Skip to main content

Is Collective Agency a Coherent Idea? Considerations from the Enactive Theory of Agency

  • Chapter
Collective Agency and Cooperation in Natural and Artificial Systems

Part of the book series: Philosophical Studies Series ((PSSP,volume 122))

Abstract

Whether collective agency is a coherent concept depends on the theory of agency that we choose to adopt. We argue that the enactive theory of agency developed by Barandiaran, Di Paolo and Rohde (2009) provides a principled way of grounding agency in biological organisms. However the importance of biological embodiment for the enactive approach might lead one to be skeptical as to whether artificial systems or collectives of individuals could instantiate genuine agency. To explore this issue we contrast the concept of collective agency with multi-agent systems and multi-system agents, and argue that genuinely collective agents instantiate agency at both the collective level and at the level of the component parts. Developing the enactive model, we propose understanding agency – both at the level of the individual and of the collective – as spectra that are constituted by dimensions that vary across time. Finally, we consider whether collectives that are not merely metaphorically ‘agents’ but rather are genuinely agentive also instantiate subjectivity at the collective level. We propose that investigations using the perceptual crossing paradigm suggest that a shared lived perspective can indeed emerge but this should not be conflated with a collective first-person perspective, for which material integration in a living body may be required.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note that the term “enactivism” has recently come to be used in several ways. Here we use it to refer to the paradigm heavily influenced by Maturana and Varela (1987) and formally instigated with the introduction of the term in Varela et al. (1991). This has been described as “autopoietic enactivism” by Hutto in order to distinguish it from his theory which he calls “radical enactivism” (Hutto and Myin 2013) and from sensorimotor enactivism (Noë 2004). While it is useful to distinguish these streams of research, the term “autopoietic enactivism” is somewhat misleading as although the theory of autopoiesis has been a strong inspiration for researchers in this paradigm, not all accept that autopoiesis is necessary and/or sufficient for cognition (for this debate see Froese and Di Paolo 2011; and the discussions in Thompson 2011; Wheeler 2011). It is therefore perhaps better to refer to it as “biological enactivism” in order to distinguish it from the other streams. For the purpose of this paper we do not draw on these other streams and will use the term “enactivism” as it was originally introduced and as it continues to be used by the main propagators of this approach (Varela et al. 1991; Thompson 2007; Di Paolo 2005; 2009a; Di Paolo and Thompson 2014).

  2. 2.

    The term “deep embodiment” is taken from Ezequiel Di Paolo’s (2009) ShanghAI Lecture available at http://shanghailectures.org/guest-lectures/43-presenter/177-ezequiel-di-paolo. It refers to the fact that embodiment is taken as ontologically essential for mind, rather than as just a contingent functional extension of mind that could be separated from it, like a tool.

References

  • Auvray, Malika, and Marieke Rohde. 2012. Perceptual crossing: The simplest online paradigm. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6(181). doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00181.

  • Auvray, Malika, Charles Lenay, and John Stewart. 2009. Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment. New Ideas in Psychology 27: 32–47. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barandiaran, Xabier, and Alvaro Moreno. 2008. Adaptivity: From metabolism to behavior. Adaptive Behavior 16: 325–344. doi:10.1177/1059712308093868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barandiaran, Xabier, Ezequiel Di Paolo, and Marieke Rohde. 2009. Defining agency: Individuality, normativity, asymmetry and spatio-temporality in action. Adaptive Behaviour17(5): 367–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer, R.D. 1996. Toward the evolution of dynamical neural networks for minimally cognitive behavior. In From animals to animats 4: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on simulation of adaptive behavior, ed. P. Maes, M. Mataric, J. Meyer, J. Pollack, and S. Wilson, 421–429. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Haan, Sanneke, Erik Rietveld, Martin Stokhof, and Damiaan Denys. 2013. The phenomenology of deep brain stimulation-induced changes in OCD: An enactive affordance-based model. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7(653). doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00653.

