, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 279–290 | Cite as

Extended Mind and Embodied Social Psychology: Contemporary Perspectives



This study traces the evolution of a research program that frames the human mind as an embodied social phenomenon. The essay is divided into two parts, the first one focused on historical issues, the second on contemporary developments. The discussion begins with the mind-body problem central to the scholarship in this area and then focuses the changing perspective on consciousness as a symbolically mediated process. Next, the paper surveys the relevant writings of Mead and Vygotsky, tracks the debate about the place of body in interactionist sociology, and connects this debate to current research in neuroscience. The report concludes with reflections on the prospects for embodied sociology and the contribution it can make to the debate about extended mind.


Extended mind Embodied self Pragmatism Neuroscience Neurosociology Symbolic interaction Mead Vygotsky 


  1. Alexander, J., Eyerman, R., Giesen, B., Smelser, N. J., & Stompka, P. 2004. Cultural trauma and collective identity. Berkeley:University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakhurst, D. 2007. Vygotsky’s Demons. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky (pp. 50–76). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergesen, A. J. 2005. Chomsky vs. Mead. Sociological Theory, 22, 257–270.Google Scholar
  4. Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic interactionism. Perspective and methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Blumer, H. 1973. Comment on ‘symbolic interaction as a pragmatic perspective: The bias of emergent theory. American Sociological Review, 45, 797–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumer, H. 1975. Comment on Turner, ‘Parsons as a symbolic interactionist. Sociological Inquiry, 45, 59–62.Google Scholar
  7. Blumer, H. 1977. Comment on Lewis ‘The Classic American Pragmatists as Forerunners to Symbolic Interactionism.’ Sociological Quarterly, 18, 285–89 (CA.II.152–157).Google Scholar
  8. Bogen, J. E., DeZure, R., TenHouten, W. D., & March, J. F. 1972. The other side of the Brian IV: The AP ratio. Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological Society, 37, 49–61.Google Scholar
  9. Booth, K. J. 2013. Embodied Mind and the Mimetic Basis of Taking the Role of the Other. In T. F. Burke, & K. P. Skowronski (Eds.) 2013. George Herbert Mead in the twenty-first century. Lexington Books, pp. 137–148.Google Scholar
  10. Brewster, J. M. 1936. A behavioristic account of the logical function of universals. Journal of Philosophy, 33(505–514), 533–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke, T. F., & Skowronski, K. P. (Eds.) 2013. George Herbert Mead in the twenty-first century. Lanham:Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  12. Carroll, S. 2016. The big picture: On the origins of life, meaning, and the universe itself. New York:Dutton.Google Scholar
  13. Clancey, W. J. 2009. Scientific Antecedents of situated cognition. In P. Robbins, & M. Aydela (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of situated cognition (pp. 11–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. 1996. Beyond the individual-social antinomy in discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. 2009. A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In P. Robbins, & M. Ayded (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition (pp. 1–46). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cook, G. A. 1993. George Herbert Mead: The making of a social pragmatist. Urbana, IL:University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  17. Damasio, A. 2003. Looking for Spinoza. Joy, sorrow and the feeling brain. New York:Harcourt.Google Scholar
  18. Damasio, A. 2012. Self comes to mind: Constructing the conscious brain. New York:Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  19. Daniels, H. 2001. Vygotsky and Pedagogy. New York:Rutledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  20. Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. 2007. The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky. New York:Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dea, S. 2008. Firstness, evolution and the absolute in Peirce's Spinoza. A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, 44, 603–628.Google Scholar
  22. Deacon, T. W. 1997. The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. London:W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  23. Deacon, T. W. 2011. Incomplete nature: How mind emerged from matter. London:W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  24. Danziger, K. 1979. The positivist repudiation of Wundt. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Science, 15, 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Descartes, R. 1637/1931. The philosophical Works of Descartes (vol. 1). New York:Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Dewey, J. 1938/1997. Experience and education. New York:Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. Dilthey, W. 1886/1989. Selected Works. Vol. 1. Introduction to the Social Sciences. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Edwardes, M. 2010. The origins of grammar. An anthropological perspective. London:Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  29. Eyerman, R. 2001. Cultural trauma. Slavery and the formation of African American identity. New York:Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Edwards, A. 2007. An interesting Resemblence: Vygotsky, Mead and American pragmatism. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky (pp. 77–100). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fechner, G. T., with Wadsworth, M. C. 1836/2005. The little book of life after death. Weiser Books.Google Scholar
  32. Fine, G. A., & Kleinman, S. 1986. Interpreting the sociological classics: Can there be a ‘true’ meaning of Mead? Symbolic Interaction, 9, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Finger, S. 2001. Origins of neuroscience: A history of explorations into brain function. New York:Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Franks, D. 2010. Neurosociology: The nexus between neuroscience and social psychology. New York:Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Franks, D., & Davis, J. 2012. Critique and refinement of the Neurosociology of mirror neurons. Biosociology and Neurosociology. Advances in Group Processes, 29, 77–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gallagher, S. 2009. Philosophical Antecedents of situated cognition. In P. Robbins, & M. Aydela (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of situated cognition (pp. 35–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Galliese, V., Eagle, M. N., & Migone, P. 2007. Intentional attunement: Mirror neurons and the neural underpinnings of interpersonal relations. Journal of American Psychoanalytical Association, 55, 131–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ganeri, J. 2015. The self: Naturalism, consciousness, and the first-person stance. New York:Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Gans, H. 1962. The urban Villlagers: Group and class in the life of Italian-Americans. New York:The Free Press.Google Scholar
  40. Gazzaniga, M. S. 1985. The social brain: Discovering the networks of the mind. New York, NY:Basic Books.Google Scholar
  41. Gazzaniga, M. S. 2008. Human: The science behind what makes us unique. New York, NY:Ecco.Google Scholar
  42. Gibbs, R. W. 2006. Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Glock, H.-J. 1986. Vygotsky and Mead on the self, meaning and internalisation. Studies in Soviet Thought, 31, 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Greene, M., & Nails, D. (Eds.) 1986. Spinoza and the sciences. Boston:D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  45. Halton, E. 1986. Meaning and modernity. Social theory in the pragmatist attitude. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Halton, E. 2007. Eden inverted: On the wild self and the contraction of consciousness. The Trumpeter Volume, 23, 1–33.Google Scholar
  47. Halton, E. 2013. Tale of the evolutionary Drama of Symboling: A dramaturgical digression. In C. Edgley (Ed.), The Drama of social life: A dramaturgical Handbook (pp. 27–41). Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Ltd..Google Scholar
  48. Halton, E. 2014. From the emergent Drama of interpretation to Enscreenment. In D. Narvaez, K. Valentino, A. Fuentes, J. McKenna, & P. Gray (Eds.), Ancestral landscapes in human evolution: Culture, Childrearing and Social Wellbeing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Hamann, J. G. 2007. Writings on philosophy and language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Hamilton, P. 1992–1992. George Herbert Mead. Critical Assessments, Vol. 1–4. London: Routledge (abbreviated as CA, with the Roman numeral designating the volume, and Arabic numeral indicating page number).Google Scholar
  51. Heidelberger, M. 2004. Nature from within: Gustav Theodor Fechner and his psychophysical worldview. Pittsburgh, PA:University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  52. Helasvuo, M.-L. 2009. Emergent grammar. In F. Brisard, J. O. Pstman, & Hegel, G. W F. 1807/1967. The Phenomenology of Mind (pp. 66-73). New York: Harper and row.Google Scholar
  53. Hegel, G. W. F. 1830/1970. Philosophy of mind: Part three of the Encyclopaedia of the philosophical sciences. Oxford:Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  54. Herder, J. G. 2002. Philosophical Writings. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Holland, D., & Lachicotte, W. Jr. 2007. Mead Vygotsky, and the new sociocultural studies of identity. In D. Harry, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch 2007 (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky, (pp. 101-135). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Hopper, P. 1987. Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hopper, P. 1988. Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar postulate. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding (pp. 117–134). Norwood, N.J: Ablex.Google Scholar
  58. Hopper, P. 1998. Emergent Grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 155–175). Mahwah: New Jersey.Google Scholar
  59. Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization. New York:Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Iacoboni, M. 2009. Mirroring people. The science of empathy and how we connect with others. New York, N.Y: Picador.Google Scholar
  61. Iacoboni, M. 2011. Mirror neuron forum. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 376–377.Google Scholar
  62. Ingram, J. C. L. 2007. Neurolinguistics: An introduction to spoken language processing and its disorders. Berkeley:Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. James, W. 1890/1950. The principles of psychology (vol. 1, New York: Henry Holt and Co. Reprinted in 1950). New York:Dover.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Joas, H. 1985. G. H. Mead: A contemporary reexamination of his thought. Cambridge:Polity.Google Scholar
  65. Joas, H. 1993. Pragmatism and social theory. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  66. Joas, H. 1997. George Herbert Mead and the renaissance of American pragmatism. In C. Camic (Ed.), Reclaiming the sociological classics: The state of the scholarship (pp. 262–281). Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  67. Johnson, G. D., & Shifflet, P. A. 1981. George Herbert Who? : A critique of the objectivist reading of Mead. Symbolic Interaction, 4, 143–155 (CA.III.98–110).Google Scholar
