Human Agency and the Resources of Reason

Chapter

Abstract

The evidence shows that human primates become (relatively) rational actors. Using a distributed perspective, we identify aspects of human agency that raise important questions for sociocognitive science. In humans, we argue, agency does not centre on individual agents. Cognitive, social and linguistic outcomes depend on skills in moving in and out of aggregates that bind people, artifacts, language and institutions. While recognising the value of symbol processing models, these presuppose the embodied events of human symbol grounding. At a micro level, humans coordinate with others and the world to self-construct by cognising, talking and orienting to social affordances. We trace the necessary skills to sense-saturated coordination or interactivity. As a result of perceiving and acting on the environment, human individuals use the artificial to extend their natural powers. By using verbal patterns, artifacts and institutions, we become imperfect rational actors whose lives span the micro and the macro worlds.

Keywords

Development Distributed cognition Distributed language Social cognition Interactivity Enaction Social actor models Rationality 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Martin Neumann’s contribution was undertaken within the Project ‘Emergence in the Loop’ (EmiL: IST-033841) funded by the Future and Emerging Technologies programme of the European Commission, in the framework of the initiative “Simulating Emergent Properties in Complex Systems”. Stephen Cowley’s draws much on the opportunity to contribute to a programme of scientific workshops on Agency and languaging (2010–2012) that were organised by the University of Jyväskylä (and sponsored by the Finnish Ministry of Culture).

References

  1. Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition. Artificial Intelligence, 149, 91–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateson, M. C. (1971). The interpersonal context of infant vocalization. Quarterly Progress Report of the Research Laboratory of Electronics, 100, 170–176. Google Scholar
  3. Ben-Naim, J., Bonnefon, J. F., Herzig, A., Leblois, S., & Lorini, E. (2013). Computer-mediated trust in self-interested expert recommendation. In S. J. Cowley & F. Vallée-Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognition beyond the brain: interactivity, computation and human artifice. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  4. Bickhard, M. (2007). Language as an interaction system. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 171–187. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boudon, R. (1981). The logic of social action: an introduction to sociological analysis. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  6. Bråten, S. (2007). Altercentric infants and adults: on the origins and manifestations of participant perception of others’ acts and utterances. In S. Bråten (Ed.), On being moved: from mirror neurons to empathy (pp. 111–135). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  7. Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: learning to use language. New York: WW Norton Press. Google Scholar
  8. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Belknap. Google Scholar
  9. Cowley, S. J. (2007a). How human infants deal with symbol grounding. Interaction Studies, 8, 81–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cowley, S. J. (2007b). The cradle of language: making sense of bodily connections. In D. Moyal-Sharrock (Ed.), Perspicuous presentations: essays on Wittgenstein’s philosophy of psychology (pp. 278–298). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar
  11. Cowley, S. J. (2007c). Cognitive dynamics and distributed language. Language Sciences, 29, 575–583. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cowley, S. J. (2008). Robots: the new linguistic informants? Connection Science, 20, 359–369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cowley, S. J. (2009). Language flow: opening the subject. Cognitive Semiotics, 4, 64–92. Google Scholar
  14. Cowley, S. J. (2011a). Distributed language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  15. Cowley, S. J. (2011b). Taking a language stance. Ecological Psychology, 23, 1–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cowley, S. J. (2013). Naturalizing language: human appraisal and technology. AI & Society. doi: 10.1007/s00146-013-0445-3. Google Scholar
  17. Cowley, S. J., & MacDorman, K. F. (2006). What baboons, babies and Tetris players tell us about interaction: a biosocial view of norm-based social learning. Connection Science, 18, 363–378. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cowley, S. J., Moodley, S., & Fiori-Cowley, A. (2004). Grounding signs of culture: primary intersubjectivity in social semiosis. Mind, Culture and Activity, 11, 109–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Craik, K. (1943). The nature of explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  20. Cronin, B. (2004). Bowling alone together: academic writing as distributed cognition. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55, 557–560. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis, K. (1949). Human society. New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  22. Davidson, D. (1997). Seeing through language. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 42, 15–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dennett, D. C. (1991). Real patterns. The Journal of Philosophy, 88, 27–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. DeCasper, A. J., & Fifer, W. P. (1980). Of human bonding: newborns prefer their mother’s voices. Science, 208, 1174–1176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. DeCasper, A. J., & Spence, M. (1986). Prenatal maternal speech influences newborns’ perception of speech sounds. Infant Behavior & Development, 9, 133–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Di Paolo, E. (2005). Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4, 429–452. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Durkheim, E. (1895 [1998]). Rules of sociological method. Basingston: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  28. Fowler, C. A. (2010). Embodied, embedded language use. Ecological Psychology, 22, 286–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fowler, C. A., & Rosenblum, L. D. (1991). The perception of phonetic gestures. In I. G. Mattingly & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Modularity and the motor theory of speech perception (pp. 33–59). Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  30. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar
  31. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor. Google Scholar
  32. Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 42, 335–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harris, R. (1981). The language myth. Oxford: Duckworth. Google Scholar
  34. Hedström, P. (2005). Dissecting the social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hodges, B. (2007). Good prospects: ecological and social perspectives on conforming, creating and caring in conversation. Language Sciences, 29, 584–604. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  37. Järvilehto, T. (1998). The theory of the organism-environment system: I. Description of the theory. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 33, 321–334. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Järvilehto, T., Nurkkala, V. M., & Koskela, K. (2009). The role of anticipation in reading. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17, 509–526. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18, 513–549. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kravchenko, A. (2007). Essential properties of language: why language is not a digital code. Language Sciences, 29, 621–650. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Linell, P. (2005). The written language bias in linguistics: its nature, origins and transformations. London: Routledge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language mind and world dialogically: interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte: Information Age. Google Scholar
  43. Locke, J. (1690 [1975]) An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edited by P. H. Niddich. Google Scholar
  44. Love, N. (2004). Cognition and the language myth. Language Sciences, 26, 525–544. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. MacDorman, K. (2007). Life after the symbol system metaphor. Interaction Studies, 18, 143–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maturana, H. R. (1978). Biology of language: the epistemology of reality. In G. A. Miller & E. Lenneberg (Eds.), Psychology and biology of language and thought: essays in honor of Eric Lenneberg (pp. 27–63). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  47. Melser, D. (2004). The act of thinking. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  48. Pattee, H. H. (1969). How does a molecule become a message? Developmental Biology. Supplement, 3, 1–16. Google Scholar
  49. Pattee, H. H. (1997). The physics of symbols and the evolution of semiotic controls. In Proceedings from the workshop on control mechanisms for complex systems: issues of measurement and semiotic analysis, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity. Redwood City: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
  50. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton. Google Scholar
  51. Port, R. (2010). Rich memory and distributed phonology. Language Sciences, 32, 43–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rączaszek-Leonardi, J. (2009). Symbols as constraints: the structuring role of dynamics and self-organization in natural language. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17, 653–676. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Raguso, R., & Willis, M. (2002). Synergy between visual and olfactory cues in nectar feeding by naïve hawkmoths Manduca Sexta. Animal Behavior, 64, 685–695. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: a case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–297). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  55. Ross, D. (2007). H. sapiens as ecologically special: what does language contribute? Language Sciences, 16, 710–731. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Savage-Rumbaugh, S. E., Shanker, S. G., & Taylor, T. J. (1998). Apes, language and the human mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  57. Sigtryggsdóttir, T. (2007). Guiding attention leads to changes in child’s manifest practical understanding. Unpublished dissertation, University of Hertfordshire. Google Scholar
  58. Spiekermann, K. (2013). Judgement aggregation and distributed thinking. In S. J. Cowley & F. Vallée-Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognition beyond the brain: interactivity, computation and human artifice. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  59. Steffensen, S. V. (2011). Beyond mind: an extended ecology of languaging. In S. J. Cowley (Ed.), Distributed language (pp. 185–210). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  60. Stern, D. N. (1971). A micro-analysis of mother-infant interaction: behaviors regulating social contact between a mother and her three-and-a-half-month-old twins. Journal of American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 10, 501–517. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stewart J., Gapenne, O., & Di Paolo, E. (2010). Enaction: toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  62. Stuart, S. A. J. (2012). Enkinaesthesia: the essential sensuous background for co-agency. In Z. Radman (Ed.), The background: knowing without thinking (pp. 167–186). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar
  63. Thibault, P. J. (2011). First-order languaging dynamics and second-order language: the distributed language view. Ecological Psychology, 23, 210–245. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind and life: biology, phenomenology and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  65. Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  66. Tønsberg, G. H., & Hauge, T. S. (1996). The musical nature of prelinguistic interaction. The temporal structure and organization in co-created interaction with congenital deaf-blinds. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 5, 63–75. Google Scholar
  67. Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and co-operation in early infancy: a description of primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech (pp. 321–347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  68. Trevarthen, C., & Aitken, K. J. (2001). Infant intersubjectivity: research, theory and clinical applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 3–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Trevarthen, C., & Hubley, P. (1978). Secondary intersubjectivity: confidence, confiding and acts of meaning in the first year. In A. Lock (Ed.), Action, gesture, and symbol (pp. 183–229). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  70. Wenger, D., & Sparrow, B. (2007). The puzzle of coaction. In D. Ross, D. Spurrett, H. Kinkaid, & L. G. Stephens (Eds.), Distributed cognition and the will (pp. 17–41). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  71. Willems, R., & Hagoort, P. (2007). Neural evidence and the interplay between language, gesture and action: a review. Brain and Language, 101, 278–289. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wittgenstein, L. W. (1958). Philosophical investigations (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KoblenzKoblenzGermany
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of HertfordshireHatfieldUK
  3. 3.Department of Language and CommunicationUniversity of Southern DenmarkSlagelseDenmark

Personalised recommendations