Selfless Activity and Experience: Radicalizing Minimal Self-Awareness

Abstract

This paper explicates how we might positively understand the distinctive, nonconceptual experience of our own actions and experiences by drawing on insights from a radically enactive take on phenomenal experience. We defend a late-developing relationalism about the emergence of explicit, conceptually based self-awareness, proposing that the latter develops in tandem with the mastery of self-reflective narrative practices. Focusing on the case of human newborns, Sect. 1 reviews and rejects claims that the capacities of actors to keep track of aspects of themselves—e.g. their bodies, body parts, movements, activities, actions and experiences—when coordinating what they do equates to or is best explained by positing minimal, tacit awareness of their experiences as their own. Section 2 then considers and resists more familiar arguments, based on the so-called reflexivity thesis, that take such minimal self-awareness to be implied wherever there is any kind of phenomenal experience. In place of these ideas, we promote an alternative proposal of what is involved when agents keep track of aspects of themselves, drawing on a radically enactive conception of basic experience. Section 3 concludes by proposing that our first conceptual, explicit sense of self is something that only arrives on the scene once we become able to hold our own—through the support of others—in discursive, narrative practices that give us a conceptual grip on what it is to be a temporally extended self that persists over time.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Some theorists may be prepared to bite the bullet and treat bacteria as cognitive agents endowed with contentful representational capacties (see, e.g., Bray 2012; Perkins and Swain 2009). However, it is also possible to agree that bacterial activity is best viewed as a basic form of cognition, though one that is non-contenful in character (for longer arguments in favour of going this way see Hutto and Myin 2013, 2017).

  2. 2.

    It should be noted that there is a lack of consensus on how to read this evidence (Vincini et al. 2017). Even so, putting all of the findings together, Rochat (2011) observes that “newborns’ perception of their own body in action is anything but disorganized, meaningless, or confused” (p. 66, emphasis added). He holds that the neonatal capacity for imitation implies some capacity to map and keep track of “the body whereby region and parts of the [sic] own body are actively and systematically (as opposed to randomly) put into contact with each other” (Rochat 2011, p. 67). From these observations Rochat (2011) thinks it safe to infer that “from birth infants express a sense of their own body as a differentiated entity among other entities” (p. 64, emphasis added). He speaks of the “abundance of empirical observations demonstrating the existence of an early, if not innate experience of the body as an entity perceived by the infant as unified” (Rochat 2011, p. 66, emphases added). In sum, pooling all of the evidence together, Rochat (2011) confidently ascribes to infants “an innate sense of self in perception in action” (p. 70, emphasis added). This leads him to claim of newborns that “we now know …. there is minimal self-awareness” (Rochat 2011, p. 66).

  3. 3.

    At times, Rochat (2011) is more circumspect in drawing his conclusions. For example, at one point he makes clear that he regards “evidence of a body schema at birth provides some theoretical ground for the ascription of basic selfhood from the outset” (p. 68). Yet if we compare a similar discussion of the same evidence by Gallagher (2000), we find that latter is even more appropriately cautious about drawing strong conclusions from this evidence. Thus Gallagher (2000) writes, “For [neonatal imitation] to be possible the infant must be able to do three things: (1) distinguish between self and non-self; (2) locate and use certain parts of its own body proprioceptively, without vision; and (3) recognize that the face it sees is of the same kind as its own face (the infant will not imitate non-human objects). One possible interpretation of this finding is that … the human infant is already equipped with a minimal self that is embodied, enactive and ecologically tuned” (Gallagher 2000, p. 18, emphasis added).

  4. 4.

    To say that something is empty is to say that it lacks an independent intrinsic nature. See MacKenzie (2010) for “an account of the self as dependently originated and empty, but nevertheless real” (p. 76).

  5. 5.

    A reviewer insightfully reminded us that Jean Paul Sartre argued, contra classical phenomenology and in alignment with our stance, that the subject is not constitutive of experience per se but is rather constituted like other objects in experience.

  6. 6.

    Elsewhere Strawson alternatively dubs the E/E thesis as Frege’s Thesis and the Subject Thesis (Strawson 2017, p. 253; 2009, pp. 271–276; 1994, pp. 129).

  7. 7.

    Strawson is far from alone in taking the E/E thesis to be an inescapable truth. Others have presented close cousin formulations of the same thesis. Thus, Nida-Rümelin (2017) tells us that “we cannot even think the occurrence of an experience without thereby thinking it as involving an experiencing subject” (p. 2). Or again, Shoemaker (1986) maintains that “experiencing is necessarily an experiencing by a subject of experience, and involves a subject of experience as intimately as branch-bending involves a branch” (p. 10).