  68. Juarrero, A. 1999. Dynamics in action: Intentional behavior as a complex system. Cambridge:MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. Koczanowicz, L. 1994. G.H. Mead and L.S. Vygotsky on meaning and the self. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 8, 262–276.Google Scholar
  70. Koczanowicz, L. 1995. Meaning - dialogue - society. The comparison between G.H. Mead’s, L.S. Vygotsky's and M. M. Bakhtin's concepts of dialogue and meaning. Culture and Value. Philosophy and the Cultural Science. Papers of the 18th International Wittgenstein Symposium, Kirchberg am Wechsel, pp. 656-660. Google Scholar
  71. Kon, I. S., & Shalin, D. N. 1969. “D. G. Mid i Problema Chelovecheskogo” ‘Ia’. Voprosy Filosofii 12:85–95, Scholar
  72. Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in practice. New York:Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lewes, G. H. 1879. Problems of life and mind. Mind as a function of the social organism. London:Trübner & Co..Google Scholar
  74. Lewis, J. D. 1976. The classic American pragmatists as forerunners to symbolic interactionism. Sociological Quarterly, 17, 347-359 (CA.II.137-157).Google Scholar
  75. Lewis, J. D. 1979. A Social Behaviorist Interpretation of the Meadian ‘I’.” American Journal of Sociology, 84, 261–287 (CA.III.60–83).Google Scholar
  76. Lewis, J. D., & Smith, R. L. 1980. American sociology and pragmatism: Mead, Chicago sociology and symbolic interaction. Chicago:University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  77. Luccio, R. 2014. The psychological parallelism form Fechner to gestalt isomorphism: The Spinozan roots. International Society for Psychophysics, 30.Google Scholar
  78. McPhail, C. 1991. The myth of the madding crowd. New York:Aldine-DeGruyter.Google Scholar
  79. McPhail, C. 1994. The dark side of purpose: Purposive individualGoogle Scholar
  80. McPhail, C. 2013. Mead’s social psychology redux and collective action: Connecting brain and behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of symbolic interaction. New York City:August.Google Scholar
  81. Meltzer, B. N. 1959. The social psychology of George Herbert Mead. Kalamazoo:Center for Sociological Research, Western Michigan University.Google Scholar
  82. Mead, G. H. 1932. Philosophy of the present. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  83. Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, self, and society. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  84. Mead, G. H. 1938. The philosophy of the act. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  85. Mead, G. H. 1964. Selected Writings: George Herbert Mead. A. J. Reck (Ed.), New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  86. Mead, G. H. 1982. The individual and the social self. Unpublished work of George Herbert Mead. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  87. Mead, G. H. 2001. Essays in social psychology. New Brunswick NJ:Transactions Publishers.Google Scholar
  88. Nungesser, F. 2009. Three dimensions of the sociality of action. Some Reflections based on the Cultural Psychology of Michael Tomasello and Sociological Pragmatism. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, 4, 177–207.Google Scholar
  89. Meehan, W. 2014. The return of the repressed: Spinozan ideas in the history of the mind and brain sciences. In C. U. M. Smith, & H. Whitaker (Eds.), Brain, mind and consciousness in the history of neuroscience (pp. 21–42). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Miller, R. 2011. Vygotsky in perspective. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Neuroscience 2010. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  92. Nungesser, F. 2012. Three dimensions of the sociality of action. Some Reflections Based on the Cultural Psychology of Michael Tomasello and Sociological Pragmatism. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, 4, 178–207.Google Scholar
  93. Nungesser, F., Ofner, F., (Eds.) 2013. Potentiale einer pragmatistischen Sozialtheorie. Beiträge anlässlich des 150. Geburtstags von George Herbert Mead. (special issue of the Austrian Journal of Sociology). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  94. Peirce, C. S. 1868/1955. Some consequences of four incapacities. J. Buehler (Ed.) In Philosophical Writings of Peirce (pp. 228–250). New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  95. Peirce, C. S. 1877/1953. The fixation of belief. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical Writings of Peirce (pp. 5–22). New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  96. Peirce, C. S. 1931-1958. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (vol. 8). Cambridge:Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Peirce, C. S. 1975-1987. Charles Sanders Peirce: Contributions to the nation (vol. 4). Lubbock:Texas Tech University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Peirce, C. 1976. The new elements of mathematics. Atlantic Highlands N.J:Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  99. Prinz, J. 2009. Is consciousness embodied? In P. Robbins, & M. Ayded (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition (pp. 419–436). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Puddephatt, A. I. 2011. Language and mind in the thought of G. H. Mead: Challenges from Chomsky’s linguistics. Studies in Symbolic Interactionism, 36, 75–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Quarantelli, E. L., & Cooper J. 1966. Self-conceptions and others: A further test of Meadian hypotheses. Sociological Quarterly, 7, 281-297 (reprinted in and cited from Manis and Meltzer, 1972, pp. 269-289)Google Scholar
