But seriously: what do algorithms want? Implying collective intentionalities in algorithmic relays. A distributed cognition approach
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Describing an algorithm can provide a formalization of a specific process. However, different ways of conceptualizing algorithms foreground certain issues while obscuring others. This article attempts to define an algorithm in a broad sense as a cultural activity of key importance to make sense of socio-cognitive structures. It also attempts to develop a sharper account on the interaction between humans and tools, symbols and technologies. Rather than human or machine-centered analyses, I draw upon sociological and anthropological theories that underline social practices to propose expanding our understanding of an algorithm through the notion of ‘collective intentionalities’. To make this term clear, a brief historical review is presented, followed by an argumentation on how to incorporate it in an integral perspective. The article responds to recent debates in critical algorithm studies about the significance of the term. It develops a discussion along the lines of cognitive anthropology and the cognitive sciences, therefore advancing a definition that is grounded in observed practices as well as in modeled descriptions. The benefit of this approach is that it encourages scholars to explore cognitive structures via archaeologies of technological assemblages, where intentionalities play a defining role in understanding socio-structured practices and cognitive ecologies.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Adams, F. and Aizawa, K., 2008. The Bounds of Cognition. 1st ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Adams, F. and Aizawa, K., 2010. Defending the Bounds of Cognition. In: R. Menary, ed. The Extended Mind [Online]. MIT Press, pp.67–80. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014038.003.0004.
Aiello, L.C. and Wheeler, P., 1995. The Expensive-Tissue Hypothesis: The Brain and the Digestive System in Human and Primate Evolution. Current Anthropology [Online], 36(2), pp.199–221. https://doi.org/10.1086/204350.
Bijker, W.E., 1999. Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. 3rd ed., Inside technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Blumer, H., 1986. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bourdieu, P., 1972. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Brandom, R.B., 1994. Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brandom, R.B., 2000. Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brentano, F., 1995. Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint [1874]. Ed. by O. Kraus and L.L. McAlister (A.C. Rancurello, D. Terrell and L.L. McAlister, Trans.), International Library of Philosophy. London; New York: Routledge.
Bryant, L.R., 2010. Onticology–A Manifesto for Object-Oriented Ontology Part I. Available at: <https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/object-oriented-ontology-a-manifesto-part-i/> [visited on 18 January 2023].
Callon, M., 1986. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay. In: J. Law, ed. Power, action, and belief: a new sociology of knowledge?, Sociological review monograph, 32. London; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp.196–233.
Cash, M., 2008. Thoughts and oughts. Philosophical Explorations [Online], 11(2), pp.93–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13869790802015635.
Cash, M., 2009. Normativity is the mother of intention: Wittgenstein, normative practices and neurological representations. New Ideas in Psychology [Online], 27(2), pp.133–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2008.04.010.
Certeau, M.d., 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life (S. Rendall, Trans.). Berkeley; Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Chant, S.R., Hindriks, F. and Preyer, a.G., eds., 2014. From Individual to Collective Intentionality: New Essays. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Clark, A., 1997. Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge; London: MIT Press.
Clark, A., 2003. Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Clark, A., 2015. What ‘Extended Me’ knows. Synthese [Online], 192(11), pp.3757–3775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0719-z.
Clark, A. and Chalmers, D., 1998. The extended mind. Analysis [Online], 58(1), pp.7–19. Available at: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/3328150> [visited on 3 June 2019].
Clemens, R., ed., 2016. The Voynich Manuscript. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
Clowes, R.W., 2019. Screen reading and the creation of new cognitive ecologies. AI & Society [Online], 34(4), pp.705–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0785-5.
Cole, M. and Engeström, Y., 1993. A Cultural-Historical Approach to Distributed Cognition. In: G. Salomon, ed. Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations, Learning in doing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp.1–46.
Connerton, P., 1989. How Societies Remember [Online]. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628061.
Cooren, F., Taylor, J.R. and Van Every, E.J., 2006. Communication as Organizing: Empirical and Theoretical Approaches into the Dynamic of Text and Conversation, LEA’s communication series. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dennett, D.C., 1991. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Douglas, M., 1986. How Institutions Think. 1st ed., The Frank W. Abrams lectures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Dourish, P., 2016. Algorithms and their others: Algorithmic culture in context. Big Data & Society [Online], 3(2), pp.1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716665128.
Dunbar, R.I.M., 1993. Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences [Online], 16(4), pp.681–694. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00032325.
