Abstract
Material Engagement Theory (MET) is currently driving a conceptual change in the archaeology of mind. Drawing upon the dictates of enactivism and active externalism, it specifically calls for a radical reconceptualization of mind and material culture. Unpersuaded by the common assumption that cognition is brain-bound, Malafouris argues in favour of a process ontology that situates thinking in action. In granting ontological primacy to material engagement, MET seeks to illuminate the emergence of human ways of thinking through the practical effects of the material world. Considering that this is a characteristic example of a pragmatic take on cognition, this contemporary theoretical platform appears to share a lot with pragmatism. As of late, scholars working at the intersection of philosophy, semiotics, and cognitive science have made important steps towards the rapprochement between pragmatism and externalism. Looking to contribute to this growing corpus of work, the present paper focuses on MET’s relation to the pragmatism of Peirce, Dewey, and Mead. Having elsewhere recognized the overlap and complementarity between Malafouris’ and Peirce’s theories in particular, I developed a pragmatic and enactive theory of cognitive semiotics that is suitably geared to trace the nature, emergence, and evolution of material signs. Therefore, besides noting some obvious historical connections, I hereby aim to establish (at least part of) the theoretical backdrop upon which this composite theory is supposed to function, while also exploring new potential avenues. Given that this cognitive semiotic framework can be seen as a pragmatic extension of Malafouris’ enactivist approach to archaeology, the current paper delves into MET’s theoretical underpinnings, seeking to complement its working hypotheses and concepts with philosophical notions and ideas advanced long ago. This synthesis ultimately concludes with a call for the reconceptualization of ‘representation’ as a heuristic concept.
Highlights
At the turn of the millennium, Colin Renfrew (2001) challenged the theoretical dispositions of cognitive archaeology by proposing that material culture substantiates its meaning
Seeking to reorient the theoretical dispositions of cognitive archaeology, Material Engagement Theory (MET) draws upon enactivism, a theory of cognition that is currently gaining momentum in philosophy and the cognitive sciences (Iliopoulos and Malafouris 2014)
Humans could be argued toconsciously address external perturbations through different kinds of embodied integration with material culture, harnessing the benefits of what MET calls their metaplasticity. Where does this theoretical exercise leave us? What is the point of all these connections between MET and pragmatism? At the risk of being repetitive, I concede yet again that this paper is in a way another piece of evidence for the relatively recent claim that pragmatism can be seen as a philosophical antecedent of the enactivist wave of thinking currently spreading in the cognitive sciences, including cognitive archaeology
Summary
At the turn of the millennium, Colin Renfrew (2001) challenged the theoretical dispositions of cognitive archaeology by proposing that material culture substantiates its meaning. As Malafouris (2013, p.244) succinctly puts it towards the end of his monograph on How Things Shape the Mind: The functional anatomy of the human mind (which includes the whole organism, that is, brain/CNS and body) is a dynamic bio-cultural construct subject to continuous ontogenetic and phylogenetic transformation by behaviourally important and socially embedded experiences These experiences are mediated and sometimes constituted by the use of material objects and artifacts (e.g., the blind man’s stick) which for that reason should be seen as continuous, integral, and active parts of the human cognitive architecture. Bringing together analytical tools developed by temporally-distant but theoretically-proximate theorists, enables the formation of a multi-faceted framework that helps address many of the issues encountered by those seeking to appreciate the meaning-making interactions past humans must have engaged in This analytical toolkit can provide a clear definition of material signification, and establish strict criteria for human forms of the sign function. With this plan in mind, we can proceed with the intended rapprochement
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
