Theory of Mind - Tanya Etc

TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL
THEORY OF MIND
OVERVIEW
• TANYA MARIE LUHRMANN •
The short position papers assembled here arose out of an interdisciplinary conference
held to explore the implications of broadening and developing what is called ‘theory of
mind’. The conference was held at Stanford University in September, 2011. Our goal was
to discuss the known and possible consequences of cultural variations in models of mind
inferred by social actors in different social settings. These questions are new, or at least
controversial, in anthropology and in psychology, because what psychologists call “theory
of mind” is often construed as a universal developmental achievement. Without denying
this developmental milestone, we believed that there are differences in the models of
mind which people in different cultural settings were encouraged in infer, and we believed
that there might be significant consequences which followed from these differences. We
hoped to develop a shared interdisciplinary conversation out of which good comparative
work could emerge. To this end, we invited both anthropologists and psychologists to
participate. We asked all participants to prepare short position papers: statements which
set out the author’s evidential base, and which made a broad claim, based on that evidence,
about the consequence of culturally different theories of mind, broadly construed. These
position papers are quite interesting. We present them here in the hopes that they lead to
a broader conversation about these questions. We hope that this comparative analysis will
lead us towards an anthropological theory of mind.
Theory of mind is a well-established construct in developmental psychology (Wellman,
Cross and Watson 2001). Psychologists have demonstrated that the basic presumption
that the mind is separate from the world is one of the most definitive achievements
of childhood development. By the age of three, more or less—there is a good deal of
controversy—toddlers understand that mental states can explain behavior. The classic
experiment is the ‘False Belief ’ task. A child and the child’s mother watch an experimenter
hide a toy. Then the mother leaves the room, and the experimenter moves the toy to a
new hiding place. When the mother returns, the experimenter asks the child where the
mother thinks the toy will be. Very young children point to the second hiding place,
because that is where the toy actually is. Older children understand that the mother
does not know that the toy has been moved, and so they point to the pillow. They have
developed what psychologists call a ‘theory of mind’. They understand that what people
think may be different from what has happened in the world. They understand that
people hold different ideas, and that the different ideas they hold may explain what they
do. And they know that their own thoughts cannot be known by other people unless they
Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 5

36(4) Winter 2011
PO Box 59, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORY OF MIND
tell them. They no longer act, as very young children do, as if other people cannot see
them when they shut their own eyes.
The motivation behind the conference was an anthropological suspicion that the
inferred theory of mind is both universal and culturally particular. There is no doubt that
humans in all known cultures learn to infer intention and knowledge from the behavior
of other humans; yet at the same time, ethnographers observe that the inferences they
draw are probably shaped not only by developmental capacity but by cultural specificity.
For example, Eve Danzinger (2006) has found that Mopan Mayans explicitly disregard
mental states. They de-emphasize fantasy and pretend play (as Susanne Gaskin [in press]
also demonstrates for Yucatec Mayans). This has consequences for how people operate in
the world. For example, in relation to language, what counts is the direct word-to-world
fit, the relationship of speech and fact—not whether the speaker, at the time of uttering,
believed that the spoken claim was accurate. Danzinger uses this example to demonstrate
that the standard psychological theory of theory of mind is culturally Euro-American.
The Mayan child is not behaving in the way that many theorists have suggested, explicitly
formulating models of mental states. The child does draw the correct inferences, but
in a way different from the Euro-American expectations of the mind. What are the
implications of this observation?
Our conference established that we had rich ethnographic evidence to support the
presence of cultural variations in ideas about mind that were sufficiently powerful to
justify the use of the word ‘theory’. That is (to use the helpful account of Gopnik and
Meltzoff 1997), these ideas identify evidence; they are at least somewhat abstract; they
specify relations between theory and evidence; they are causal; and they make ontological
commitments. We found evidence for complex causal models of mind that could be
described as theories within specific communities.
Different theories of mind
We identified at least six such theories.

The Euro-American modern secular theory of mind: in this theory of mind, people
treat the mind as if there is in effect a clear boundary between what is in the mind, and
what is in the world. Entities in the world, supernatural or otherwise, do not enter the
mind, and thoughts do not leave the mind to act upon the world. The assertion that they
do is seen as a symptom of mental illness (thought insertion and thought withdrawal).
What is in the mind is not real in the way that tables and chairs are real; one can speak of
‘mere’ imagination. At the same time, what is held in the interior of the mind is causally
important. Intentions and emotions are powerful and can even make someone ill.
The Euro-American modern supernaturalist theory of mind: this theory can be
found undergirding charismatic Christianity, contemporary Chinese healing, alternative
bereavement practices, paganism, and other practices that are sometimes identified as
‘new age’. Here people treat the mind as if it conformed to the modern secular theory,
except in specific respects. The mind-world boundary becomes permeable for God, or
for the dead person, or for specific ‘energies’ that are treated as having causal power and,
usually, their own agency. The individual learns to identify these supernatural presences,
6 Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011

often through implicit or even explicit training. Other features of the secular theory apply.
The training becomes important because the secular model of mind is the default model
with which these individuals work.
The opacity of mind theory: this theory is found in varying forms throughout the
South Pacific and Melanesia. Its most striking feature is the insistent refusal to infer
what other people are thinking unless they verbalize their intentions. In these societies,
asserted intention is taken to be causally powerful in a way that felt intention is not. That
is, whatever one’s actual intention may be, the intention one asserts (or is taken to have
asserted) is taken to be causally powerful. The impropriety of inferring privately held
intention is so great that it can be impolite to look directly into another’s eyes. At the
same time, the boundary between the mind and the world is often porous, so that spirits
(or the Holy Spirit) pass back and forth across it.
The transparency of language theory: in these societies, for which our best examples
come from Central America, language is understood to align with the world rather than
to express interior states. Fiction may be frowned upon; play by children may be tolerated
but not encouraged. The vocabulary to describe mental states may be thin or near-non-
existent. Most notably (to ethnographers) beliefs that happen to be false but are not
understood to be false by the speaker may be identified as ‘lying’. When an utterance is
assessed, what matters is its truth-relationship to the world rather than its relationship to
the intention of the speaker.
The mind control theory: our best example of this theory locates it in Thailand, but
it can be found in different versions throughout Asia. In Thailand, the most important
concern around the mind is how well it is controlled. One can have a well-controlled
mind, or one that is less well-controlled. When the mind is poorly controlled, emotions
and intentions become powerful and can enter other poorly controlled minds as ghosts
or spirits. Thoughts thus are real in a way that is quite different from the Euro-American
model. One’s mind(s) can be unbunched, and can wander. Thoughts can act in the world
and on other minds in ways that are only partially related to those that first thought
them.
Perspectivism: this theory suggests that the world is dependent on the perspective one
takes on it. Many Amazonian peoples are held to conceptualize theoretically the world
as if it is seen from a particular perspective: a human’s or a jaguar’s, for example. Here
there is a great deal of interest in the idea that what appears to be blood to a human
may seem to be beer to a jaguar (for instance). There is an expectation that a human can
become a jaguar and vice versa. The most important feature of a mind seems to be that it
can migrate from body to body. People sometimes fear ending up in a non-human form
permanently. People can make claims that they have seen other people becoming non-
human, or been with humans who become non-human.
Dimensions of mind
These theories differ systematically along several dimensions (and no doubt more):
The degree to which the mind is ‘bounded’ or ‘porous’: are other minds (God, spirits)
understood to be able to be present inside the mind? Can thoughts themselves cross
Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011 7

back and forth across this barrier? The porous/bounded dichotomy was proposed by
Charles Taylor (2007) as a way to distinguish judgments about the supernatural made
by Westerners and some non-Westerners. Taylor was writing about selves, but he was
actually describing differences in the experience of mind. While his distinction provoked
controversy, it captures real differences between theories of mind in different social
settings.
The degree to which interiority matters: are emotions and thoughts understood to
be causally powerful and significant? Are emotions allowable explanations for behavior
or for illness experience? One of the early scholarly discussions of this question has been
whether Christianity invented the individual—not whether individuals exist outside
of Christian contexts, but whether Christianity increased the social value placed on
individual intention and emotion in a way which strikingly altered the way people
understood intention and emotion (Morris 1972; Jaynes 1976 makes a related point).
One of the shocking consequences for Melanesians who become Christian is that their
interior thoughts are given a meaning that was previously absent, and as a result, their
attempts to be scrupulously devout always fail, to their dismay (Robbins 2004).
The epistemic stance: the degree to which thoughts and the imagination are represented
as ‘real’. The imagination has had different statuses with respect to the real across Western
history. In the medieval European era, the imagination was presumed to be the route to
the true reality (Karnes 2011), as it was also for Plato. The ephemeral, merely personal
importance of what the mind imagines is emphasized in the post-enlightenment period
(Abrams 1953). These different stances also occur within non-Western contexts. Thai
Buddhists, for example, go to considerable effort to experience attachment as non-real
(Cassaniti 2009).
The sensorial weighting: the social importance given to specific senses. While all
humans share the same sensory apparatus, different social settings draw attention to the
senses in different ways. European-American culture tends to pay little attention to, or
even debases, the sense of smell (Classen 1993); the sense of sight is culturally dominant,
or at least argued to be so (the classic statement is Ong 1982). Stephen Levinson’s group
at the Max Planck Institute has been able to demonstrate that presented with the same
stimuli for the five traditional senses (Munsell color chips, distinct geometric shapes,
scratch and sniff cards, specific sounds, etc.) there is considerable variation between
societies in whether individuals were able to name the stimuli in the same way, suggesting
a real range in cultural attention to different senses (Majid and Levinson 2010).
Relational access and relational responsibility: whether it is socially allowable to display
knowledge of inferences about other minds and whether inferred knowledge (as opposed
to socially shared knowledge) confers responsibility to act. Asian cultures appear to place
more importance on the observer’s capacity to infer the wants and needs of others, while
western cultures emphasize the importance of individual choice (Markus and Kitayama
1991). These differences presume a different capacity to know other minds. The westerner
who presumes that a guest should choose implicitly asserts that the guest’s mind is not
knowable without verbal interaction; in a Japanese setting, the host is presumed to be able
to know the other’s inner desires.

How these different theories matter
How do these differences in theories of mind matter? If they are truly theories held by
people who use the models to interpret and respond to their worlds, then there should be
consequences for behavior, ways of responding to distress and infirmity, child development
and social relationships. Our discussion came to the conclusion that different theories of
mind do matter, but that we had better evidence for some consequences than for others.
Do different theories of mind matter developmentally?
The group (most of whom were not developmentalists) found evidence that there might
be important developmental consequences to theories of mind. Luke Butler and Ellen
Markman presented evidence that US children pay attention to new knowledge that
adults indicate is important, suggesting that it is not the knowledge itself but the social
invitation that directs learning. Barbara Rogoff contrasted a model of learning among the
Maya, in which the child is seen as a participating community member, to one in which
the child is seen as not-fully-participating and learning must be adult-directed. Among
the Maya, there was an emphasis on learning through collaborative interaction and among
the Americans, on learning through explicit transmission of knowledge by experts. These
pedagogical styles seemed to rest on different theories about how one learns from other
minds, a difference which entailed calm, evenly distributed attention in the one case,
and self-focused, expert-directed attention in the other. Those differences were vividly on
display in video illustrations of children from the different communities.
Suzanne Gaskins developed this theme about different understandings of mind
developed in the Mayan world, where children organize their own learning through
observation and participation, and the American world, where children are socialized
to attend to experts and authorities. Mayan infants point less. Their attention is wide-
angled and abiding, rather than narrow and sustained in bursts. There are differences in
play across US and Mayan Yucatec children also. Mayan children’s play is limited to what
they observe in their everyday world, while US children play at imagining worlds that do
not exist—worlds of fairies and dragons and make-believe. In fact, US parents encourage
their children to ‘develop their imaginations’ by creating fanciful worlds during play-
time, whereas Mayan parents tolerate, but do not encourage, any form of play.
Neither Graham Jones nor Michelle Karnes worked with children, but their studies
of adult play and imagination suggest that there are significant differences in theories of
mind even within the history of Europe which might have consequences for childhood
development. Karnes described the medieval European focus on the imagination as the
source of true knowledge; Jones explained that the European stage magician knows that
in order to be successful, he must cultivate false beliefs in his audience. For the former,
imagination is reliable and important to cultivate; for the latter, imagination is for dupes.
These different theories of play, fantasy and make-believe—different epistemic stances
on what the mind imagines, one Platonic, the other rationalistic—might well have
consequences for the way children learn to ascribe truth-status to assertions.

Do different theories of mind make a difference to the experience of mind?
The group had a good deal of evidence that different theories of mind could indeed make
a difference to mental experience. Kathyrn Geurts’ analysis of the Ghanaian Anlo-Ewe
demonstrated that the Anlo-Ewe understood mind as in part somatic, because of their
different sensory hierarchy, and not as contained privately in an opaque container. That
different emphasis on a more kinesthetic awareness could be shown to have significant
consequences for the way they identified emotion (according to standard measures, they
paid less attention to it) and attended to their bodies (to which they paid far more attention
than Americans). Danilyn Rutherford found that her developmentally disabled daughter’s
different sensory capacities seemed to alter the way she attended to her environment and
body.
Alexa Hagerty demonstrated that those who learn to pay attention to signs that the
dead are present do in fact learn to experience the dead as present: to feel the dead, to
know the dead and indeed to interact with the dead. In my own work, I also found
that American evangelicals learn to adopt a theory of mind in which the supernatural
is found within the mind, and that seeking the supernatural, in the form of God, often
leads to encounters with it. Indeed, I found that the way people pay attention to mental
experience changes mental experience—not just in culturally expected ways (if you seek
God’s presence you will feel it) but in unexpected ones (prayer practices that demand
attention to internal experience seem to make mental imagery more vivid and increase
the likelihood of unusual sensory experience).
A number of presenters argued that different theories of mind change emotional
experience. Allen Tran gave an example of the modern Vietnamese, who have only recently
adopted a theory of mind that valorizes emotions and their vicissitudes. He finds that this
new theory seems to make their emotions more intense—and that they have become
newly and acutely attentive to anxiety. Julia Cassaniti is persuaded that the Thai among
whom she did her fieldwork are not simply repressing their strong emotions; their theory
of mind, in which people should not be attached to people and events in the world, seems
to genuinely alter their emotional reactivity.
Do different theories of mind make a difference to illness experience and health?
Again, the group seemed to have good evidence that they do. Rob Barrett (2004) found,
in a well known study, that the Iban who could be diagnosed with schizophrenia did not
report thought insertion and thought withdrawal (when people feel that thoughts have
been placed in and taken out of the mind) because they did not hold a model of the mind
as a container. Dedre Gentner drew our attention to the fact that different eras in European
history used different models of the mind that drew from the technology of their times,
and suggested that consequences similar to Barrett’s could follow. Metaphors matter, as
Lera Boroditsky pointed out. Sonya Pritzker described the way that Americans learning
Chinese medicine encountered a new theory of mind in which emotional distress could
be diagnosed and treated through the manipulation of the body. She described the way
people came to feel their sadness in their wrists and other body parts, and how they came

to feel bodily manipulation change it. Giulia Mazza compared the experience of psychosis
in India and the United States, and argued that one of the major differences arose from the
awareness of diagnostic labels in the United States and the ability to interpret distressing
voices as a symptom of illness. This available model of a ‘broken brain’ permeated the
experience of Americans with schizophrenia, but was virtually absent in her Indian field
subjects.
Meanwhile, Jocelyn Marrow found that the hierarchical structure of South Asian
families meant that empathy was asymmetrical. Elders were understood to know what
was best for juniors by drawing on a broad array of knowledge; juniors were acutely
aware of the desires, emotions and expectations of the specific elders who cared for them.
She argues this asymmetry arises out of a distinctive theory of mind in which minds are
continuously reconstituted through interaction with others. When the interaction is not
understood to be positive or possible, people fall ill. Both Jason Throop and Douglas
Hollan also make an argument that empathy is local; that different ways of understanding
the mind lead to different ways of empathizing; and that different kinds of empathy had
consequences for the way people experience compassion and suffering.
Do different theories of mind interfere with knowledge of the other’s intentions?
This was the question more specific to theory of mind research as it now stands—and it
was the question to which the group did not feel that we yet had much of an answer. The
question was raised initially in a well known article by Angela Lillard (1998), who noted
that although different social groups might assert an inability to know other’s minds, it
did not follow that they did not speculate about other’s intentions. The question is most
acute in understanding the impact of the opacity of mind theory. Joel Robbins and others
who worked in the South Pacific and Melanesia felt that we needed experimental evidence
to complement ethnographic description. This was a point Rita Astuti made early on in
the discussions, and which she has made in her work: that what people assert culturally is
often an assertion of how the world should be, rather than a description of what they find
in the world. This is provocative because it argues that what ethnographers sometimes
take to be a society’s worldview on the basis of what they say (for example, that there is
no difference between biological inheritance and social learning) may be inaccurate. In
her work, she found that the statements people made explicitly were contradicted by the
implicit understandings they revealed in an experimental probe.
The question of how far the cultural model of the opacity of mind could go in shaping
people’s ability to infer intention became one of the most interesting debates of the
gathering. Jason Throop suggested that the behavior of his field subjects might in fact
indicate that those with an opacity of mind theory were actually more attentive to other’s
intentions as a result. Rupert Stasch seemed to agree; he thought that the Melanesians with
whom he worked used the opacity theory to maintain autonomy in a small society, and
raised the question of whether autonomy and opacity of mind might be associated. John
Lucy, while not working in Melanesia but among the Maya, made a strong argument for
the dependency of theory of mind on language and on the representation of mental states.
Bambi Schieffelin was clear about the hard work her Melanesian subjects did socializing

school children not to speculate on inner states; she thought such schooling might well
have consequences. Eve Danzinger echoed Rita Astuti’s observation that culture shapes
fundamental psychological processes like theory of mind, but does not transform them
beyond recognition.
We agreed that this was a question that would best be answered by experimental work
that could tease apart what people actually did in drawing inferences about each other,
and what they said that they did.
Our discussions showed that the standard psychological theory of mind carries with
it a series of assumptions that may be culturally particular to a Euro-American context.
It implies that the other’s mind is separate from the self, that it contains a set of interior
intentions and perspectives, and that vision and speech provide the way to ascertain
these beliefs. Each of these assumptions was critiqued during the conference, and found
wanting. We also found that a broader attention to the ways in which theories of mind
matter showed that these theories affected the experience of mind, the experience of
health and illness, and childhood socialization. We concluded that our different
theoretical, methodological, and area expertise together offer tantalizing evidence for
culturally variable theories of mind, and that more ethnographic and experimental work
is needed.
How would we take this further?
We still know too little about the comparative theory of mind. In an ideal research world,
we might want to collect the following data:
How are mental events experienced? How are inner dialogues reported and experienced;
what kinds of inner sensory experience—images, sensations, inner voices—do people
attend to; what is the significance of dreams; are there objects outside the body that are
treated as if they hold mental events? What senses count?
What are the metaphors of mind? Is the mind a container or a crossroads? Is it like a
computer or a hydraulic system? What mental states are identified, and are those words
used in daily conversation?
How is information about other minds collected? Do people look directly at each other?
How do they pay attention? Does body contact substitute for eye contact?
Who is responsible for teaching? For learning? How is a learner’s mind imagined? How
do learners learn to learn?
What is the epistemic stance of imagination, play, fiction, creativity and the supernatural?
What counts as real? When?

And then: do the differences, such as they are, explain differences in the way adults draw
inferences about other minds; experience emotion; report distress; the way they create,
interact with and understand the real?
One could imagine a terrific comparative project.
TANYA MARIE LUHRMANN

WATKINS UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR IN ANTHROPOLOGY
(AND PSYCHOLOGY, BY COURTESY)
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
[email protected]
THE POSITION PAPERS
In the following papers, each participant was asked to sketch the background knowledge
from which they spoke, and then to lay out a claim about an anthropological theory
of mind. We grouped our discussion in the following order, which developed internal
conversations around specific theoretical and empirical domains:
How do we think about researching an anthropological theory of mind?
The constitution of mind: what’s in a mind? Interiority and boundedness
The constitution of mind: what’s in a mind? Selves
The constitution of mind: what’s in a mind? Senses and experience
The constitution of mind: what’s in a mind? Perspectivism
The learning of mind: how do you figure out what a mind is? Teaching and learning
The learning of mind: how do you figure out what a mind is? Play, creativity, fiction and
fantasy
The learning of mind: how do you figure out what a mind is? Metaphors for mind
The learning of mind: how do you figure out what a mind is? Issues of language
Broken and despairing minds

HOW DO WE THINK ABOUT RESEARCHING

AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORY OF MIND?
• RITA ASTUTI •
I am an anthropologist with an ethnographic interest in Madagascar and a theoretical

interest in the relationship between ‘culture and cognition’. In recent years I have
collaborated with developmental psychologists (Susan Carey and Paul Harris) to explore
two broad issues, both of which are relevant to an anthropological approach to theory of
mind.
The first issue is the relationship between:
1) the knowledge that ethnographers infer from what people say in answer to open-
ended why/how questions, or from what they say when they sit around the fire,
speak at a village meeting, attend a ritual and so on
2) the knowledge which people might never, or very occasionally, put into words but
which they use, more or less consciously and automatically, when they have to solve
a new problem or draw a novel inference
In my work on Vezo understandings of biological inheritance and of the mechanisms

responsible for family resemblance, I have shown that what people say about how their
babies come to have their looks is radically different from the way they reason in a
simple experimental task that asks them to solve a de-contextualized riddle based on an
adoption scenario. In the first instance, they insist that babies do not resemble their birth
parents but that they take their looks from people who gave them food or spent time
with them (either when they were still in uterus or after birth); in the second instance,
they predict, as matter of fact, that an adopted baby will take its physical features from
its birth parents and its beliefs and skills from the adoptive ones. While the statements
that are readily available to an ethnographer might tempt her to infer a non-dualistic
ontology, according to which Vezo draw no distinction between facts of biology and
facts of sociality (e.g., Carsten 1995; Ingold 1991, and others for similar claims), people’s
answers to the adoption riddle suggest that the ontological distinction is made, but that
people have normative and moral reasons to emphatically state otherwise. I am aware
that in some quarters such findings may be interpreted as proof that anthropologists deal
with inessential ‘cultural fluff ’ (e.g., Pinker 1997: 583 who refers to what anthropologists
have to say about kinship as ‘nonsense’). However, my point is that anthropologists—and
all other cognitive scientists—need to take what people say very seriously (if nothing else
because people often care very much about it), but that in order to correctly interpret
their statements we need to know what they are: in this case, not a description of how the
world is and is known to be, but a commentary on how the world should be (a world in
which birth parents don’t have exclusive and divisive rights over their children).
The second issue is linked to the first one, as I have explored how Vezo children actively
construct Vezo ‘culture’—how they construct their ideas about kinship, group identity,

the ancestors and the afterlife. As part of this endeavor, I have shown the interaction
between the untutored intuitions that children bring to the task of learning their ‘culture’
and the environment that enables, guides and structures their cognitive development.
For example, I have shown that the fact that Vezo children grow up in an environment
in which ‘resemblance talk’ is discouraged, has measurable effects on the timing and the
modality with which their understanding of biological inheritance develops.
The lessons I’ve learnt from my work, which I would hope to be relevant to a cross-
cultural program of research on theory of mind are that 1) we need to be careful in
distinguishing between what people say in their explicit, normative discourse and the
knowledge they use to understand and act in and on the world; 2) we need to be careful not
to dismiss people’s explicit, normative discourse, as this is likely to have significant effects
on cognitive development and to leave a distinctive signature on adult knowledge.
RITA ASTUTI
PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
[email protected]
THE CONSTITUTION OF MIND: WHAT’S IN A MIND?

INTERIORITY AND BOUNDEDNESS
• JOEL ROBBINS •
I have carried out twenty six months of fieldwork among the Urapmin, a community
of approximately four hundred members who live in the West Sepik Province of Papua
New Guinea. I have also been involved in a developing comparative conversation among
scholars of the Pacific concerning culturally defined theories of mind in the region,
particularly those that highlight the difficulty or impossibility of knowing what goes on in
the minds of others—an idea sometimes referred to as a cultural assertion of the ‘opacity’
of other minds.
In Urapmin, the heart is the seat of all thought, feeling, and intention. Like people
living in many Pacific societies, Urapmin assert strongly that one cannot know what
goes on in the heart of another person. Mental processes go on ‘inside’ the heart,
which is itself ‘inside’ the body, and thus they are well hidden from the view of others.
Furthermore, a person’s speech does nothing to make his/her mind present to others.
‘Too much can happen between the heart and the mouth,’ the Urapmin say, ‘for speech
to be trustworthy.’ Speech can be beautiful, moving, and persuasive, but it remains ‘just
talk’. Urapmin never claim to know anything about what people think or feel on the basis
of what they say. In keeping with this, they do not source the meaning of speech to the
intentions of the person who produces it. There are in Urapmin none of the speech acts
common in cultures that assume that mindreading is part of language comprehension:
no promising, thanking, apologizing, or lying, for example. Moreover, when you ask

someone in Urapmin what he/she meant by something he/she said, he/she will claim not
to know. The meaning of what is said, people point out, is determined by what listeners
make of it. Not surprisingly, Urapmin never speculate about the thoughts or feelings of
others, and they regard attempts to do so not only as doomed to failure, but as serious
moral breaches of what we might call each person’s ‘psychic privacy’.
In relation to broader debates about theory of mind, I should point out that the Urapmin
lack of confidence and interest in mindreading is not correlated with the presence of a
model of human action that gives intention little role to play. Urapmin regularly state that
people do what they want to do, and they have a rich vocabulary for kinds of emotions
and thoughts. People’s hearts, rather than any systems of social rules, drive their behavior.
For this reason, Urapmin find behavior to be in essence unpredictable.
A final point to make about the evidential basis of my thinking about theories of mind
is that in the late 1970s all adults in Urapmin converted to charismatic Christianity
and since then they have seen themselves as a completely Christian community. They
recognize that the kind of Christianity they have taken up carries different ideas about,
and normative expectations related to, mind and language. In particular, they understand
Christianity to demand sincerity in speech and honesty in confession of one’s sins to God.
Their struggles to live up to these demands in some ritual domains, even as traditional
ideas hold sway in everyday contexts, pushed issues related to mind and language to the
forefront during my fieldwork, and made them more available to ethnographic study
than they might otherwise have been.
When I first returned from Urapmin quite a few years ago, I found that many of
the anthropologists and other scholars to whom I presented this material assumed
that Urapmin ideas about the impossibility of knowing other people’s minds and their
related claim to interpret speech without regard to the intentions of its speakers must
misrepresent their actual practice. Urapmin must be reading intentions, colleagues argued,
or their social life together would be impossible. They must have some kind of political
motivation for claiming not to know the minds of others, and this might be interesting to
study, but their claims along these lines are unlikely to shape their own mental experience,
which must be much like ours in this crucial area. Based on my strong sense from my
fieldwork that these responses were missing something important, I have been interested
in exploring how we might work more productively with cross-cultural differences in
theory of mind. I will draw two basic claims from this project for our consideration.
Basic Claim 1:
My first claim, admittedly at this point only a hypothesis, goes straight to the heart of
scholarly skepticism about the mental effects of theories of mind like those one finds in
Urapmin and asserts that such theories of mind do shape the mental experience of those
who hold them. In her widely cited article, Lillard (1998: 12) writes that ‘Although (…)
in many cultures people refuse to talk about others’ minds, this does not necessarily mean
that people in those cultures never think about others’ minds. Evidence on that issue is
not available.’ It is difficult to determine whether Lillard is suggesting here that evidence
is not yet available or that it never will be, since it is hard to prove the absence of a mental
state in another. It would be interesting to think together about how we might test the

possibility that people are in fact not reading the minds of others in interpreting what
they say or how they act.
Basic Claim 2:
Regardless of where we come down on Basic Claim 1, we should explore the ways in
which cultural theories of mind are connected in important ways to cultural ideas in
other domains. The study of what have come to be known as language ideologies has been
one of the most important developments in anthropology over the last several decades.
One reason work in this area has been so important is because anthropologists have
found that cultural ideas about language connect to many other areas of cultural concern,
including to ideas about the person, sociality, political process, morality, and a wide range
of other matters, including theories of mind. My claim is that cultural theories of mind,
like language ideologies, ramify widely throughout other cultural domains in ways that
warrant our attention. To illustrate this point, I close with some observations about how
Urapmin and wider Melanesian theories of mind can be seen to link to other key cultural
ideas and practices in the region.
First, one of the primary reasons for skepticism about the veracity of folk models of
the opacity of mind is the assumption that without mindreading, one cannot coordinate
action. Given this, one important area of study is how people living in cultures that stress
opacity think about the coordination of action. Among the Urapmin, people understand
constant practices of gift giving to do much of the work of speech and its mindreading
interpretation elsewhere. It is also true that the Urapmin expect and tolerate a much
greater lack of coordination in social life than Euro-Americans are willing to accept,
suggesting that we may overestimate what is necessary along these lines. These points
could be elaborated, but I hope I have said enough here to indicate that cultural models
about the nature of social action and its coordination are likely everywhere to be tied to
theories of mind in interesting ways.
Second, in Euro-American culture, shared thoughts and feelings are one of the primary
‘substances’ out of which relationships are made. How are relationships between people
culturally defined in places where mindreading is not expected to lead to shared outlooks
or feelings between people? In Melanesia, one answer to this question is that relationships
are often assumed to be a given in each person’s life, defined by ancestry and shared
residence and food consumption and not dependent on any shared mental states or
understandings between people. Relations that are given in such ways are then realized or
deepened through the exchange of material items mentioned above. The efflorescence of
cultural models of what is sometimes called ‘innate’ relatedness, along with the emphasis
on exchange, thus go hand in hand with opacity doctrines in this region. It would be
interesting to discuss how theories of mind shape notions of relationship in other locales
as well.
JOEL ROBBINS
PROFESSOR
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
[email protected]

• JULIA CASSANITI •
For the past ten years I have been conducting a research project on Buddhism and the
mind in a small community in Northern Thailand. My research revolves around a central
question: how are shared Buddhist ideas lived in everyday life? More broadly, to quote
Rick Shweder (1991), how do culture and psyche ‘make each other up’? I have interviewed
hundreds of people over the years and have followed a few families in depth, learning
how people feel about changes in their lives and processes of cause and effect. Beginning
with the Buddhist concept of pervasive impermanence (anicca), I have found that a
seemingly simple concept of change has implications for such disparate realms of life as
emotion, morality, and agency. While people living in a nearby Christian (Karen Baptist)
community emphasize the development of discrete emotions and discursive relationships
with each other and their God, people in the Buddhist community work to create calm
affect that lets go of emotional attachments, crafting emotional orientations based on
Buddhist teachings that create a kind of personal control over the environment. I wrote
up the findings from this project in my dissertation, ‘Control in a world of change’, and
am now in the middle of writing a book based on it, tentatively titled, ‘With Buddhism
in Mind: the psychology of everyday life in Buddhist Thailand’.
More recently I have begun a second project on the supernatural in Thailand that
likewise connects mental processes to ontological and cosmological constructs. Based on
150 surveys and 45 in-depth interviews, I have found that the supernatural in Thailand
is directly related to mental focus. I’ll elaborate on this here.
In Thailand people say that one of the main characteristics of Buddhism is the focus of
the mind. Concentration meditation (Samadhi) is the most common form of meditation
practiced in Thailand. Awareness (Vipassana) is also a key part of Buddhist practice.
Through techniques like concentration and awareness meditation, when one is mindful
(when one has sati, mindfulness), one is in control of the self and the environment. The
concentration and focus of the mind is thus both a goal and a representation of healthy
minds and bodies. When one is not mindful, that is, when the mind is scattered around,
all sorts of problems occur. ‘Soul calling’ ceremonies bring in monks and other respected
elders to ‘call’ the distracted souls (khwan) of mentally or physically out-of-sorts persons;
these ‘souls’ (or ‘spirits’) then regroup in the individual, as symbolized in white string
bracelets (sai sin) worn at the wrist. Sai sin, meant as protection and help in keeping one’s
khwan together, are often given before one goes on a trip or engages in other potentially
dangerous or uncertain activity.
These ‘souls’ are difficult to characterize. They have been described as a kind of
personified wits, as when we say in English that someone has ‘lost their wits’. The mind,
in a sense, consists of these wits, and keeping one’s mind focused keeps these wits together.
When someone does not have their wits about them, when their mind is not focused, a
kind of energy results. This is the energy of intentionality. When one wants, or desires
something, one is told the energy resulting means that the mind has lost focus. This is
not the focus of the ‘one-track mind’, as we say in English; a one-track mind is likewise
considered a mind that has lost focus or balance; it is attached to an idea, a wish or a goal,
and thus creates the energy associated with intentional thought and behavior. It is this
intentionality that drives karma. The energy of karma, while not free-floating, can wander

from bodies and minds. After death the karmic energy of attachments and desires that
people had in life can linger, be felt, and create effects. Encounters with the supernatural
in Thailand are a complex play of the interactions of these intentional feelings of self and
other. The degree of one’s own mental focus (that is, one’s own scattered or unscattered
intentions), and the intentions of others become intermingled. If we believe supernatural
beings exist, their qualities of desire create energy that can more easily be felt by people
who themselves are lacking in mental focus. If we do not believe supernatural beings exist,
the qualities given to them and the ways that people experience them represent projections
of the mind, projections that mimic the intentionality and focus of the human beings
that interact with them.
The findings from Thailand are quite telling of anthropological variation in theories
of mind. When Tanya Luhrmann and I asked undergraduates in the United States about
supernatural encounters, the US students almost always discussed discrete entities that
were external to the self—or, when internal, the entities were seen as still single and
separate from the self. Rather than single, bounded minds with clear boundaries, in
Thailand minds are conceived as much less isolated and bounded. Ideas like the khwan
and the Buddhist teaching of non-self together mean that people infer others’ minds as
being somewhat separate from their own but not isolated and autonomous. There are
fewer boundaries between the inside and outside of the mind; one’s ‘mind(s)’ can come
and go, and intermingle with those they know (and with those they don’t know, but
presumably did know in some past life). It is this intermingling and feltness of others’
intentions that creates connections between people.
In Buddhist Thailand minds are inferred to be permeable and susceptible to the
influence of others. To be aware of intentionality thus means to have a strong mind.
JULIA CASSANITI
CULTURE AND MIND POSTDOCTORAL FELLOW
ANTHROPOLOGY
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
[email protected]
• TANYA MARIE LUHRMANN •
I have been working for years on two different projects.

One of them is about God (and the supernatural more generally). This involved
initial fieldwork in San Diego looking at four different religious groups: a Black Catholic
Church, an Anglo-Cuban Santeria church, a baal teschuva shul (a Jewish service for the
newly Orthodox), and an evangelical church. I continued the work on the evangelical
church when I moved to Chicago and then to California. What obsessed me was this:
how does God become real to people? How do people take seriously that an invisible
agent has an important role in their lives, and that this role is good? You could answer that
it happens naturally and we are hard-wired that way (the crude, evolutionary psychology
answer) but that is not enough—not least because there are many smart people who do
not believe. Evolutionary psychology explains why invisible agents seem plausible. It does
not explain how belief in them is sustained and experienced over time.

I noticed also that prayer seemed to have consequences. People said that you had to
learn to pray, that the learning was hard, that some people were better than others, and
that people who were good at prayer would change in various ways—among them, that
their mental imagery would get sharper. That seemed to be an odd thing to say from a
theological perspective, and I concluded that there was a psychological story as well as
an interpretation story. That suggested that there was learning involved, and the learning
reached deep into the mind and body.
To explore this learning, I did classic ethnographic fieldwork, and I looked at what
congregants were being taught in church and in housegroup meetings, through reading,
etc. I ended up concluding that they were being taught a new theory of mind—for want
of a better term. They were being taught to treat some thoughts and mental images as not
being their own, but as generated by this outside being, God. They had to learn how to
identify them (thoughts/images that were ‘stronger’, unexpected, spontaneous, in God’s
character, and generative of peace); they also learned to ‘test’ their inferences. This was
really hard for people, but they did learn, although they also sort of kept forgetting that
God was interacting with them, and the result was that they were constantly scanning
their inner experience. They were also taught to ‘play’: to imagine, through daydream like
encounters, that God was interacting with them like a person. And they learned to follow
a set of emotional practices that in effect trained them to experience themselves as loved
for themselves by God.
I also ran an experiment, in which I randomized people into different prayer practices
(the control was lectures on the Gospels from the Teaching Company) which they followed
for thirty minutes each day for a month. Our before-and-after measures demonstrate that
the imaginative prayer practice did improve their mental imagery vividness and salience,
did improve their ability to use mental imagery, and increased the likeliness of unusual
sensory experience.
In sum, it seems that what the Christians are doing is to use practices which make
inner sensory experience more significant, and that this has real consequences for their
mental experience. I call this an ‘attentional learning’ theory of religion. Part of this story
is psychological: inner sense training enhances inner senses. Inner sense training, and
mental imagery training in particular, is at the heart of much spiritual practice around
the world because it has consequences. But it also seems to me that culture makes a big
difference. The details of the way the mind is imagined should shape the way people pay
attention. For instance, which senses count? Or is the ordinary inner voice understood
to be significant?
The second project has to do with the experience of psychosis. For years I spent time with
homeless psychotic women on the streets of Chicago. I was answering a most pragmatic
question—why don’t these women want help?—but also getting increasingly interested
in their experience of voices. A new, controversial movement argues that if people who
hear distressing voices develop a respectful relationship with those voices, the torment of
the voices can diminish. Again, this suggests that the way the mind is imagined has real
consequences for the way the mental events are experienced. I am now doing comparative
interviews between people in the San Francisco peninsula and in Chennai and (shortly
I hope) in Ghana, talking to people who meet criteria for schizophrenia in detail about
their voice-hearing experience. (This time they are housed and high-functioning, for the

most part.) What we know so far is that there are sensory variations. In India, people
report more visual hallucinations on average than in the US (this is now supported by
epidemiological work). It also seems to be true that the Americans have a remarkably
harsh experience of voices. They seem to imagine themselves to have a wall between the
mind and the world, and they do not feel comfortable when the wall is breached.
My hypothesis is that we will have three different findings:
1. local cultural emphases on sensory importance will shape the sensory mode of
hallucinations
2. local emphasis on mind-boundaries will shape the ease with which people form
relationships with voices (this is more speculative, but the initial interviews suggest
it)
3. there will be different phenomenological patterns
My basic claim:
The way we imagine our minds shapes our mental experience: the way a social group
implicitly models/theorizes mental process (imagination, perception, thought) will affect
the way people draw inferences about their own minds and the minds of others.
This theory of mind will involve different dimensions, among them:
1. the senses
2. how bounded the mind is
3. whether interiority matters: whether inner thoughts/voice/dreams etc are given
significance
4. epistemic stance: what counts as real?
TANYA MARIE LUHRMANN

WATKINS UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR IN ANTHROPOLOGY (AND PSYCHOLOGY,
BY COURTESY)
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
[email protected]
THE CONSTITUTION OF MIND:

WHAT’S IN A MIND? SELVES
• JOCELYN MARROW •
My research explores how the contemporary socio-economic context of North India,

characterized by globalization, economic liberalization, and reactionary cultural
nationalism, impacts non-elite North Indian women’s health and the quality of their
relationships. I undertook research in family, clinical, and religious settings of Varanasi,
India in 2001–2004. I found that women’s expressions of emotional distress in North

Indian commonly take a somatic form: ‘fits’ of unresponsiveness locally referred to as

‘clenched teeth illness’. I am currently working on a book-length project demonstrating
that cultural tropes of loss, longing and ‘love in separation’ (viraha) are activated and
refigured in the contemporary moment among young women suffering emotional and
interpersonal distress. In domestic spaces (where most clenched teeth illness episodes
occur) the meaning of any given illness event is multi-layered, allowing afflicted young
women to receive attention and care while avoiding the direct airing of complaints against
members of their conjugal (and sometimes natal) families.
Other work emerging from this ethnographic research include: (1) a paper examining
how communicative styles predicated on class differences between North Indian doctors
and patients impede the success of psychosocial interventions in public Indian psychiatric
clinics; (2) an exploration of how hyperbolic and contradictory representations of ‘Indian
womanhood’ in circulation at the national level negatively impact non-elite Indian girls’
and young women’s struggles to achieve educational and work aspirations; and (3) (with
Tanya Luhrmann) a comparison of the consequences of different cultural expectations
and available social spaces for the abandonment of persons with severe mental illness
across India and the United States.
While exploring circumstances that contribute to ill-health and diminished well being,
I undertook to investigate the interpersonal—especially familial—contexts that North
Indians believe contribute to the successful resolution of day-to-day dysphoria and distress.
Some questions motivating my research with North Indian families are: What is the range
of expected communicative responses to expressions of emotional distress? How might
sensitivity, sympathy, empathy, and succor be expressed and experienced among adults
in intimate North Indian settings, and how do these expressions and experiences expand
scholarly understanding of interpersonal communication, emotion, and psychological
functioning in general?
I discovered that persons spoke about managing the feelings, self-expression, and
behaviors of others in distinctive ways. According to the cultural theory, persons
‘cause’ others ‘to understand’ (samjhaana)—that is, they provide explicit instruction
and exhortation regarding the most effective or morally correct behaviors and attitudes
pertaining to specific contexts. Overt attempts at emotion work tend to flow down intimate
hierarchies of generation, age, and gender. The cultural theory of ‘causing understanding’
holds that hierarchical seniors expect that their subordinates, once exhorted, will conform
to their prescriptions in return for emotional rewards, particularly the expressions of
seniors’ love towards them. The ‘loving’ emotional rewards that juniors receive in return
for ‘understanding’ include the experience of being assimilated to the wisdom and moral
qualities of the elder—an experience of positive merger with the elder.
This cultural theory of causing understanding suggests an asymmetrical model
of empathy across hierarchically-structured intimacies in North India. Subordinates
are acutely sensitive to the desires, wishes, and expectations of hierarchical seniors,
believing that (ideally) seniors embody what is good and true, and that attention to
their commands, suggestions, and individual desires will be beneficial for the self and
the collectivity. Subordinates’ empathy towards elders follows closely elders’ utterances
and behaviors in the here-and-now; juniors restrict themselves to extrapolating from the
specific actions of seniors when trying to understand them. Elders, on the other hand, do

not empathize with their juniors by attending to juniors’ expressed desires and wishes in
the present moment; they make use of a broader temporal dimension which draws upon
their knowledge and past experiences. That is, elders reflect upon the events and feelings
of their own lifetime when trying to grasp the perspectives of their junior; their empathy
towards juniors is somewhat projective.
My basic claim is that this asymmetrical model of empathy among North Indians arises
from a distinctive North Indian theory of mind in which minds/bodies possess essential
differences that are highly susceptible to contamination, contagion, and impression
through contact with others. According to this model, minds are continuously constituted
and reconstituted through interaction with others. Other persons may contribute to a
refinement and improvement of an individual’s mind if their speech and interactions with
the individual are true and moral. On the other hand, inferior and immoral others cause
the qualities of the individual to decline.
JOCELYN MARROW
CULTURE AND MIND POSTDOCTORAL FELLOW
ANTHROPOLOGY
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
[email protected]
• JOHN LUCY •
In my research I focus on the relation between language and thought. My expertise

encompasses the fields of psychology (cognitive, developmental, social), anthropology
(linguistic, cultural, psychological), and linguistics (semantics, syntax, typology). I have
done long-term comparative fieldwork on the Yucatec Maya language and culture using
ethnographic, linguistic, and psychological methods. I have strong secondary interests in
social theory and the relation between language, culture, and self in the modern period.
Most work on language and thought assumes that thought influences language. Since
thought is presumed to be essentially the same for all humans, this view typically leads to
the conclusion that all languages must be essentially the same as well, a view that shapes
the course of research by downplaying or even ignoring diversity. Such an approach also
essentially construes a social phenomenon (language) as a mere byproduct of psychological
functioning (thought).
I have been interested in the reverse effects: how language might influence thought. More
broadly, I am interested in how social phenomena influence psychological functioning.
Influences of language on thought can be characterized into three logical types: (1) the
symbolic quality of language might be essential for certain kinds of characteristically
human thought; (2) the structures of specific languages might influence the thought of
those who speak them (i.e., ‘linguistic relativity’); or (3) particular social institutional uses
of language might shape thought.
In my empirical work, I first tackled the second question regarding the possible impact
of language differences on thought. I designed a comparative method for exploring
whether language differences in the form of grammatical categories influenced thought

