Human mind: Symbol processing view, situated view of mind

Human mind has been explored by numerous researchers and across many disciplines (psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, etc) and consequently several theoretical perspectives have emerged. For example, the American psychologist Jerome Bruner (1996, cited in McCormick and Murphy, 2008 p.4) has sketched human mind under two views: the computational and the cultural, while Eric Bredo (1995, cited in McCormick and Murphy, 2008 p.5) made a similar distinction between the symbol-processing and the situated view.

The operation of the mind under the symbol-processing view. (a Graphic representation inspired by Bredo’s distinction between symbol-processing and situated view of mind)

According to the symbol-processing view, human mind operates and develops under a linear model. Primarily, the brain receives the knowledge, which is located outside, in a real and objective world (physical or social). Then, knowledge, translated in the form of symbols, can be stored in mind. Finally, symbols cad be recalled on the occasion of a problem and manipulated towards the detection of the most effective solution

The advocates of sociocultural ideas disagree with the majority of the symbol-processing assumptions and concur mostly with the situated view. They argue that knowledge is subjective and everything is said, is said from a specific point of view. They also claim that mind is not located in the cranium, but rather is situated between individuals in social actions and that meaning is not obtained in an input/output model but rather is created dynamically when two or more voices come into contact.

views of mind
Symbol-processing	Situated
Theoretical ideas
Computationalism                                                    Socioculturalism
Objective reality	Subjective reality
Knowledge exists with or without humans	Knowledge exists when humans communicate
Local view of mind- Symbols are store locally in mind	Non-local view of mind- Meaning is distributed between individuals
Mind is passive receptor of knowledge	Mind is active agentive of meaning
Illustration
Figure 5. The relation between the two views of mind and the sociocultural ideas.

The above-mentioned, two views of mind (symbol processing vs. situated view) offer a sharp distinction between their characteristics, allowing sociocultural ideas to be safely positioned at the one end of the spectrum. But, from further readings it becomes apparent that the in-between variations are much more vague, and the several ideas are blurred with each other. For example, although the advocates of social constructivist argue that human mind is active, constructing knowledge through social interaction, nevertheless many theoreticians position them within symbol-processing view. So, a better understanding about how socioculturalism understands human mind should focus not only on the sharp differences between clearly contrasting ideas (local versus non-local, individual versus social) but also on the particular nuances and “novelties” that these ideas offer. 

Accordingly, I extracted two crucial and unique notions in relation to sociocultural ideas: the notion of “the agentive mind” and the notion of the “active participation” (McCormick and Murphy, 2008). According to the first notion, human mind operates in a cyclic way. following some steps: a) The individual co-participates in an activity, b) The individual contributes with his subjective perspective to the construction of the social perspective, c) The individual receives back the new in order to inform his learning d) The individual offers again his new understanding to the social world. The agentive mind is not local but lies between individuals in a constant process of sharing subjective perspectives and negotiating meaning (figure 6).

According to the second notion, knowledge emerges between people but only through the participation in an activity. In fact, knowledge and mind are merged with the activity, along with the tools, signs and skills associated with the activity (McCormick and Murphy, 2008 p.7).

Concluding, I would highlight that there are multiple views of mind and consequently the strict categorization of several theories and ideas is not a “close” and straightforward procedure. Hence, in order to relate sociocultural ideas with views of mind, I would prefer to position several ideological tendencies on a scale than to categorize them according to a classification table (as previously depicted in figure 4).

Views of mind
Passive receptor                          Constructive Mind                       Agentive mind
Other Ideas                                                  Sociocultural ideas
Figure 7. Scale presenting the relation of several views of mind with sociocultural ideas (based on McCormick and Murphy, 2008)

McCormick, R and Murphy, P. (2008) ‘Curriculum: The case for a focus on learning’ in Murphy, P and Hall, K. (eds) Learning and Practice. Agency and Identities, London, Sage Publications, pp. 3-18.

McCormick, R and Hall, K. (2008) ‘Introduction’ in Murphy, P and Hall, K. (eds) Learning and Practice.  Agency and Identities, London, Sage Publications,  pp. iv-xii.