  8. 8.

    This claim is surely exaggerated and implausibly incautious, given the plethora of subtly different Buddhist views and voices, including extremely reductive and nihilistic versions of the no-self view. See, for example, Siderits et al. (2011), for one such extreme view.

  9. 9.

    On this basis Strawson (2005, p. 64) distinguishes between (i) the experience of oneself when one is considering oneself taken as a human being as a whole and (ii) the experience of oneself when one is considering oneself principally as an inner mental entity or self of some sort. Famously, he writes: “I will use I* to represent: that which I now experience when I’m apprehending myself specifically as an inner mental presence or self. ‘I*’ comes with a large family of cognate forms—‘me*’, ‘my*’, ‘you*’, ‘oneself*’, ‘themselves*’, and so on. The metaphysical presumption built into these terms is that they succeed in making genuine reference to an inner mental something that is reasonably called a self” (Strawson 2005, p. 68). Strawson’s view on this string-of-pearl vision of selves is notoriously problematic. What explains the stringing of these pearl-like selves together? How and why are these many selves related to the human being with which they are associated?

  10. 10.

    See Siderits et al. (2011) for an overview of those who subsribe to it in the analytical, phenomenological and Indian traditions.

  11. 11.

    As Zahavi reports, “Literally all the major figures in phenomenology defend the view that the experiential dimension is characterized by a tacit self-consciousness” (2005, p. 11). For example, a major lesson from Sartre is that, “An experience does not simply exist; it exists for itself” (Zahavi 2005, p. 12).

  12. 12.

    For a similar line of argument in the context of performance in sports, martial and performing arts see Ilundáin-Agurruza (2016), chap. 7.

  13. 13.

    Ciaunica (2017) astutely observes that such skin-to-skin encounters provide an even more fundamental example than do standard cases of visual joint attention when it comes to “establishing joint perceptual experiences and reciprocal sharing” (Ciaunica 2017, p. 2).

  14. 14.

    The ‘body-mind’ is premised on a holistic understading of organisms. Accordingly, body and mind are not thought of as separate ‘things’ but abstractions from our dynamic, continuous, interactive experience. Thus body-mind is not an ontological claim but a phenomenological designatum (Ilundáin-Agurruza 2016, chap. 3). The notion is in line with Dewey’s continuity hypothesis, which advances continuities rather than divisions of actual processes, while still allowing us to draw meaningful demarcations (see Johnson 2007).

  15. 15.

    Froese (2009) makes a similar attempt to understand the fluid self in enactive terms, relating his anlaysis to Hume’s theory of the self.

References

  1. Albahari M (2011) Nirvana and ownerless consciousness. In: Siderits M, Thompson E, Zahavi D (eds) Self, no self? Perspectives from analytical, phenomenological and Indian traditions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 79–113

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bray D (2012) The cell as a thermostat: how much does it know? Adv Exp Med Biol 736:193–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ciaunica A (2017) The ‘meeting of bodies’: empathy and basic forms of shared experiences. Topoi. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-017-9500-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ciaunica A, Fotopoulou A (2017) The touched self: psychological and philosophical perspectives on proximal intersubjectivity and the self. In: Durt C, Fuchs T, Tewes C (eds) Embodiment, enaction, and culture: investigating the constitution of the shared world. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 173–192

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cole J (2016) Losing touch. Oxford Univeristy Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fasching W (2011) ‘I am of the nature of seeing’: phenomenological reflections on the Indian notion of witness-consciousness. In: Siderits M, Thompson E, Zahavi D (eds) Self, no self? Perspectives from analytical, phenomenological and Indian traditions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 193–216

    Google Scholar 

  7. Froese T (2009) Hume and the enactive approach to mind. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 8(1):95–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Froese T, Fuchs T (2012) The extended body: a case study in the neurophenomenology of social interaction. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 11(2):205–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fulda FC (2017) Natural agency: the case of bacterial cognition. J Am Philos Assoc 3(1):69–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gallagher S (2000) Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive science. Trends Cogn Sci 4(1):14–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gallagher S (2013) A pattern theory of self. Frontiers Human Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gallagher S (2017a) Enactivist interventions: rethinking the mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gallagher S (2017b) Self-defense: deflecting deflationary and eliminativist critiques of the sense of ownership. Front Psychol 8:1612. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gallagher S, Zahavi D (2008) The phenomenological mind. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hutto DD (2008) Folk psychological narratives: sociocultural basis of understanding reasons. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hutto DD (2016a) Memory and narrativity. In: Bernecker S, Michaelian K (eds) The routledge handbook of the philosophy of memory. Routledge, London, pp 192–204

