Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 467–486 | Cite as

On the role of social interaction in social cognition: a mechanistic alternative to enactivism

Article

Abstract

Researchers in the enactivist tradition have recently argued that social interaction can constitute social cognition, rather than simply serve as the context for social cognition. They contend that a focus on social interaction corrects the overemphasis on mechanisms inside the individual in the explanation of social cognition. I critically assess enactivism’s claims about the explanatory role of social interaction in social cognition. After sketching the enactivist approach to cognition in general and social cognition in particular, I identify problems with an enactivist taxonomy of roles for social interaction in the explanation of social cognition (contextual, enabling, and constitutive). In particular, I show that this enactivist taxonomy does not clearly distinguish between enabling conditions and constitutive elements, which would make them in danger of committing the coupling-constitution fallacy found in some attempts to extend cognition. I explore resources enactivism has to more clearly demarcate constitutive parts of a cognitive system, but identify problems in applying them to some of the main cases of social cognition enactivists characterize as being constituted by social interaction. I offer the mechanistic approach to explanation as an alternative that captures much of what enactivists want to say about the relations between social and individual levels, but views social interactions from the perspective of embedded cognition rather than as being constitutive of social cognition.

Keywords

Social cognition Social interaction Enactivism Mechanism Explanation Constitution Extended cognition Embedded cognition 

References

  1. Adams, A., & Aizawa, K. (2001). The bounds of cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 14, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, A., & Aizawa, K. (2008). Defending the bounds of cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Auvray, M., Lenay, C., & Stewart, J. (2009). Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment. New Ideas in Psychology, 27(1), 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 21, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bechtel, W. (2008). Mental mechanisms: philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bechtel, W. (2009a). Explanation: mechanism, modularity, and situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 155–170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bechtel, W. (2009b). Looking down, around, and up: mechanistic explanation in psychology. Philosophical Psychology, 22(5), 543–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: a mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 421–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2010). Dynamic mechanistic explanation: computational modeling of circadian rhythms as an exemplar for cognitive science. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 41(3), 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2011). Complex biological mechanisms: cyclic, oscillatory, and autonomous. In C. A. Hooker (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science: vol. 10. Philosophy of complex systems. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  11. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (2010). Discovering complexity: decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Cambridge: MIT Press. (Original 1993 edition published by Princeton University Press)Google Scholar
  12. Bickle, J. (2003). Philosophy and neuroscience: a ruthlessly reductive account. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  14. De Jaegher, H. (2009a). Social understanding through direct perception? Yes, by interacting. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(2), 535–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Jaegher, H. (2009b). What made me want the cheese? A reply to Shaun Gallagher and Dan Hutto. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(2), 549–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485–507.Google Scholar
  17. De Jaegher, H., & Froese, T. (2009). On the role of social interaction in individual agency. Adaptive Behavior, 17(5), 444–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Jaegher, H., Di Paolo, E., & Gallagher, S. (2010). Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Di Paolo, E. A. (2005). Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 429–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Di Paolo, E. (2009a). Editorial: The social and enactive mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Di Paolo, E. (2009b). Extended Life. Topoi, 28(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Di Paolo, E. A., Rohde, M., & Iizuka, H. (2008). Sensitivity to social contingency or stability of interaction? Modelling the dynamics of perceptual crossing. New Ideas in Psychology, 26(2), 278–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Di Paolo, E. A., Rohde, M., & De Jaegher, H. (2011). Horizons for the enactive mind: values, social interaction, and play. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & D. Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: towards a new paradigm for cognitive science (pp. 33–88). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E. A. (2009). Sociality and the life-mind continuity thesis. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 439–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E. (2010). Modeling social interaction as perceptual crossing: an investigation into the dynamics of the interaction process. Connection Science, 22(1), 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fuchs, T., & De Jaegher, H. (2009). Enactive intersubjectivity: participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gergely, G., & Watson, J. S. (1999). Early socio-emotional development: contingency perception and the social-biofeedback model. In P. Rochat (Ed.), Early social cognition: understanding others in the first months of life (pp. 101–136). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Huebner, B. (2008). Do you see what we see? An investigation of an argument against collective representation. Philosophical Psychology, 21(1), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McGann, M., & De Jaegher, H. (2009). Self-other contingencies: enacting social perception. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 417–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Murray, L., & Trevarthen, C. (1985). Emotional regulation of interactions between two-month-olds and their mothers. In T. Field & N. Fox (Eds.), Social perception in infants (pp. 177–197). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  33. Rupert. (2004). Challenges to the hypothesis of extended cognition. Journal of Philosophy, 101(8), 389–328.Google Scholar
  34. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Thompson, E., & Stapleton, M. (2008). Making sense of sense-making: reflections on enactive and extended mind theories. Topoi, 28(1), 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Torrance, S., & Froese, T. (2011). An inter-enactive approach to agency: participatory sense-making, dynamics, and sociality. Humana.Mente, 15, 21–53.Google Scholar
  37. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations