Maturana’s Theory and Interpersonal Ethics
Hugh Gash
Log in to download the full text for free
> Citation
> Similar
> References
> Add Comment
Abstract
Context: Maturana’s views on cognitive processes and explaining have ethical implications. The aim of this paper is to link ethics and epistemology to facilitate thinking about how to promote respect between different viewpoints through mutual understanding. Method: Maturana’s views on ethics are outlined in three domains: the personal, the interpersonal, and the societal. Results: The ethical implications that emerge around the notion of reality with or without parenthesis, the concept of the legitimate other, and Maturana’s conjectures about the origins of human social groups. Social groups in which cooperation is more important than competition are based on love in the sense that others are accepted as legitimate members of the community. An epistemology that responds to the biological origins of human cognition is one that is more open to cooperation, honesty, responsibility, and respect than an epistemology that takes reality as given and the task of human cognition to represent truth. Implications: This framework for thinking about cognitive processes provides a way of approaching disagreements so they become opportunities for discussion rather than for power assertion of one reality over another. In a world where strongly held viewpoints on ethics and reality lead to conflict, promoting viable models of cognitive process that link cognition and ethics may lead to insights that promote tolerance. Ideas from attribution theory in social psychology are presented as a means of facilitating the emergence of the concept of the legitimate other in discussion about disagreements.
Key words: ethics, constructivist epistemology, legitimate other, reality in parenthesis
Citation
Gash H. (2011) Maturana’s theory and interpersonal ethics. Constructivist Foundations 6(3): 363–369. http://constructivist.info/6/3/363
Export article citation data:
Plain Text ·
BibTex ·
EndNote ·
Reference Manager (RIS)
Similar articles
References
Allport G. W. (1954) The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Dewey J. (1960) The quest for certainty. Capricorn, New York. Originally published as Dewey J. (1929) The quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action. Minton, Balch & Co, New York.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Gash H. (1992) Reducing prejudice: Constructivist considerations for special education. European Journal of Special Needs Education 7: 146–155.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Gash H. (1993) A constructivist attempt to promote positive attitudes towards children with special needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education 8: 106–125.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Gash H. (1996) Changing attitudes towards children with special needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education 11: 286–297.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (1979) Cybernetics, Experience and the concept of self. In: Ozer M. N. (ed.) A cybernetic approach to the assessment of children: Toward a more humane use of human beings. Westview Press, Boulder CO: 67–113.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (1991) Distinguishing the observer: An attempt at interpreting Maturana. Methodologia V(8): 57–68. Originally published in German as: Glasersfeld E. von (1990) Die Unterscheidung des Beobachters: Versuch einer Auslegung. In: Riegas V. & Vetter C. (eds.) Zur Biologie der Kognition. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt: 281–295.
http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/125.2
Glasersfeld G. von. (1974) Piaget and the radical constructivist epistemology. In: Smock C. D. & Glasersfeld E. von (eds.) Epistemology and education. Follow Through Publications, Athens GA: 1–24.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hamlyn D. W. (1978) Experience and the growth of understanding. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London & Boston.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Harris P. L. & Koenig M. A. (2006) Trust in testimony: How children learn about science and religion. Child Development 77: 505–524.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Heider F. (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley, New York.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kelley H. H. (1973) The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist 28: 107–128.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Mareschal G. & Westermann G. (2010) Mixing the old with the new and the new with the old. In: Johnson S. (ed.) Neoconstructivism: The new science of cognitive development. Oxford, New York: 213–228.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maturana H. R. (1990) Science and daily life: The ontology of scientific explanations. In: Krohn W., Küppers G. & Nowotny H. (eds.) Selforganization: Portrait of a scientific revolution. Kluwer, Dordrecht: 12–35.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Nemeroff C. & Rozin P. (2000) The makings of the magical mind: The nature and function of sympathetic magical thinking. In: Rosengren K., Johnson C. & Harris P. (eds.) Imagining the impossible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–34.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Piaget J. (1970) Piaget’s theory. In: Mussen P. H. (ed.) Carmichael’s handbook of child psychology. Wiley, New York: 703–732.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Putnam R. (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster, New York.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Shweder R. A. (1977) Likeness and likelihood in everyday thought: Magical thinking in judgments about personality. Current Anthropology 18(4): 637–658.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Tobias S. & Duffy T. D. (eds.) (2009) Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? Routledge, Taylor and Francis, New York.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Comments: 0
To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.
