Volume 6 · Number 2 · Pages 227–234
The Individual in Radical Constructivism. Some Critical Remarks from an Evolutionary Perspective

Peter M. Hejl

Download the full text in
PDF (262 kB)

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment

Abstract

Context: Ernst von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism (RC) develops two positions that are, for the founder of RC, necessarily linked: (1) all accessible realities are perceived realities, (2) perceived realities are “constructed” by “individuals.” Purpose: Von Glasersfeld refers quite often to the theory of evolution. Despite this frequent referring, he uses an evolutionary approach primarily when discussing the viability of constructs. Furthermore, although this use of evolutionary thinking is already restricted, it plays an even smaller part in the reception of RC. The first goal of this paper is to show that as a result of this restriction, individuals as “constructors” do not have enough properties to explain the production of behaviors that we observe. The second goal is to open a perspective on the much richer picture of human cognitive activities that results from the abolishment of this restriction. Approach: Starting with the difference between the interest of philosophers in the problem of “reality” and the problems that organisms have to solve in coping with their needs in varying environments, it is argued that, from an evolutionary perspective, only the perceived or “constructed” realities matter because they are the ones that allow organisms to survive, find partners, cooperate, etc. Hence, both the position of RC and the perception of the environment from an evolutionary perspective are compatible, as claimed by von Glasersfeld. Looking then at the individual, it is argued that RC mainly looks at the construction of realities as ontogenetic processes. Findings: As a result, the constructing individuals do not have enough properties to explain observable behavior or to predict the results of their cognitive constructions. Taking von Glasersfeld’s references to evolutionary theory seriously, it is argued that all organisms, and of course humans, have an evolutionary history that influences their construction of realities. Due to this broadly common background, all humans share an important number of inherited dispositions that influence the constructive processes of individuals. As a result, communication is possible, though not perfect, and there are transcultural (near-)universals and individual dispositions for solving reoccurring problems of social life, as shown by references to current research. Implications: The construct of the constructing individual in RC needs conceptual and interdisciplinary enrichment.

Key words: autopoiesis, communication, evolution, individual, regulation of social systems, universals

Citation

Hejl P. M. (2011) The individual in radical constructivism. Some critical remarks from an evolutionary perspective. Constructivist Foundations 6(2): 227–234. http://constructivist.info/6/2/227

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

Similar articles

Cadenas H. & Arnold M. (2015) The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms
Maturana H. R. (2012) Reflections on My Collaboration with Francisco Varela
Leydesdorff L. (2012) Radical Constructivism and Radical Constructedness: Luhmann’s Sociology of Semantics, Organizations, and Self-Organization
Bettoni M. C. (2007) The Yerkish Language: From Operational Methodology to Chimpanzee Communication
Palmaru R. (2012) Making Sense and Meaning: On the Role of Communication and Culture in the Reproduction of Social Systems

References

Antweiler C. (2009) Was ist den Menschen gemeinsam? Über Kultur und Kulturen. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Axelrod R. (1984) The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Barkow J. H. (1989) Darwin, sex, and status. Biological approaches to mind and culture. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Barkow J. H., Cosmides L. & Tooby J. (eds.) (1992) The adapted mind. Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Baron-Cohen S. (1997) Mindblindness. An essay on autism and theory of mind. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Benseler F., Hejl P. M. & Köck W. K. (eds.) (1980) Autopoiesis, communication, and society. The theory of autopoietic systems in the social sciences. Campus, Frankfurt/Main. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Boyd R. & Silk J. B. (2003) How humans evolved. W. W. Norton, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Brandstätter E., Gigerenzer G. & Hertwig R. (2006) The priority heuristic. Making choices without tradeoffs. Psychological Review 113: 409–432. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Brown Donald E. (1991) Human universals. McGraw-Hill, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Buss D. M. (1989) Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12(1): 1–49. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Buss D. M. (2004) Evolutionary psychology. The new science of the mind. Pearson Education, Boston. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Buunk A. P., Park J. H., Zurriaga R., Klavina L. & Massar K. (2008) Height predicts jealousy differently for men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior 29(2): 133–139. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza L. L., Piazza A., Menozzi P. & Mountain J. (1988) Reconstruction of human evolution: Bringing together genetic, archaelogical, and linguistic data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 85(15): 6002–6006. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Chiappe D. & Macdonald K. (2005) The Evolution of domain-general mechanisms in intelligence and learning. The Journal of General Psychology 132(1): 5–40. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Cosmides L. & Tooby J. (2005) Neurocognitive adaptations designed for social exchange. In: Buss D. M. (ed.) The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Wiley, Hoboken NJ: 584–627. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Drosdowski G., Grebe P., Köster R. & Müller W. (eds.) (1963) Duden. Etymologie. Herkunftswörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Eibl-Eibesfeldt I. & Salter F. K. (eds.) (1998) Indoctrinability, ideology, and warfare. Evolutionary perspectives. Berghahn, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Engel C. & Singer W. (eds.) (2008) Better than conscious? Decision making, the human mind, and implications for institutions. Strüngmann Forum Reports. MIT-Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fehr E. & Gächter S. (2002) Altruistic punishment in humans. Human Nature 415: 137–140. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fehr E., Fischbacher U. & Gächter S. (2002) Strong reciprocity, human cooperation and the enforcement of social norms. Human Nature 13: 1–25. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Feinberg D. R., DeBruine L. M., Jones B. C. & Little A. C. (2008) Correlated preferences for men’s facial and vocal masculinity. Evolution and Human Behavior 29(4): 233–241. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Feyerabend P. (1975) Against method. Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. NLB, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Foerster H. von (1981) Observing systems. With an introduction by Francisco Varela. Intersystems, Seaside CA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Gangestad S. W., Thornhill R. & Garver-Apgar C. E. (2010) Men’s facial masculinity predicts changes in their female partners’ sexual interests across the ovulatory cycle, whereas men’s intelligence does not. Evolution and Human Behavior 31(6): 412–424. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Gardiner L. (2008) Polar Bears on Thin Ice. Windows to the Universe, National Earth Science Teachers Association. http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/polar/polar_bears_jan07.html
Gigerenzer G., Todd P. M. & the ABC Research Group (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Evolution and cognition. Oxford University Press, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (1987) Preliminaries to any theory of representation. In: Janvier C. (ed.) Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ: 215–225. http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/105.
Glasersfeld E. von (1995) Radical constructivism. A Way of knowing and learning. Falmer Press, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (2008) Who conceives of society? Constructivist Foundations 3(2): 59–64. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/3/2/059.glasersfeld.
Goodman A. & Koupil I. (2010) The effect of school performance upon marriage and long-term reproductive success in 10,000 Swedish males and females born 1915–1929. Evolution and Human Behavior 31(6): 425–435. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hejl P. M. (1992) Die zwei Seiten der Eigengesetzlichkeit. Zur Konstruktion natürlicher Sozialsysteme und dem Problem ihrer Regelung. In: Schmidt S. J. (ed.) Kognition und Gesellschaft. Der Diskurs des Radikalen Konstruktivismus 2. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main: 167–213. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hejl P. M. (1992) Politik, Pluralismus und gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung. In: Busshoff H. (ed.) Politische Steuerung. Steuerbarkeit und Steuerungsfähigkeit. Beiträge zur Grundlagendiskussion. Nomos, Baden-Baden: 107–142. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hejl P. M. (2011) Zur Mechanik autonomen Verhaltens von Individuen und sozialen Systemen. In: Arnold R. (ed.) Veränderung durch Selbstveränderung. Impulse für das Changemanagement. Schneider, Hohengehren: 51–96. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hejl P. M. (ed.) (2001) Universalien und Konstruktivismus. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hejl P. M., Köck W. K. & Roth G. (eds.) (1978) Wahrnehmung und Kommunikation. Lang, Frankfurt/Main. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ho T. C., Brown S. & Serences J. T. (2009) Domain general mechanisms of perceptual decision making. The Journal of Neuroscience 29: 8675–8687. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hopcroft R. L. (2006) Sex, status, and reproductive success in the contemporary United States. Evolution and Human Behavior 27(2): 104–120. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Li J. Z., Absher D. M., Tang H., Southwick A. M., Casto A. M., Ramachandran S., Cann H. M., Barsh G. S., Feldman M., Cavalli-Sforza L. L. & Myers R. M. (2008) Worldwide human relationships inferred from genome-wide patterns of variation. Science 319: 1100–1104. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Marlowe F. W., Apicella C. L. & Reed D. (2005) Men’s preferences for women’s profile waist-to-hip ratio in two societies. Evolution and Human Behavior 26(6): 458–468. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Merriam-Webster Online (2011) Entry “individual (noun).” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individual.
Moore F. R., Cassidy C., Smith M. J. L. & Perrett D. I. (2006) The effects of female control of resources on sex-differentiated mate preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior 27(3): 193–205. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Murdock G. P. (1945) The common denominator of cultures. In: Linton R. (ed.) The science of man in the world crisis. Columbia University Press, New York: 123–142. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Piaget J. (1928) Logique génétique et sociologie. Revue Philosophique 105: 167–205. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Pinker S. (2002) The Blank Slate. The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Viking Penguin, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Price M. E., Cosmides L. & Tooby J. (2002) Punitive sentiment as an anti-free rider psychological device. Evolution and Human Behavior 23(3): 203–231. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Puts D. A. (2010) Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior 31(3): 157–175. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Richter K. (1999) Die Herkunft des Schönen. Grundzüge der evolutionären Ästhetik. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Roth G. & Schwegler H. (eds.) (1981) Self-organizing systems. An interdisciplinary approach. Campus, Frankfurt/Main. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Roth G. (2009) Aus Sicht des Gehirns. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Schmid M. (2006) Die Logik mechanismischer Erklärungen. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Segal N. L. (1999) Entwined lives. Twins and what they tell us about human behavior. Dutton, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Shinada M., Yamagishi T. & Ohmura Y. (2004) False friends are worse than bitter enemies: “Altruistic” punishment of in-group members. Evolution and Human Behavior 25(6): 379–393. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Shoemaker P. J. & Cohen A. A. (2006) News around the world. Content, practioners, and the public. Routledge, New York, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Singh D. (1993) Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(2): 293–307. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Singh D., Renn P. & Singh A. (2007) Did the perils of abdominal obesity affect depiction of feminine beauty in the sixteenth to eighteenth century British literature? Exploring the health and beauty link. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 274: 891–894. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Tattersall I. (2009) Human origins: Out of Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(38): 16018–16021. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Tooby J. & Cosmides L. (1992) The psychological foundations of culture. In: Barkow J. H., Cosmides L. & Tooby J. (eds.) The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press, New York: 19–135. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Uhl M. & Hejl P. M. (2010) Die alten Geschichten sind die Besten. Eine evolutionstheoretisch-inhaltsanalytisch vergleichende Untersuchung westlicher und indischer Erfolgsfilme. In: Buck M., Hartling F. & Pfau S. (eds.) Randgänge der Mediengeschichte. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden: 299–312. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Voland E. & Grammer K. (eds.) (2003) Evolutionary aesthetics. Springer, Berlin. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Voland E. (2005) Das “Handicap-Prinzip” und die biologische Evolution der ästhetischen Urteilskraft. In: Schnell R. (ed.) Wahrnehmung, Kognition, Ästhetik. Neurobiologie und Medienwissenschaften. transcript, Bielefeld: 35–60. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Wang S., Lewis Cecil M., Jakobsson M., Ramachandran S., Ray N., Bedoya G., Rojas W., Parra M. V., Molina J. A., Gallo C., Mazzotti G., Poletti G., Hill K., Hurtado A. M., Labuda D., Klitz W., Barrantes R., Bortolini M. C., Salzano F. M. Petzl-Erler M. L., Tsuneto L. T., Llop E., Rothhammer F., Excoffier L., Feldman M. W., Rosenberg N. A. & Ruiz-Linares A. (2007) Genetic variation and population structure in native Americans. PLoS Genetics 3(11): e185. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2082466/.
Waynforth D., Delwadia S. & Camm M. (2005) The influence of women’s mating strategies on preference for masculine facial architecture. Evolution and Human Behavior 26(5): 409–416. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Weingart P., Mitchell S. D., Richerson P. J. & Maasen S. (eds.) (1997) Human by nature. Between biology and the social sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah NJ. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Wolf H., Spinath F. M. & Angleitner A. (2003) Ähnlich und doch verschieden? Forschung. Das Magazin der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft 1: 8–10. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Wuketits F. M. & Antweiler C. (eds.) (2004) Handboook of evolution. The evolution of human societies and cultures. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Zhu Y., Li Z., Jin F. & Shihui H. (2007) Neural basis of cultural influence on self-representation. NeuroImage 34: 1310–1316. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.