  102. Reader, L., Donahue, G., & Biblarz, A. 1960. Conceptions of self and others. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 153-159 (reprinted in and cited from barley H. Toodley, ed. Society and the Self. A Reader in Social Psychology. The free Press of Glencoe, 1962, pp. 69-78).Google Scholar
  103. Reynolds, J. M., Larry, R., & T. 1973. Interactionism. Complicity and the Astructural Bias. Catalyst, 7, 76–85.Google Scholar
  104. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. 2007. Language and mirror neurons. Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford, pp. 771-785.Google Scholar
  105. Rizzolatti, G., & Sinigaglia, C. 2008. Mirrors in the brain. How our minds share actions and emotions. Oxford:Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Salomon, G. 2009. No distribution without individuals’ cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In P. Robbins, & M. Ayded (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition (pp. 111–137). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  107. Schlegel, F. 1798/1974. Athenaeum Fragments. In Lucinde and the fragments (pp. 161–240). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  108. Shalin, D. N. (With Kon I. S.) 1969. “D. G. Mid i Problema Chelovecheskogo ‘Ia’.” Voprosy Filosofii 12: 85–95,
  109. Shalin, D. N. 1970. G. H. Mid i L. Vygotsky. Senior thesis, University of Leningrad.Google Scholar
  110. Shalin, D. N. (1984). The romantic Antecedents of Meadian social psychology. Symbolic Interaction,7, 43-65 (CA.I.273-284).Google Scholar
  111. Shalin, D. N. 1986a. Pragmatism and social interactionism. American Sociological Review, 5, 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Shalin, D. N. 1989. Mead, behaviorism and indeterminacy. Symbolic Interaction, 12, 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Shalin, D. N. 1996. Intellectual Culture. In D. N. Shalin (Ed.), Russian culture at the crossroads: Paradoxes of Postcommunist consciousness (pp. 41–98). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  114. Shalin, D. N. 2000. George Herbert Mead. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to major social theorists (pp. 302–344). New York: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  115. Shalin, D. N. 2004. Liberalism, affect control, and emotionally intelligent democracy. Journal of Human Rights, 3(December 2004), 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Shalin, D. N. 2008. “phenomenological foundations of theoretical practice: Biocritical notes on Yuri Levada” (in Russian) Vestnik obshchestvennogo mnenia, No. 4 (96), pp. 70–104.Google Scholar
  117. Shalin, D. N. 2011. Pragmatism and democracy: Studies in history, social theory and progressive politics. New Brunswick:Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  118. Shalin, D. N. 2015. Making the sociological canon: The battle over George Herbert Mead’s legacy. The American Sociologist, 46, 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Sidtis, D. V. L. 2007. Does functional neuroimaging solve the questions of neurolinguistics. Brain and Language, 102, 200–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Smelser, N. J. 2004. In J. Alexander, R. Eyerman, B. Giesen, N. J. Smelser, & Piotr Stompka. 2004. Cultural trauma and collective identity, (pp. 264–282). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  121. Smith, C. U. M., & Whitaker, H. (Eds.) 2014. Brain, mind and consciousness in the history of neuroscience. New York:Springer.Google Scholar
  122. Spinoza, B. 2002. Complete Works. Indianapolis:Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  123. TenHouton, W. D. More on Split Brain Research, Culture, and Cognition. Current Anthropology, 17, 503–506.Google Scholar
  124. Thompson, E. 2014. Waking, dreaming, being: Self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation, and philosophy. New York:Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Tomasello, M. 1999. The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge:Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  126. Tomasello, M. 1998. Introduction: A cognitive-functional perspective on language structure. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new Psychology of Language. Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, (pp. vii-xiii). London:Lawrence Erlbaum associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  127. Tomasello, M. 2008. Origins of human communication. Cambridge Mass:MIT Press.Google Scholar
  128. Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. 1991. Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Cambridge:Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  129. Verschueren, J. (Ed.) 2009. Grammar, meaning and pragmatics. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  130. Vogeley, K., & Gallagher, S. 2011. Self in the brain. In S. Gallagher (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the self (pp. 111–136). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  131. Vygotsky, L. [1931] 2005. Istoriia razvitisa vysshikh psihicheskikh funktsii. Moskva: Smysl.Google Scholar
  132. Vygotsky, L. [1934] 1996. Myshlenie I rech. Moskva: Labirint.Google Scholar
  133. Vygotsky, L. 1987-1999. The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vols. 1–6. New York:Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  134. Watson, J. B. 1914. Behavior: An introduction to comparative psychology. New York:Henry Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Watson, J. 1936. A biographical essay. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A history of psychology in autobiography (vol. III). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of Nevada, Las VegasLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations