Is an individual agent constitutive of or constituted by its social interactions? This question is typically not asked in the cognitive sciences, so strong is the consensus that only individual agents have constitutive efficacy. In this article we challenge this methodological solipsism and argue that interindividual relations and social context do not simply arise from the behavior of individual agents, but themselves enable and shape the individual agents on which they depend. For this, we define the notion of autonomy as both a characteristic of individual agents and of social interaction processes. We then propose a number of ways in which interactional autonomy can influence individuals. Then we discuss recent work in modeling on the one hand and psychological investigations on the other that support and illustrate this claim. Finally, we discuss some implications for research on social and individual agency.
Ashby, W.R. ( 1960). Design for a brain: The origin of adaptive behavior (2nd ed.). London, UK: Chapman and Hall.
2.
Auvray, M., Lenay, C., & Stewart, J. ( 2009). Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment . New Ideas in Psychology, 27(1), 32-47.
3.
Barandiaran, X., Di Paolo, E., & M. Rohde ( 2009). Defining agency: individuality, normativity, asymmetry and spatiotemporality in action. Adaptive Behavior, 17, 367-386.
4.
Beer, R.D. ( 1995). A dynamical systems perspective on agent-environment interaction. Artificial Intelligence, 72(1-2), 173-215.
5.
Beer, R.D. ( 1997). The dynamics of adaptive behavior: A research program . Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 20(2-4), 257-289.
6.
Beer, R.D. ( 2003). The dynamics of active categorical perception in an evolved model agent. Adaptive Behavior, 11(4), 209-243.
7.
Boden, M. ( 2006). Mind as machine: A history of cognitive science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brooks, R.A. ( 1997). From earwigs to humans. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 20(2-4), 291-304.
10.
Buck, J., & Buck, E. ( 1976). Synchronous fireflies. Scientific American , 234, 74-85.
11.
Cangelosi, A. ( 2007). Adaptive agent modeling of distributed language: investigations on the effects of cultural variation and internal action representations. Language Sciences, 29(5), 633-649.
12.
Clark, A. ( 1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
13.
Clark, A. ( 2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. ( 1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7-19.
15.
Cole, J. (in press). Impaired embodiment and intersubjectivity. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. doi: 10.1007/ s11097-009-9119-5.
16.
De Jaegher, H. ( 2009). Social understanding through direct perception? Yes, by interacting. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(2), 535-542.
17.
De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E.A. (2007). Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485-507.
18.
De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. ( 2008). Making sense in participation. An enactive approach to social cognition. In F. Morganti , A. Carassa, & G. Riva (Eds.), Enacting intersubjectivity: A cognitive and social perspective to the study of interactions. Amsterdam: IOS Press. 33-47.
19.
de Rugy, A., Salesse, R., Oullier, O., & Temprado, J.-J. (2006). A neuro-mechanical model for interpersonal coordination. Biological Cybernetics, 94, 427-443.
20.
Di Paolo, E.A. ( 2000). Behavioral coordination, structural congruence and entrainment in a simulation of acoustically coupled agents. Adaptive Behavior , 8, 25-46.
21.
Di Paolo, E.A. ( 2003). Organismically inspired robotics: homeostatic adaptation and teleology beyond the closed sensorimotor loop. In K. Murase & T. Asakura (Eds.), Dynamical systems approach to embodiment and sociality (pp. 19-42). Adelaide , Australia: Advanced Knowledge International.
22.
Di Paolo, E.A. ( 2005). Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 429-452.
23.
Di Paolo, E.A. ( 2009). Extended Life. Topoi. doi: 10.1007/ s11245-008-9042-3. 9-21.
24.
Di Paolo, E.A., Rohde, M., & De Jaegher, H. (in press). Horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social interaction, and play. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E. A. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Towards a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
Di Paolo, E.A., Rohde, M., & Iizuka, H. ( 2008). Sensitivity to social contingency or stability of interaction? Modelling the dynamics of perceptual crossing. New Ideas in Psychology, 26(2), 278-294.
26.
Fink, P.W., Kelso, J.A.S., Jirsa, V.K., & de Guzman, G. ( 2000). Recruitment of degrees of freedom stabilizes coordination . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(2), 671-692.
27.
Fogel, A. ( 1993). Developing through relationships: Origins of communication, self and culture. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
28.
Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E.A. (2008). Stability of coordination requires mutuality of interaction in a model of embodied agents. In M. Asada et al. (Eds.), From Animals to Animats 10: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (pp. 52-61). Berlin : Springer-Verlag.
29.
Froese, T., Virgo, N., & Izquierdo, E. ( 2007). Autonomy: a review and a reappraisal. In F. Almeida e Costa et al. (Eds.), Advances in Artificial Life: Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Artificial Life (pp. 455-464). Berlin: Springer-Verlag .
30.
Froese, T., & Ziemke, T. ( 2009). Enactive artificial intelligence: Investigating the systemic organization of life and mind. Artificial Intelligence, 173(3-4), 366-500.
31.
Fuchs, T., & De Jaegher, H. (in press). Enactive intersubjectivity: Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences.
32.
Gallagher, S. ( 2001). The practice of mind: theory, simulation or primary interaction ? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(5-7), 83-108.
33.
Gallagher, S. ( 2005). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
34.
Gergely, G., & Watson, J. ( 1999). Early social-emotional development: contingency perception and the social biofeedback model. In P. Rochat (Ed.), Early social cognition: Understanding others in the first months of life (pp. 101-137). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
Gibbs, R.W. Jr. ( 2001). Intentions as emergent products of social interactions . In B. F. Malle, L. J. Moses, & D. A. Baldwin (Eds.), Intentions and intentionality: Foundations of social cognition (pp. 105-122). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
Goffman, E. ( 1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48, 1-17.
37.
Goodwin, C. ( 1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
38.
Grammer, K., Kruck, K.B., & Magnusson, M.S. (1998). The courtship dance: Patterns of nonverbal synchronization in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22(1), 3-29.
39.
Granic, I. ( 2000). The self-organization of parent-child relations: beyond bidirectional models. In M. D. Lewis & I. Granic (Eds.), Emotion, development, and self-organization. Dynamic systems approaches to emotional development (pp. 267-297). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Harvey, I., Di Paolo, E.A., Wood, R., Quinn, M., & Tuci, E.A. ( 2005). Evolutionary robotics: A new scientific tool for studying cognition. Artificial Life, 11(1-2), 79-98.
41.
Hobson, R.P. ( 1991). Against the theory of "Theory of Mind." British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 33-51.
42.
Hutchins, E. ( 1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43.
Iizuka, H., & Ikegami, T. ( 2004). Adaptability and diversity in simulated turn-taking behavior Artificial Life, 10(4), 361- 378.
44.
Iizuka, H., & Di Paolo, E.A. (2007). Minimal agency detection of embodied agents. In F. Almeida e Costa et al. (Eds.), Advances in Artificial Life: Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Artificial Life (pp. 485-494). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
45.
Ikegami, T., & Iizuka, H. ( 2007). Turn-taking interaction as a cooperative and co-creative process. Infant Behavior & Development, 30(2), 278-288.
46.
Jirsa, V.K., Fuchs, A., & Kelso, J.A.S. ( 1998). Connecting cortical and behavioral dynamics: bimanual coordination. Neural Computation, 10(8), 2019-2045.
47.
Kelso, J.A.S. ( 1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behaviour. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
48.
Kirsh, D. ( 1991). Today the earwig, tomorrow man? Artificial Intelligence, 47(1-3), 161-184.
49.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. ( 1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50.
Marocco, D., & Nolfi, S. ( 2007). Emergence of communication in embodied agents evolved for the ability to solve a collective navigation problem. Connection Science, 19, 53- 74.
51.
Murray, L., & Trevarthen, C. (1985). Emotional regulations of interactions between two-month-olds and their mothers. In T. M. Field & N. A. Fox (Eds.), Social perception in infants (pp. 177-197). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
52.
Nadel, J., Carchon, I., Kervella, C., Marcelli, D., & Réserbat-Plantey, D. (1999). Expectancies for social contingency in 2-month-olds. Developmental Science, 2(2), 164-173.
53.
O’Regan, J.K., & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 24(5), 883-917.
54.
Quinn, M. ( 2001). Evolving communication without dedicated communication channels. Paper presented at the Advances in Artificial Life: 6th European Conference on Artificial Life (ECAL 2001), Prague.
55.
Quinn, M., & Noble, J. ( 2001). Modelling animal behaviour in contests: Conventions for resource allocation. In Advances in Artificial Life: Sixth European Conference on Artificial Life (ECAL 2001) (pp. 367-376). Berlin: Springer.
56.
Reddy, V., & Morris, P. ( 2004). Participants don’t need theories: Knowing minds in engagement. Theory and Psychology, 14(5), 647-665.
57.
Reed, K., Peshkin, M., Hartmann, M.J., Colgate, J.E., & Patton, J. ( 2005). Kinesthetic interaction. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics .
58.
Reed, K., Peshkin, M., Hartmann, M.J., Grabowecky, M., Patton, J., & Vishton, P.M. ( 2006). Haptically linked dyads: Are two motor-control systems better than one? Psychological Science, 17(5), 365-366.
59.
Russell, J. ( 1996). Agency: Its role in mental development. Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis.
60.
Sacks, H. ( 1992). Lectures on conversation Volumes I and II. Oxford: Blackwell.
61.
Schmidt, R.C., & O’Brien, B. (1997). Evaluating the dynamics of unintended interpersonal coordination. Ecological Psychology , 9, 189-206.
62.
Sheets-Johnstone, M. ( 1999). The primacy of movement. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.
63.
Steels, L., & Kaplan, F. ( 2002). Bootstrapping grounded word semantics. In T. Briscoe (Ed.), Linguistic evolution through language acquisition: Formal and computational models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64.
Stewart, J. ( 1996). Cognition = life: Implications for higher-level cognition . Behavioral Processes, 35, 311-326.
65.
Thelen, E., & Smith, L.B. ( 1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. London: Bradford.
66.
Thompson, E. ( 2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
67.
Varela, F.J. ( 1979). Principles of biological autonomy. New York: Elsevier North Holland.
68.
Varela, F.J. ( 1995). The re-enchantment of the concrete: Some biological ingredients for a nouvelle cognitive science. In L. Steels & R. Brooks (Eds.), The artificial life route to artificial intelligence (pp. 11-22). Hove , UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
69.
Varela, F.J., Maturana, H.R., & Uribe, R. ( 1974). Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. BioSystems, 5, 187-196.
70.
Vygotsky, L.S. ( 1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
71.
Vygotsky, L. ( 1986). Thought and language (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
72.
Weber, A., & Varela, F.J. ( 2002). Life after Kant: Natural purposes and the autopoietic foundations of biological individuality. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1, 97-125.
73.
Wheeler, M. ( 1997). Cognition’s coming home: the reunion of life and mind. In P. Husbands & I. Harvey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Artificial Life (pp. 10-19). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
74.
Winfree, A.T. ( 2001). The geometry of biological time. London : Springer.