  • De Jaegher, Hanne, and Ezequiel Di Paolo. 2007. Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6: 485–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jaegher, Hanne, Ezequiel Di Paolo, and Shaun Gallagher. 2010. Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14: 441–447. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, Daniel C. 1991. Real patterns. The Journal of Philosophy 88: 27–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Paolo, Ezequiel. 2003. Organismically-inspired robotics: Homeostatic adaptation and natural teleology beyond the closed sensorimotor loop. In Dynamical systems approach to embodiment and sociality, ed. K. Murase and T. Asakura, 19–42. Adelaide: Advanced Knowledge International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Paolo, Ezequiel. 2005. Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 4: 429–452. doi:10.1007/s11097-005-9002-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Paolo, Ezequiel. 2009a. Extended life. Topoi 28: 9–21. doi:10.1007/s11245-008-9042-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Paolo, Ezequiel A. 2009b. Chapter 3 Overcoming autopoiesis: An enactive detour on the way from life to society. In Advanced series in management, vol. 6, ed. Rodrigo Magalhães and Ron Sanchez, 43–68. Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Paolo, Ezequiel A., and Iizuka Hiroyuki. 2008. How (not) to model autonomous behaviour. Biosystems 91: 409–423. doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2007.05.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Paolo, Ezequiel, and Evan Thompson. 2014. The enactive approach. In The routledge handbook of embodied cognition, ed. Shapiro Lawrence. New York: Routledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egbert, Matthew D., Xabier E. Barandiaran, and Ezequiel A. Di Paolo. 2012. Behavioral metabolution: The adaptive and evolutionary potential of metabolism-based chemotaxis. Artificial Life 18(1): 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froese, Tom. 2010. From cybernetics to second-order cybernetics: A comparative analysis of their central ideas. Constructivist Foundations 5: 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froese, Tom, and Ezequiel Di Paolo. 2008. Can evolutionary robotics generate simulation models of autopoiesis? In Cognitive science research paper, vol. 598. Brighton, University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froese, Tom, and Ezequiel Di Paolo. 2011. The enactive approach: Theoretical sketches from cell to society. Pragmatics and Cognition 19: 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froese, Tom, and Thomas Fuchs. 2012. The extended body: A case study in the neurophenomenology of social interaction. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 11: 205–235. doi:10.1007/s11097-012-9254-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froese, Tom, and Tom Ziemke. 2009. Enactive artificial intelligence: Investigating the systemic organization of life and mind. Artificial Intelligence 173: 466–500. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2008.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froese, Tom, Nathaniel Virgo, and Eduardo Izquierdo. 2007. Autonomy: A review and a reappraisal. In F. Almeida e Costa, L. M. Rocha, E. Costa, I. Harvey & A. Coutinho (Eds.), Advances in Artificial Life: 9th European Conference, ECAL 2007 (pp. 455–464).

    Google Scholar 

  • Froese, Tom, Carlos Gershenson, and David A. Rosenblueth. 2013. The dynamically extended mind – A minimal modeling case study. In 2013 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (pp. 1419–1426), IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froese, Tom, Iizuka Hiroyuki, and Takashi Ikegami. 2014. Embodied social interaction constitutes social cognition in pairs of humans: A minimalist virtual reality experiment. Scientific Reports 4(3672). doi:10.1038/srep03672.

  • Gallagher, Shaun, and Dan Zahavi. 2008. The phenomenological mind: An introduction to philosophy of mind and cognitive science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallotti, Mattia, and Chris D. Frith. 2013. Social cognition in the we-mode. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17: 160–165. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutto, Daniel D., and Erik Myin. 2013. Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyselo, Miriam, and Wolfgang Tschacher. 2014. An enactive and dynamical systems theory account of dyadic relationships. Frontiers in Psychology 5(452). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00452.

  • Lysaker, Paul Henry, Jason K. Johannesen, and John Timothy Lysaker. 2005. Schizophrenia and the experience of intersubjectivity as threat. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 4: 335–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, Humberto R., and Francisco J. Varela. 1987. The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: New Science Library/Shambhala Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, Anthony F., Carlos Herrera, Robert Clowes, Alberto Montebelli, and Tom Ziemke. 2011. The role of robotic modelling in cognitive science. New Ideas in Psychology 29(3): 312–324. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.02.001.

  • Noë, Alva. 2004. Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oullier, Olivier, and J.A. Scott Kelso. 2009. Social coordination from the perspective of coordination dynamics. In Encyclopedia of complexity and systems sciences, ed. Robert A. Meyers, 8198–8212. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Protevi, John. 2009. Political affect. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, Vasudevi. 2008. How infants know minds, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, Craig W. 1987. Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model. In Proceedings of the 14th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, 25–34. New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/37401.37406.

  • Riley, Michael A., Michael Richardson, Kevin Shockley, and Verónica C. Ramenzoni. 2011. Interpersonal synergies. Movement Science and Sport Psychology 2: 38. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00038.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanghellini, Giovanni, and Massimo Ballerini. 2004. Autism: Disembodied existence. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 11: 259–268. doi:10.1353/ppp.2004.0069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stapleton, Mog, and Tom Froese. ms. The enactive philosophy of embodiment: From biological foundations of agency to the phenomenology of subjectivity. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, Pierre, and John Stewart. 2009. From autonomy to heteronomy (and back): The enaction of social life. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 8: 527–550. doi:10.1007/s11097-009-9139-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny, Kim, and Paul Griffiths. 1999. Sex and death: An introduction to philosophy of biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Evan. 2007. Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Evan. 2011. Reply to commentaries. Journal of Consciousness Studies 18: 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varela, Francisco J., Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. 1991. The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Andreas, and Francisco J. Varela. 2002. Life after Kant: Natural purposes and the autopoietic foundations of biological individuality. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 1(2): 97–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, Michael. 2011. Mind in life or life in mind? Making sense of deep continuity. Journal of Consciousness Studies 18: 148–168.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mog Stapleton .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stapleton, M., Froese, T. (2015). Is Collective Agency a Coherent Idea? Considerations from the Enactive Theory of Agency. In: Misselhorn, C. (eds) Collective Agency and Cooperation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Philosophical Studies Series, vol 122. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15515-9_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics