Christopher Joseph An

Many accounts of the evolutionary origins of rule-following (or normative guidance) argue that rules and norms emerged out of the demands of cooperation in early human societies. This paper argues that this cooperation story is misguided because of the underlying telic or functional framework it relies on in explaining the emergence of normative agency. The fundamental philosophical claim here is that teleology does not entail normativity. So normative guidance does not follow from any telic/functional explanation. I consider a range of possible responses from advocates of the cooperation story, including a defence of the shared intentionality approach, and argue that they fall short. I suggest that a deontic rational structure (instead of a telic or functional one) better accounts for normative guidance. In place of cooperation, I put forward the notion of participation as a more viable alternative that captures this deontic structure. Participation is said to foreground joint commitment (in lieu of joint goals) and co-regulation (instead of cooperation or coordination) as two distinctive features structuring normative agency. I end by gesturing towards interdisciplinary work that operationally unpacks this participation view from a behavioural and comparative perspective suggesting the central role of social play as a key focal point in the evolutionary emergence of normative agency.

This thesis aims to make a contribution to a long-standing philosophical puzzle about how normativity fits within a naturalistic ontological view of the world. One specific arena in which this debate plays out, and which this thesis is devoted to, are evolutionary accounts of the emergence of norm-governed (or rule-following) agency. Recent proposals about the evolutionary origins of normativity have converged around the idea that norm-governed action and cognition emerged as an adaptive solution to problems of social cooperation in early human communities. I raise doubts about this view and argue that its general explanatory approach is misguided. I first discuss how action in this view has an underlying teleological structure that answers “Why?” explanatory questions, particularly questions of function (what it is for). I contend that any action explained in terms of an overall teleological structure/function cannot account for its normative features, if any. I contrast this with a participatory structure which ties normative agency to a shared practice that highlight elements like shared commitment (instead of shared goals), interpersonal (versus predictive or evidential) expectations, and co-regulation (not cooperation) as the basic relation between agents that shapes thought and action. I unpack norm-governed/rule-following agency as involving participatory commitment to a shared activity/practice that is mutually co-regulated amongst co-recognising participants through the giving and taking of interpersonally-mediated (i.e., communicable) reasons, intentional expressions, and expectations. In slogan form: normative guidance involves the co-regulated interactive dynamics amongst committed, co-recognising participants. Based on this account, I propose an alternative origin story which I label the Social Play Hypothesis (SPH) where I claim that the expression of social play (in human and non-human animals) within a developmental niche is the key evolutionary moment in the advent of normative agency. A central part of the SPH is a non-adaptationist, by-product-based evolutionary explanation of play that appeals to structural and developmental explanatory resources in accounting for its expression and fitness benefits. I argue that contexts of relaxed selection set the conditions for the animal to be in a state of “negative natural freedom” which results in the expression of spontaneously-attuned activities like play. With social play however, the structure and regulation of action shifts from individual evaluative states and biases to interpersonally-mediated constraints where co-regulated “rules of engagement” and especially the use of play-signals, which communicate commitment and expectations of “appropriate” moves, become behaviourally relevant. This is where I suggest behaviour starts to be cultivated by a participatory structure and instantiates a unique condition of “positive freedom.” I end by giving an account of the unique playful ontogenetic environment that is distinctive in the human socio-cognitive niche where a prolonged period of immaturity becomes salient in the overall development of the human normative agent. As a case study, I analyse the co-regulated structure of peekaboo play. I argue that peekaboo represents a game of “recognitional tag” in which a capacity for robust mutual recognition is cultivated and arguably provides a base-level scaffold for developing a thoroughgoing normative agent embedded in a highly co-regulated socio-cognitive developmental niche.

What does Wittgenstein say about the learning child? In the Philosophical Investigations, he writes, ‘An important part … will consist in the teacher’s pointing to the objects, directing the child’s attention to them, and at the same time uttering a word.’ Here Wittgenstein is describing what is called ‘joint attention’ which is agreed to be a rich resource for learning in children. In this essay, I explore the developmental significance of this passage particularly with regards the learning that occurs in the pre-linguistic child during joint attention. I refer to critical remarks elsewhere in the PI which can help further convey what Wittgenstein means when he talks about attentional capacities and how they develop, including the relevant ability for responsiveness required for the learning to proceed. These considerations should motivate a defence of the social initiation model of learning contra Luntley’s mentalist-individualist account, this despite conceding that certain prior capacities do play a role, though not a central one since these do not pick out the relevant ability (responsiveness) required for learning to take place in the child.

This paper aims to explore and expand on Wittgenstein’s remarks on the nature of mental imagery. Despite some rather cryptic passages and obvious objections, his notion of mental imagery as possessing a constitutive (and not merely added) element of expressive thought and conceptuality offers critical insights linking perceptual capacities with our shared practices. In particular I seek to further develop Wittgenstein’s claim that perceptual impressions presuppose a “mastery of a technique.” I argue that this sense of technique, understood as acquired conceptual capacities, can explain and capture the rich and varied spectrum of expressive visual content that can be accessed by human beings initiated and embedded in a variety of shared practices. Using Gilbert Ryle’s account of dispositions, I cash out the notion of acquired conceptual capacities as spanning a wide latitude of responsive dispositions from mere “blind” visual habits to more normatively-guided, intelligent, and deliberately-trained visual “skills.” Visual impressions construed as such are hardly perceptually (nor representationally) univocal and instead exhibit a dynamic and reflexive plurivocity manifested through one’s initiation into shared practices and forms of life. This plurivocity makes possible a rich array of visual affordances that would otherwise not be accessible outside the context of a shared practice. This suggests that human beings possess a distinctive kind of expressive and responsive intelligence which picks out visual affordances determined not so much by a merely receptive perceptual faculty but by the subject’s skillful, active, and responsive engagement with the world.

Compared with children, adults are widely assumed to possess more mature moral understanding thus justifying deference to their moral authority and testimony. This paper examines philosophical discussions regarding this child-adult moral relation and its implications for moral education, particularly accounts suggesting that the moral status of children constitute grounds for treating them paternalistically. I contend that descriptions and justifications of this paternalistic attitude towards children are either unacceptably crude or mistaken. While certain instances justify paternalistic treatment towards children, in the context of moral education the paternalistic attitude is largely irrelevant and even counterproductive. I make a case that children can readily meet minimal standards for moral understanding and engagement. Even when children have no final say, there is still a significant normative difference between deferring paternalistically to the adult's moral testimony and interacting with the child in moral conversation. These considered, I defend a social-contextualist account of moral education that incorporates a participatory (over a paternalistic) pedagogical attitude. Further, instead of portraying moral education in terms of stages (as argued by Kohlberg), moral education should be characterized more as a gradual appreciation of and sensitivity to normative demands that apply in various shared contexts and spheres of human concern.

This essay aims to develop the so-called ‘transformational view’ of human development (advocated by McDowell and Bakhurst) by advancing a play-based model of learning. I first consider challenges to this view posed by Luntley and Rödl who argue that the learning encounter must presuppose some rational faculty already present in the prelinguistic child. Rödl in particular considers joint attentional episodes in which child and adult attend to objects in their environment together as signifying a uniquely rational consciousness active in the human child. I however argue on phenomenological grounds that this intellectualist treatment is implausible and unconvincing. I propose a play-centered treatment (inspired primarily from Huizinga) that is more sensitive to the life of the child. This perspective of play I maintain scaffolds a shared normative space which enables self-conscious, responsive, and intelligible thought and action. This account motivates what I call a participatory play model of learning which is constitutively non-intellectual but is nonetheless intelligent. It is non-intellectual because it emphasizes building co-reactive relationships and participation in shared cultural practices. But it is also intelligent because it makes possible a distinctively human mode of understanding grounded on an interactive, relational, and imaginatively reflexive engagement with the world.