Elster, J., 1983. Explaining Technical Change: A Case Study in the Philosophy of Science [Online], Studies in Rationality and Social Change. Cambridge; London et al.: Cambridge University Press. Available at: <http://archive.org/details/Elster1983ExplainingTechnicalChangeACaseStudyInThePhilosophyOfScienceBook> [visited on 18 January 2023].
Finn, E., 2017. What Algorithms Want: Imagination in the Age of Computing [Online]. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10766.001.0001.
Gallagher, S., 2005. How the Body Shapes the Mind. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press.
Gallagher, S., 2013. The socially extended mind. Cognitive Systems Research [Online], 25-26, pp.4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2013.03.008.
Gallagher, S. and Miyahara, K., 2012. Neo-Pragmatism and Enactive Intentionality. In: J. Schulkin, ed. Action, Perception and the Brain: Adaptation and Cephalic Expression [Online], New Directions in Philosophy and Cognitive Science. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp.117–146. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230360792_6.
Geertz, C., 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.
Glock, H.-J., 1986. Vygotsky and Mead on the Self, Meaning and Internalisation. Studies in Soviet Thought [Online], 31(2), pp.131–148. Available at: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/20100086> [visited on 18 January 2023].
Harman, G., 2002. Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects. 1st ed. Chicago: Open Court.
Hutchins, E., 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.
Hutchins, E., 2010. Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive Science [Online], 2(4), pp.705–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01089.x.
Knorr Cetina, K., 1997. Sociality with Objects: Social Relations in Postsocial Knowledge Societies. Theory, Culture & Society [Online], 14(4), pp.1–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327697014004001.
Laland, K.N., Odling-Smee, J. and Feldman, M.W., 2000. Niche construction, biological evolution, and cultural change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences [Online], 23(1), pp.131–146. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00002417.
Latour, B., 1992. Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts. In: W.E. Bijker and J. Law, eds. Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change, Inside technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.225–258.
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Clarendon lectures in management studies. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Lave, J., 1988. Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life [Online]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609268.
Law, J., 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research, International library of sociology. London; New York: Routledge.
Loh, K.K. and Kanai, R., 2016. How Has the Internet Reshaped Human Cognition? The Neuroscientist [Online], 22(5), pp.506–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858415595005.
Malafouris, L., 2005. The Cognitive Basis of Material Engagement: Where Brain, Body and Culture Conflate. In: E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden and C. Renfrew, eds. Rethinking Materiality: Engagement of Mind with Material World. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp.53–61.
Malafouris, L., 2008. At the Potter’s Wheel: An Argument for Material Agency. In: C. Knappett and L. Malafouris, eds. Material Agency: Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach [Online]. Berlin: Springer, pp.19–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74711-8_2.
Malafouris, L., 2010. Metaplasticity and the human becoming: principles of neuroarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 88(4), pp.49–72.
Malafouris, L., 2013. How Things Shape the Mind: A Theory of Material Engagement. Cambridge; London: MIT Press.
Malafouris, L., 2015. Metaplasticity and the Primacy of Material Engagement. Time and Mind [Online], 8(4), pp.351–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/1751696X.2015.1111564.
Mead, G.H., 1972. Mind, Self and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist [1934]. Ed. by C. Morris. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.
Medrano, M. and Urton, G., 2018. Toward the Decipherment of a Set of Mid-Colonial Khipus from the Santa Valley, Coastal Peru. Ethnohistory [Online], 65(1), pp.1–23. https://doi.org/10.1215/00141801-4260638.
Merleau-Ponty, M., 2005. Phenomenology of Perception: An Introduction [1945] (C. Smith, Trans.), Routledge classics. London; New York: Routledge.
Newell, A., Simon, H.A. and Shaw, J.C., 1958. Elements of a theory of human problem solving. Psychological Review [Online], 65(3), pp.151–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048495.
Orlikowski, W.J., 2007. Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work. Organization Studies [Online], 28(9), pp.1435–1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138.
Seaver, N., 2017. Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society [Online], 4(2), pp.1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717738104.
Tomasello, M., 2014. A Natural History of Human Thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Toscano, J., forthcoming. Intentionalities of the algorithm: historical practices and socio-computing infrastructures. A philosophical account. Lo Sguardo, 34(1).
Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Tool and Symbol in Child Development. In: M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner and E. Souberman, eds. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp.19–30.