Are affordances normative?

Abstract

In this paper we explore in what sense we can claim that affordances, the objects of perception for ecological psychology, are related to normativity. First, we offer an account of normativity and provide some examples of how it is understood in the specialized literature. Affordances, we claim, lack correctness criteria and, hence, the possibility of error is not among their necessary conditions. For this reason we will oppose Chemero’s (2009) normative theory of affordances. Finally, we will show that there is a way in which taking advantage of affordances could be considered as possessing a normative character, but only when they are evaluated within the framework of social normative standards in particular situations. This reinforces our claim that affordances, per se, lack normativity and can only be taken to be rule-governed in relation to established normative practices.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    We are thankful to Julian Kiverstein for pressing us on this claim.

  2. 2.

    This raises the question of the relationship between conceptuality and language. Is it possible to identify and individuate objects conceptually in a non-discursive way? We will place this question within a broader perspective below. However, we think that a positive answer can be given, following McDowell and Evans (Evans 1982, McDowell 1994: 105–7, McDowell 2009: 262–4). Evans and McDowell stressed the idea that demonstrative concepts are concepts that do not possess any trace of generality, as most concepts do (‘red’ is a general term that does not capture the particular features of the different experiences of particular red objects; it just captures a common feature that all of them share regardless of their particularities). So the existence and identity of that concept depends on the existence and identity of a certain particular object or property. If we perceive a particular object with a particular red color, the content of our mental state is conceptual and not linguistic because the concept that we possess at that moment depends on the existence of that object’s color. So we can identify that color in other contexts and, if we want to linguistically express that identification, we can say to a friend, “See? This is the color I meant” by using a demonstrative. So the conceptual can be articulated discursively, but this does not mean that every concept should possess a linguistic nature. Recently, McDowell developed a Kantian-inspired notion of ‘intuition’ as the content of perceptual experience that also fulfills this requirement.

  3. 3.

    For details on the McDowell-Dreyfus debate, see the volume edited by Schear (2013) and a for a critique of Dreyfus and Schear’s arguments see Heras-Escribano (2014). See Heras-Escribano, Noble & Pinedo. (2015) for a rejection of a similar commitment to normativity in phenomenology and enactivism. See also Pinedo and Noble (2008) for an argument against the need to choose between representationalism and eliminativism with respect to agency.

  4. 4.

    A looping process in this context refers to the continuous, online and dynamical engagement between an agent’s capacity for perceiving-acting and certain elements of her environment. A more detailed depiction of what is a looping process is offered in section 3.1.

  5. 5.

    As the reader may note, the word ‘response’ does not refer to the kind of response that falls under the behaviorist notion of ‘stimulus–response behavior’. As it has been shown before, ecological psychology explicitly rejects behaviorism, so here we do not share the same notion of ‘response’. We use in the rest of the paper a different notion of ‘response’, one that refers to a step of the action-perception loop, which is the subsequent action performed by the agent once it detects ecological information. We thank Julian Kiversten for the pointer.

  6. 6.

    Other characterizations of affordances as dispositions can be found in Turvey (1992) and Scarantino (2002). For an recent critical review of a dispositional account of affordances, see Zipoli Caiani (2014).

  7. 7.

    We are thankful to David Jacobs, David Travieso and Lorena Lobo for the pointer.

  8. 8.

    Runeson (1988) concludes that perceptual error must be included within ecological psychology after analyzing the case of the distorted room illusion. In the distorted room illusion “rooms are inevitably perceived as rectangular, and the effect is so strong that persons inside the room appear as dwarfs or giants, depending on where in the room they are standing--even changing their size as they move from one corner to the other” (Runeson 1988: 295). Here we focus on his view on conflicting information as his main argument for supporting the notion of error within ecological psychology.

  9. 9.

    We are thankful to one anonymous referee and John McDowell for warning us about the importance of addressing more explicitly this possibility.

References

  1. Barandiaran, X. E., & Egbert, M. (2013). Norm-establishing and norm-following in autonomous agency. Artificial Life, 20(1), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bennett, M. R., & Hacker, P. M. S. (2003). Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Day, B. M., & Wagman, J. B., (2013). Context effects in perception of affordances, in T. Davis, P. Passos, M. Dicks, and J. A. Weast-Knapp (Eds.) Studies in Perception and Action XII. Proceedings from the Seventeenth International Conference on Perception and Action. New York: Taylor and Francis Group.

  5. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Macmillan Company.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dreyfus, H. (2005). Overcoming the myth of the mental: How philosophers can profit from the phenomenology of everyday expertise. APA Pacific Division Presidential Address 2005.

  7. Dreyfus, H. (2007a). The return of the myth of the mental. Inquiry, 50(4), 352–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dreyfus, H. (2007b). Response to McDowell. Inquiry, 50(4), 371–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dreyfus. H. (n.d.). A phenomenology of skill acquisition as the basis for a Merleau-Pontyan non-representationalist cognitive science. http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/pdf/MerleauPontySkillCogSci.pdf.