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hutto DD (2016b) Narrative self-shaping: a modest proposal. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 15(1):21–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hutto DD, Myin E (2013) Radicalizing enactivism: basic minds without content. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hutto DD, Myin E (2017) Evolving enactivism: basic minds without content. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ilundáin-Agurruza J (2016) Holism and the cultivation of excellence in sports and performance: skillful striving. Routeldge, London

    Google Scholar 

  21. Johnson M (2007) The meaning of the body: aesthetics and human understanding. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jonas H (1996) Mortality and morality: a search for good after Auschwitz. Northwestern University Press, Evanston

    Google Scholar 

  23. Losick R, Desplan C (2008) Stochasticity and cell fate. Science 320:65–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. MacKenzie M (2010) Enacting the self: Buddhist and enactivist approaches to the emergence of the self. Phenomenol Cogn Sci 9:75–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. MacKenzie M (2011) Enacting the self: Buddhist and enactivist approaches to the emergence of the self. In: Siderits M, Thompson E, Zahavi D (eds) Self, no self? Perspectives from analytical, phenomenological and Indian traditions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 239–273

    Google Scholar 

  26. Martin MGF (1995) Bodily awareness: a sense of ownership. In: Bermúdez JL, Marcel T, Eilan N (eds) The body and the self. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nelson K (2007) Young minds in social worlds: experience, meaning and memory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nida-Rümelin M (2017) Self-awareness. Rev Philos Psychol 8(1):55–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Perkins TJ, Swain PS (2009) Strategies for cellular decision-making. Mol Syst Biol 5:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ratcliffe M (2017) Selfhood, schizophrenia, and the interpersonal regulation of experience. In: Durt C, Fuchs T, Tewes C (eds) Embodiment, enaction, and culture: investigating the constitution of the shared world. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 149–172

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rochat P (2011) What is it like to be a newborn? In: Gallagher S (ed) The Oxford handbook of the self. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 57–79

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shoemaker S (1986) Introspection and the self. Midwest Stud Philos 10(1):101–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Siderits M, Thompson E, Zahavi D (2011) Introduction. In: Siderits M, Thompson E, Zahavi D (eds) Self, no self? Perspectives from analytical, phenomenological and Indian traditions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  34. Strawson G (1994) Mental reality. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  35. Strawson G (2005) Against narrataivity. In: Strawson G (ed) The self? Blackwell, Oxford, pp 63–86

    Google Scholar 

  36. Strawson G (2009) The self. In: McLaughlin B, Beckermann A (eds) The Oxford Handbook of philosophy of mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 541–564

    Google Scholar 

  37. Strawson G (2011) Radical self-awareness. In: Siderits M, Thompson E, Zahavi D (eds) Self, no self? Perspectives from analytical, phenomenological and Indian traditions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 274–307

    Google Scholar 

  38. Strawson G (2017) The subject of experience. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  39. Tagkopoulos I, Liu Y, Tavazoie S (2008) Predictive behavior within microbial genetic networks. Science 320:1313–1317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tewes C, Durt C, Fuchs T (2017) Introduction: the interplay of embodiment, enaction and culture. In: Durt C, Fuchs T, Tewes C (eds) Embodiment, enaction, and culture: investigating the constitution of the shared world. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  41. Thompson E (2015) Waking, dreaming, being. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  42. Varela F (1999) Ethical know-how: action, wisdom, and cognition. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  43. Vincini S, Jhang Y, Buder EH, Gallagher S (2017) Neonatal imitation: theory, experimental design, and significance for the field of social cognition. Front Psychol 8:1323. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zahavi D (2005) Subjectivity and selfhood. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  45. Zahavi D (2014) Self and other: exploring subjectivity, empathy, and shame. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  46. Zahavi D (2015) Self and other: from pure ego to co-constituted we. Cont Philos Rev 48(2):143–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zahavi D (2017) Thin, thinner, thinnest: defining the minimal self. In: Durt C, Fuchs T, Tewes C (eds) Embodiment, enaction, and culture: investigating the constitution of the shared world. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 193–199

    Google Scholar 

  48. Zahavi D, Rochat P (2015) Empathy ≠ sharing: perspectives from phenomenology and developmental psychology. Conscious Cogn 36:543–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project (DP170102987).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel D. Hutto.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hutto, D.D., Ilundáin-Agurruza, J. Selfless Activity and Experience: Radicalizing Minimal Self-Awareness. Topoi 39, 509–520 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-018-9573-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Minimal selfhood
  • Minimal self-awareness
  • Relationalist accounts of self
  • Individualist accounts of self
  • Enactivism