[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[xmca] Origin of infant communication

Avis and Mike and Martin [and others on the infant theme]
What are the origins of infant engagement? I  want to give some ideas from Vasudevi Reddy. She writes
"A second-person approach [being addressed by a YOU] seems not only explain infant behavior better than either a first person {I position} or a third person "spectator" approach. It also changes the lens through which we PERCEIVE the problem of other minds that is expressed in much of the developmental literature. [that is, as a spectatorial process of observation of mere behavior across a gap]  The important difference between a 2nd person approach and a 1st person approach is that the emphasis here is NOT on recognition of the SIMILARITY to self of other peoples acts, but, crucially, of the EXPERIENCE of a RECIPROCAL RESPONSE to the others acts. The gap between minds becomes hard to find in this re-embodiment and this re-embedding.
Infants are capable of entering into dialogue [recognition and response] with other people remarkably early in life. {I would add this dialogical process EXPERIENCED recognition and response continues to INFORM communication throughout the lifespan}.  
Reddy points out many philosophers take this 2nd person perspective [or lens]: W. James called it "being noticed", Bahktin, the recognition of an "answering consciousness", Hegel, the awareness of recognition, and Buber, the experience of the I-thou relation.
This 2nd person concept refers to more than just "interpersonal attraction", more than just a recognition of a SIMILARITY of another person to the self, and more than just an INFERENCE from observation of movements.  
THE YOU is radically implicated in a 2nd person stance.
xmca mailing list