Extended Mind and After: Socially Extended Mind and Actor-Network

Regular Article


The concept of extended mind has been impressively developed over the last 10 years by many philosophers and cognitive scientists. The extended mind thesis (EM) affirms that the mind is not simply ensconced inside the head, but extends to the whole system of brain-body-environment. Recently, some philosophers and psychologists try to adapt the idea of EM to the domain of social cognition research. Mind is socially extended (SEM). However, EM/SEM theory has problems to analyze the interactions among a subject and its surroundings with opposition, antagonism, or conflict; it also tends to think that the environment surrounding the subject is passive or static, and to neglect the power of non-human actants to direct and regulate the human subject. In these points, actor-network theory (ANT) proposed by Latour and Callon is more persuasive, while sharing some important ideas with EM/SEM theory. Actor-network is a hybrid community which is composed of a series of heterogeneous elements, animate and inanimate for a certain period of time. I shall conclude that EM/SEM could be best analyzed as a special case of actor-network. EM/SEM is a system which can be controlled by a human agent alone. In order to understand collective behavior, philosophy and psychology have to study the actor-network in which human individuals are situated.


Extend mind Socially extended mind Actor-network Social institution 


  1. Adams, F., & Aizawa, K. (2008). The bounds of cognition. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, F., & Aizawa, K. (2010). Defending the bounds of cognition. In R. Menary (Ed.), (2010).Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brinkmann, S. (2011). Towards an expansive hybrid psychology: integrating theories of the mediated mind. Integrative Psychology and Behavioral Science, 45, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Callon, M. (2004). The role of hybrid communities and socio-technical arrangements in the participatory design. Journal of the Center for Information Studies, 5, 3–10.Google Scholar
  9. Callon, M., & Law, J. (1997). After the individual in society: lessons on collectively from science, technology and society. Canadian Journal of Society, 22, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cash, M. (2010). Extended cognition, personal responsibility, and relational autonomy. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 9(4), 645–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, A. (1998). Author’s response: review symposium on Being There. Metascience, 7, 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Reflections on embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, A. (2010). Coupling, constitution, and the cognitive kind: A reply to Adams and Aizawa. In R. Menary (Ed.), (2010).Google Scholar
  15. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crisafi, A., & Gallagher, S. (2010). Hegel and the extended mind. AI & Society, 25, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making: an enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6, 485–507.Google Scholar
  18. De Jaegher, H., Di Paolo, E., & Gallagher, S. (2010). Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 441–447.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Di Paolo, E., Rohde, M., & De Jaegher, H. (2008). 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: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Feenberg, A. (2010). Between reason and experience: Essays in technology and modernity. Cambridge, Mass./London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fuchs, T., & De Jaegher, H. (2009). Enactive intersubjectivity: participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation. Phenomenology and Cognitive Science, 8, 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gallagher, S. (2008). Brainstorming: Views and interviews on the mind. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  24. Gallagher, S. (2011). The overextended mind. Versus: Quaderni di studi semiotici. pp. 57–68.Google Scholar
  25. Gallagher, S., & Crisafi, A. (2009). Mental institutions. Topoi, 28, 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gallagher, S., & Miyahara, K. (2011). Neo-pragmatism and enactive intentionality. In J. Schulkin (Ed.), Action, perception and the brain. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Gazzaniga, M. S. (1985). The social brain: Discovering the networks of the mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. Gibson, J. J. (1979). Ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  29. Harré, R. (1998). The singular self: An introduction to the psychology of personhood. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  31. Ihde, D. (1993). Postphenomenology: Essays in the postmodern context. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Ihde, D. (2002). Bodies in technology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kono, T. (2009). Social affordances and the possibility of ecological linguistics. Integrative Psychology and Behavioral Science, 43, 356–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Latour, B. (1988). The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Latour, B. (2002). La fabrique du droit Une ethnographie du Conseil d’État. Paris: La Découvertes/Poche.Google Scholar
  37. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the society: An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Law, J. (1987). Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Miyahara, K. (2011). Neo-pragmatic intentionality and enactive perception: a compromise between extended and enactive minds. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 10(4), 499–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Rowlands, M. (2011). The new science of the mind: From extended mind to embodied phenomenology. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  42. Rupert, R. (2004). Challenges to the hypothesis of extended cognition. Journal of Philosophy, 101, 389–428.Google Scholar
  43. Rupert, R. (2009). Representation in extended cognitive systems: Does the scaffolding of language extend the mind? In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind. London: Ashgate.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rupert, R. (2010). Cognitive systems and the extended mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Sutton, J. (2010). Exograms and interdisciplinarity: History, the extended mind, and the civilizing process. In R. Menary (Ed.), 2010.Google Scholar
  47. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole et al. (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Mass./London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wilson, R. A. (2004). Boundaries of the mind: The individual in the fragile sciences: Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rikkyo UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations