, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 459–472

Two Challenges to Hutto’s Enactive Account of Pre-linguistic Social Cognition



Daniel Hutto’s Enactive account of social cognition maintains that pre- and non-linguistic interactions do not require that the participants represent the psychological states of the other. This goes against traditional ‘cognitivist’ accounts of these social phenomena. This essay examines Hutto’s Enactive account, and proposes two challenges. The account maintains that organisms respond to the behaviours of others, and in doing so respond to the ‘intentional attitude’ which the other has. The first challenge argues that there is no adequate account of how the organisms respond to the correct aspect of the behaviour in each situation. The second challenge argues that the Enactive account cannot account for the flexibility of pre- and non-linguistic responses to others. The essay concludes that these challenges provide more than sufficient reason to doubt the viability of Hutto’s account as an alternative to cogntivist approaches to social cognition.


Enactivism Mindreading Intentional attitudes Pre-linguistic understanding Social cognition 


  1. Botterill, G., & Carruthers, P. (1999). The philosophy of psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of ‘verbal behaviour’. Language, 35, 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fitzpatrick, S. (2009). The primate mindreading controversy: a case study in simplicity and methodology in animal psychology. In R. Lurz (Ed.), The philosophy of animal minds (pp. 224–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gallagher, S., & Zahavi, D. (2008). The phenomenological mind. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mindreading. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2, 493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Király, I. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415, 755.Google Scholar
  7. Goldman, A. (1989). Interpretation psychologized. Mind and Language, 4, 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldman, A. (1993). The psychology of folk psychology. In A. Goldman (Ed.), Readings in philosophy and cognitive science (pp. 347–380). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Goldman, A. (2006). Simulating minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. (1992). Why the child's theory of mind really is a theory. Mind and Language, 7, 145–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gordon, R. (1996). ‘Radical’ simulationism. In P. Carruthers & P. Smith (Eds.), Theories of theories of mind (pp. 11–22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heal, J. (1996). Simulation, theory and content. In P. Carruthers & P. Smith (Eds.), Theories of theories of mind (pp. 75–90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hutto, D. (forthcoming). Elementary mindreading, enactivist style. In A. Seeman (Ed.), Joint attention: New developments in philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hutto, D. (2008). Folk psychological narratives: The sociocultural basis of understanding reasons. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hutto, D. (2009). Interacting? Yes. But, of what kind and on what basis? Consciousnes and Cognition, 18, 543–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson, S. (2000). The recognition of mentalistic agents in infancy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 22–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, S. (2003). Detecting agents. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 358, 549–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meltzoff, A.N., & Brooks, R. (2007). Eyes wide shut: The importance of eyes in infant gaze-following and understanding. In R. Flom, K. Lee, & D. Muir (Eds.), Gaze following: Its development and significance (pp. 217–241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2003). Mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Segal, G. (1996). The modularity theory of mind. In P. Carruthers & P. Smith (Eds.), Theories of theories of mind (pp. 141–157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Skinner, F. (1957). Verbal behaviour. New York: Appleton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Helping and co-operation at 14 months of age. Infancy, 11, 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PPLSUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations