). Why mental models must be embodied. In G. Rickheit & C. Habel (Eds.), Mental models in discourse processing and reasoning. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  14. Heidegger, M. (1927/1962). Being and time. . J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson, trans. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  15. Hurley, S. (1998). Consciousness in action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Husserl, E. (1913/1989). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy—second book: studies in the phenomenology of constitution. R. Rojcewicz and A. Schuwer, trans. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Husserl, E. (1931/1960). Cartesian meditations. Cairns, D., trans. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  18. Hutto, D. D. (2005). Knowing what?: Radical versus conservative enactivism. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Science, 4, 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hutto, D. (2011). Enactivism: Why be radical? In H. Bredekamp & J. M. Krois (Eds.), Sehen und Handeln (pp. 21–44). Berlin: Akademie.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McGann, M. (2007). Enactive theorists do it on purpose: Toward and enactive account of goals and goal-directedness. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 463–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McNeill, D., Duncan, S., Cole, J., Gallagher, S., & Bertenthal, B. (2010). Growth points from the very beginning. In M. Arbib & D. Bickerton (Eds.), The emergence of protolanguage: Holophrasis vs compositionality. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  23. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1969). The visible and the invisible. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Noë, A. (2009). Out of our heads: Why you are not your brain and other lessons from the biology of consciousness. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  27. O’Regan, J. K., & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 24, 939–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ruhleder, K., & Jordan, B. (2001). Co-constructing non-mutual realities: Delay-generated trouble in distributed interaction. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 10, 113–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sartre, J. (1943/56). Being and nothingness. Latest edition, 1993, New York: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  30. Schmidt, R. C., & O’Brien, B. (1997). Evaluating the dynamics of unintended interpersonal coordination. Ecological Psychology, 9, 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sheets-Johnstone, M. (1980). The phenomenology of dance. North Stratford: Ayer Co. Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Sheets-Johnstone, M. (1981). Thinking in movement. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 39(4), 399–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2009). Thinking in movement. In: Sheets-Johnstone: The corporeal turn: An interdisciplinary reader. Charlottesville, VA. pp 28–64.Google Scholar
  34. Stapleton, M., & Ward, D. (2012). Es are good: Cognition as enacted, embedded, embodied, affective, and extended. In F. Paglieri (Ed.), Consciousness in interaction: The role of the natural and social context in shaping consciousness. Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  35. Thompson, E. (2005). Sensorimotor subjectivity and the enactive approach to experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 407–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Belknap.Google Scholar
  37. Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 447–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ward, D., Roberts, T., & Clark, A. (2011). Knowing what we can do: Actions, intentions, and the construction of phenomenal experience. Synthese, 181(3), 375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English and PhilosophyArkansas State UniversityJonesboroUSA

Personalised recommendations