  11. Evans, G. (1982). The Varieties of Reference, edited by John McDowell. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  12. Gallagher, S. (2009). Philosophical antecedents of situated cognition. In P. Robins & M. Aydede (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gibson, J.J. (1979/1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

  15. Gibson, J. J. (1982). Reasons for realism. Hillsdale: Lawrence-Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gibson, E. (1994). Has psychology a future? Psychological Science, 5, 69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Heft, H. (2001). Ecological psychology in context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the Legacy of William James's Radical Empiricism. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

  18. Heras-Escribano, M. (2014). Razón y experiencia: El debate McDowell-Dreyfus. Análisis Filosófico, 24(2), 203–27.

  19. Heras-Escribano, M., Noble, J., & Pinedo, M. (2013). The only wrong cell is the dead one: On the enactive approach to normativity. In P. Liò, O. Miglino, G. Nicosia, S. Nolfi, & M. Pavone (Eds.), Advances in artificial life, ECAL 2013 (pp. 665–670). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Heras-Escribano, M., Noble, J., & Pinedo, M. (2015). Enactivism, action and normativity: a Wittgensteinian analysis. Adaptive Behavior, 23(1), 20–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Martin, C. B. (2008). The Mind in Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  22. McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and World. Cambridge: Harvard university Press.

  23. McDowell, J. (2007a). What myth? Inquiry, 50(4), 338–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. McDowell, J. (2007b). Response to Dreyfus. Inquiry, 50(4), 366–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McDowell, J. (2009). Having the world in view: Essays on Kant, Hegel and Sellars. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  26. McDowell, J. (2013). The myth of the mind as detached. In J. K. Schear (Ed.), Mind, reason and being-in-the-world: The McDowell-Dreyfus debate. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Michaels, C., & Carello, C. (1981). Direct perception. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pinedo, M., & Noble, J. (2008). Beyond persons. Extending the personal / subpersonal distinction to non-rational animals and artificial agents. Biology and Philosophy, 23(1), 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Reed, E. S. (1986). James Gibson’s ecological revolution in perceptual psychology. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Sciences, 17, 65–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Reed, E. S. (1988). James J. Gibson and the psychology of perception. New Have: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Reed, E. S. (1991). James Gibson’s ecological approach to cognition. In A. Costall & A. Still (Eds.), Against cognitivism: Alternatives foundations for cognitive psychology. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Reed, E. S. (1996). Encountering the world. Toward an ecological psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  33. Richardson, M. J., Fajen, B. R., Shockley, K., Riley, M. A., & Turvey, M. T. (2008). Ecological psychology: Six principles for an embodied-embedded approach to behavior. In P. Calvo & T. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach. San Diego: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rietveld, E. (2008). Situated normativity: the normative aspect of embodied cognition in unreflective action. Mind, 117(468), 973–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Runeson, S. (1988). The distorted room illusion, equivalent configurations and the specificity of static optic arrays. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 14(2), 295–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ryle, G. (1949/2009). The Concept of Mind. Abingdon: Routledge.

  37. Scarantino, A. M. (2002). Affordances explained. Philosophy of Science, 70, 949–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Schear, J. K. (Ed.) (2013). Mind, Reason and Being-in-the-world: The McDowell-Dreyfus Debate. London: Routledge.

  39. Shaw, R., & McIntyre, M. (1974). Algoristic foundations to cognitive psychology. In Weimer, W. B. & Palermo, D. S. (Eds.) Cognition and the symbolic process. Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  40. Turvey, M. T. (1992). Affordances and prospective control: an outline of the ontology. Ecological Psychology, 4(3), 173–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Turvey, M. T., Shaw, R. E., Reed, E. S., & Mace, W. M. (1981). Ecological laws of perceiving and acting: in reply to Fodor and Phylyshyn (1981). Cognition, 9, 237–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Williams, B. (1981). Moral luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wittgenstein (1953/2001). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.

  44. Zipoli Caiani, S. (2014). Extending the notion of affordance. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13, 275–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper was partially funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación under the research projects “Dispositions, Holism and Agency” (FFI2010-19455) and “Naturalism, Expressivism and Normativity” (FFI2013-44836). We are thankful to two anonymous referees and to Paco Calvo, Álex Díaz, Jorge Ibáñez, David Jacobs, Lorena Lobo, María Muñoz, David Travieso, Julian Kiverstein, Jason Noble, Andrés Soria, María José Frápolli and John McDowell for fruitful comments and discussions on previous drafts of this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel de Pinedo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heras-Escribano, M., de Pinedo, M. Are affordances normative?. Phenom Cogn Sci 15, 565–589 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-015-9440-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Affordances
  • Normativity
  • Perception
  • Ecological psychology