in the form of attention, classification, and memory. Using this method, I was able to
show that certain language patterns (number marking) could predict certain cognitive
behaviors (attentiveness to number, preference for shape versus material, etc.). I next
tackled the first question regarding the enabling role of language in thought, this work in
collaboration with Suzanne Gaskins. We designed a developmental method for exploring
the age at which the language differences began to appear in thought, that is, how and
when thought began to depend on language specific categories. Using this method, we
were able to show that language patterns were in place before the associated cognitive
patterns, further confirming the shaping role of language, and that the influences on
thought began in middle childhood, around age eight. The two projects unite the main
elements of the Whorfian and Vygotskian approaches to language and thought.
Most recently, I have been trying to understand the verbal and intellectual developments
occurring during this middle childhood transition. On the linguistic side, what seems to
be central is the child’s increased ability to coordinate speech into larger narrative units
and to adopt hierarchical or reflexive stances on speech. The focus of this research is on
how children come to exploit deictic forms that they have developed for external reference
(e.g. person and tense) to the internal purposes of text and discourse-internal cross-
referencing. Doing so effectively binds elements of the world into the language structure
in new way, creating both a sense of social reality and social self that are qualitatively
different from what has come before.
I was led to connect this work to research on theory of mind (ToM) by the work of
Jill and Peter de Villiers. They showed that deaf children not exposed to normal language
input showed delayed or deficient performance in standard false belief tasks. Through a
variety of studies, they are able to rule out that the problem is with deafness itself or the
sheer amount of language known by the child. Rather, the key element they lack is the
ability to use grammatical structures that require them to embed into their own utterance
the speech or mental state of another. This ability to report speech and mental states
is precisely the skill set that is being heavily advanced at age eight when the linguistic
relativity effects are appearing: the deictic displacement of person and tense, the expression
of stance and mental states, etc. In a broader sense, this work also provides empirical
substance to some of G.H. Mead’s (1965) claims that the use of symbols is essential to
making a mind and that the self is then a construct of such a mind.
Research arguing for language and/or verbal interaction being essential to the
development of ToM is now quite extensive. It cannot all be summarized here, but falls
into four large types: (1) language facilitates general cognition (e.g. memory) making
ToM possible; (2) language provides the empirical evidence of other minds that the
child needs to develop ToM; (3) language specifically enables meta-representation
making ToM possible; and (4) language provides specific forms (vocabulary, grammatical
constructions) enabling ToM. I am especially interested in this last as it intersects nicely
with my comparative project. Many languages lack a large mental state vocabulary and/
or do not use them with complement constructions. We should be able to exploit this
natural variation to learn more about ToM. And the particular florescence of mental state
forms in Western Europe, not only in everyday speech, but in the scholarly literature,
suggests our linguistic and cultural sensitivity to ‘minds’ needs some calibration.

This line of research on language in relation to false belief stands in contrast to several
other lines of empirical research. Some other work shows that something like an implicit
theory of mind exists in very young children long before they can use the terms or
constructions in question. And other work shows that children do not really have a full
concept of the perspective of the ‘other’ until late in middle childhood. To some extent,
this represents a simple problem of terminology: what ToM means at these different ages
is simply qualitatively different. And there have been some efforts to come up with new
terms to capture these differences.
But there are two deeper issues at stake beyond mere differences about what are the
empirical ‘facts’. The first has to do with the ready projection by scientists of intentional
mental states onto some animals, children, and the deaf. This approach tacitly seeks to
vindicate the view that language and similar social phenomena are irrelevant—that ToM
is really some sort of psychological ‘module’ that we have. This fits with the prevailing
psychological ideology that minds are really psychological phenomena, not social ones.
In a sense, the appeal to ToM represents but the latest effort to erase (or absorb) the social
by psychologizing it. At the same time, when we look to the everyday public, we find a
reluctance to attribute mental states, or at least good ones, to those from other cultures,
who speak other languages, or who suffer from some communicative incapacity. If we
cannot read their mental states properly, then they are assumed not to exist. The de-
humanizing tropes used for social ‘others’ are striking. But notice, again, how essentially
social differences are construed psychologically, as deficiencies of self. I am interested then
in tracing out whether our language supports these two sorts of projections.
JOHN LUCY
WILLIAM BENTON PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF COMPARATIVE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
[email protected]

SENSES AND EXPERIENCE
• KATHYRN GEURTS •
In relation to an ‘anthropological theory of mind’, my research has focused on sensory

experience and sensory perception among Anlo-Ewe speaking people in West Africa. For
more than three hundred years, Ewe-speaking people have inhabited the land that is now
southeastern Ghana, as well as southern Togo, and Ewes are close in ethno-linguistic
terms to Fon-speaking people in Benin. Anlo-Ewe refers to a group of primarily Ghanaian
Ewes whose homeland is considered the coastal area of the Volta Region and the terrain
immediately around the Keta Lagoon. In the twenty-first century, however, many Anlo-

Ewe people live in diaspora—in Accra, other parts of Ghana and the African continent,
as well as in Europe and North America.
During the early and mid-1990s, I carried out ethnographic research with Anlo-
Ewe people to learn how we might better understand Anlo-Ewe ways of being-in-the-
world through a study of their sensory order. In our discussions and research, Anlo-
Ewe individuals and I found that a taxonomy restricted to five external senses—hearing,
touch, taste, smell and sight—was not particularly meaningful to many Anlo-Ewe
people. Instead, they recognized an array of sensory fields including: nusese: hearing and
aural perception; agbagbadodo: a sense of equilibrium and balance; azolizozo or azolinu:
walking, kinesthesia, and a sense of movement; nulele: a complex of tactility, contact,
touch; nukpokpo: seeing and visuality; nudodo and nudodokpo: tasting and ‘tasting to see’;
nuvevese: smelling and olfaction; nufofo: ‘talking’ or a vocal-oral sense. Not only was their
cultural category for sensation broader than our classic five-senses model, but links were
often drawn among sensations, emotions, and dispositions. This contrasted with Western
philosophical traditions built on the distinctiveness of four domains: the external senses
of hearing, touch, taste, smell, and sight; internal senses such as balance, kinesthesia, and
proprioception; a set of emotional states including anger, happiness, sadness, disgust,
and surprise; and moral responses differentiating between conscience and consciousness.
But in Anlo-Ewe traditions, people have tended to posit a domain of immediate bodily
experience encompassing perception, emotion, disposition, and moral knowing referred
to in their language as seselelame.
Translating seselelame into English has proved difficult, and my Anlo-Ewe colleagues
and I have resisted the gloss of ‘sensation, opting instead for ‘feeling in the body, flesh, or
skin’. Indeed, Ewe linguist Felix Ameka has confirmed that the phrase se-se-le-la-me could
be used for both emotion and sensing: ‘lower level terms for various experiences in Ewe,
like the superordinate label seselelame, do not distinguish between emotion, sensation,
perception, cognition, etc. Instead, there are components that link to a bundle of these
things at one and the same time’ (Ameka 2002: 44–45). One of the implications of all of
this is that the five exteroceptive registers of hearing, touch, taste, smell, and sight did not
constitute a closed category in Anlo-Ewe thought, and were not the basis for their theory
of knowing. Instead, Anlo epistemology and ontology depended upon an indigenous
schema of seselelame—a sensibility in which bodily feeling was foregrounded as a source
of vital information about environment and self. Later analysis (carried out with my
colleague E.G. Adikah) led us to postulate that seselelame may be a foundational schema,
and as such it may serve as a source domain for an array of cultural models—including
narrative, verbal formulas, and other language arts.
The terms ‘model’ and ‘schema’ are sometimes used interchangeably, but here I rely
on Bradd Shore’s notion that foundational schemas have an encompassing quality,
they are general and abstract, while cultural models are more particular and concrete.
‘A foundational schema functions’, Shore suggests, ‘as a kind of template, a common
underlying form that links superficially diverse cultural models’ while simultaneously
contributing to the ‘sometimes ineffable sense of “style” or “ethos”’ that is characteristic of
a particular social group (1998: 117). In technical terms, Shore explains, a foundational
schema provides what is referred to as a ‘source domain’ for the ‘creation of a family
of related cultural models’. These cultural models ‘have evolved by means of a usually

