{"title":"所有的启示都是社会性的:吉布森社会本体论的基础","authors":"E. Baggs","doi":"10.1080/10407413.2021.1965477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Ecological psychology is built on a perception-oriented ontology. The primary focus has been on explaining the perception and action behavior of individual animals. To accommodate social phenomena within the ecological approach, it is necessary to expand the ontology, however theorists have been unclear about how to do this. The paper presents a negative argument and a positive programmatic outline. The negative argument is against the use of the term ‘social affordance’, a term that confuses the perspective of the researcher with that of the animal. Instead, it is advocated that we adopt, as a working hypothesis, the claim that all affordances are social; that is, all affordances are public and are, in principle, observable by a third party. The programmatic outline then shows that affordances alone are insufficient for describing social meaning. An ecological social ontology requires new tools for describing interaction processes, symbolic meaning, and material culture as structures occurring within the populated environment.","PeriodicalId":47279,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Psychology","volume":"33 1","pages":"257 - 278"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"All Affordances Are Social: Foundations of a Gibsonian Social Ontology\",\"authors\":\"E. Baggs\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10407413.2021.1965477\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Ecological psychology is built on a perception-oriented ontology. The primary focus has been on explaining the perception and action behavior of individual animals. To accommodate social phenomena within the ecological approach, it is necessary to expand the ontology, however theorists have been unclear about how to do this. The paper presents a negative argument and a positive programmatic outline. The negative argument is against the use of the term ‘social affordance’, a term that confuses the perspective of the researcher with that of the animal. Instead, it is advocated that we adopt, as a working hypothesis, the claim that all affordances are social; that is, all affordances are public and are, in principle, observable by a third party. The programmatic outline then shows that affordances alone are insufficient for describing social meaning. An ecological social ontology requires new tools for describing interaction processes, symbolic meaning, and material culture as structures occurring within the populated environment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47279,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecological Psychology\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"257 - 278\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecological Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2021.1965477\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2021.1965477","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
All Affordances Are Social: Foundations of a Gibsonian Social Ontology
Abstract Ecological psychology is built on a perception-oriented ontology. The primary focus has been on explaining the perception and action behavior of individual animals. To accommodate social phenomena within the ecological approach, it is necessary to expand the ontology, however theorists have been unclear about how to do this. The paper presents a negative argument and a positive programmatic outline. The negative argument is against the use of the term ‘social affordance’, a term that confuses the perspective of the researcher with that of the animal. Instead, it is advocated that we adopt, as a working hypothesis, the claim that all affordances are social; that is, all affordances are public and are, in principle, observable by a third party. The programmatic outline then shows that affordances alone are insufficient for describing social meaning. An ecological social ontology requires new tools for describing interaction processes, symbolic meaning, and material culture as structures occurring within the populated environment.
期刊介绍:
This unique journal publishes original articles that contribute to the understanding of psychological and behavioral processes as they occur within the ecological constraints of animal-environment systems. It focuses on problems of perception, action, cognition, communication, learning, development, and evolution in all species, to the extent that those problems derive from a consideration of whole animal-environment systems, rather than animals or their environments in isolation from each other. Significant contributions may come from such diverse fields as human experimental psychology, developmental/social psychology, animal behavior, human factors, fine arts, communication, computer science, philosophy, physical education and therapy, speech and hearing, and vision research.