unconscious “schematizing process,” a kind of analogical transfer that underlies the

creative life of cultural models’ (1998: 118). In Anlo-Ewe contexts, balance would be an
example of a model that is derived from a universal somatic experience that is nonetheless
culturally instantiated in daily practice and thought. Seselelame, on the other hand, is
more abstract and it usually remains out of awareness—similar to the way that ‘Cartesian
dualism’ or ‘mind-body split’ probably remains out of awareness in the routine thoughts
of most Euro-Americans.
After I published these findings, a Ghanaian psychologist named Vivian Dzokoto
carried out a study to see if seselelame could be not only qualitatively demonstrated
through ethnographic description, but also tested using quantitative measures. Dzokoto
recruited seventy undergraduate students from two different social science departments
at a Ghanaian university, and she recruited one hundred Euro-American students from
‘the psychology subject pool of a large Midwestern university’ (2010: 71). Her research
drew on two different tests: the Body Awareness Questionnaire and the TMMS (Trait
Meta-Mood Scale) Attention to Emotion subscale. Her results show that ‘Ghanaians were
significantly lower on the attention to emotion subscale’ and her hypothesis was confirmed
that ‘Ghanaian subjects would score significantly higher on a measure of somatic-focused
awareness’ (2010: 72). She then explains that, ‘[a]ccording to these results, the concept of
“feel-feel-at-flesh-inside” was successfully demonstrated numerically through the concept
of somatic-focused awareness as measured by the Body Awareness Questionnaire.’
Interestingly, Dzokoto points out that the Ghanaian participants in the study were
English-speaking university students, which brings in two factors we might expect to
cause them to exhibit more ‘Western influence’ in their mode of thinking and being. But
even though they were from the more, relatively speaking, ‘Westernized sector’ of their
own African society, they still exhibited the difference that Dzokoto hypothesized.
My claims:
The way in which Ghanaians in general (and Anlo-Ewe Ghanaians more specifically)
exhibit higher somatic-focused awareness (compared to Euro-Americans) has consequences
for theory of mind.
For one thing, in this context mind and organism are one, not separate. That is, mental
activity (such as thought) is understood to involve (or to be inextricably bound up with)
somatic processes.
Furthermore, the notion of thoughts being contained within a mind, or even within
a buffered self (possessive individualism), is not meaningful or convincing to Anlo-Ewe
people. Instead, in this cultural context your thoughts are perceivable (to others) through
your bodily comportment; your tone of voice can betray your thoughts; your eyes can
betray your thoughts. Intention is readily known. If we think of a continuum of ontologies
from buffered selves to porous selves, this group is on the far end of porosity.
Understanding an Anlo-Ewe sensorium is significant because sight is not the primary
modality by which people know things. ‘Seeing is believing’ does not really ring true.
Instead, hearing, moving, and balancing are very important to mental processes, and
‘invisible’ forces are referenced.

Finally, my hypothesis is that while seselelame (feeling in the body, flesh, or skin) is a
term that denotes a foundational schema among Anlo-Ewes, it probably points toward a
pattern that is pan-African. Among Africans, and probably even among people of African
descent, I hypothesize that when it comes to mental processes such as imagination,
perception, and thought, we will find a privileging of movement-adaptability-flexibility,
along with improvisation or ‘repetition with revision’.
KATHYRN GEURTS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ANTHROPOLOGY
HAMLINE COLLEGE
[email protected]
• JASON THROOP •
My work centers on the problem of empathy, which developed out of nineteen months of
ethnographic research on pain, suffering, and moral sensibilities in Yap, Federated States
of Micronesia. Of particular significance for theory of mind research is the fact that there
are numerous moral, epistemological, and communicative assumptions associated with
ideals of mental opacity that inform experiences of suffering in Yap. In this context, the
moral person is thought to be a person who is able to actively maintain a non-transparent
relationship between his or her subjective life and his or her various forms of expression.
Hiding your feelings from the scrutiny of others and remaining secretive about your
intentions, motives, plans and goals, are expected and valued aspects of everyday social
interactions.
When it comes specifically to experiences of pain, the ideal virtuous response for an
individual sufferer is to conceal his or her suffering from others. There is a paradoxical
problem associated with ideals of mental opacity in relationship to pain, however. On
the one hand, for those suffering with pain, ideals associated with mental opacity are
implicated in efforts at moral self-fashioning. The moral person is ideally to cultivate
forms of self-governance that enable them to control the overt expression of their
emotions, feelings, and hurt. And yet, these self-same orientations become problematic
in efforts to seek out a diagnosis, treatment, and remedy for suffering. If individuals are
actively working to conceal their suffering from others, how do they go about obtaining
an accurate diagnosis for their condition? How do they seek treatment for it?
It was in the context of trying to understand individuals’ struggles to navigate ideals
of mental opacity and realities of personal suffering that I was repeatedly confronted
with questions of empathy. What does empathy mean, how is it enacted, and how is it
recognized in contexts where ideals of mental opacity are deemed necessarily linked to
virtuous modes of being? How do individuals, their friends, family members, and healers
cope with a sufferer’s reluctance to express his or her suffering directly to others? What
role does empathy play in such encounters?
These questions eventually led to my collaboration with Douglas Hollan who was
also interested in examining the problem of empathy in anthropological research,
theorizing, and practice. This collaboration led to our co-organizing a series of panels at

the Association for Social Anthropology in Oceania meetings (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007),
as well as an invited panel at the SPA biennial meeting in 2004. These panels resulted in
the publication of a special issue of the journal Ethos, entitled, ‘Whatever Happened to
Empathy?’ in 2008, and an edited volume, The Anthropology of Empathy: Experiencing the
Lives of Others in Pacific Societies, in 2011.
In both volumes, we examine the apparent lack of explicit attention to empathy in
anthropology despite a renewed interest in the topic in psychology, philosophy, and
neuroscience. We also point to the many definitional problems associated with the
concept and the difficulties researchers faced in determining how empathy is related to
other concepts that seem to bear a family resemblance to it, such as intersubjectivity,
intentionality, and theory of mind. To help gain some conceptual clarity on the matter we
suggested, with Jodi Halpern (2001), that empathy and empathy-like processes consist
of at least three distinct aspects. These include: (1) a de-centering of self from its own
historically situated self-experience; (2) imagining the perspective of another from a
quasi-first person perspective; and (3) approximating the feelings, motives, and concerns
of another, through cognitive, emotional, imaginal, and/or dialogical processes.
In the introduction to our most recent volume we extended this definition by means
of the philosopher Karsten Stueber’s (2006) distinction between ‘basic’ and ‘reenactive’
empathy—a distinction that is based on ongoing debates in theory of mind research over
so-called ‘theory-theory’ and ‘simulation-theory’ approaches. In line with ‘simulation-
theory’, Stueber takes ‘basic empathy’ to refer to all of those pre-theoretical and immediate
emotional, sensory, and perceptual mechanisms (including the recently discovered
mirror-neuron system) that underlie our abilities to understand another’s moods,
emotions, feelings, perspectives, etc. In contrast, ‘reenactive’ empathy consists of all
other cognitive, imaginal, and emotional processes that are implicated in approximating
the first-person perspective of others by means of so-called folk-psychological models.
‘Reenactive’ empathy aligns most closely with ‘theory-theory’ approaches in psychology
and philosophy. It is our contention that both ‘basic’ and ‘reenactive’ varieties empathy
are variously at play in moments where understanding others’ motives, thoughts, cares,
and concerns are at stake in social interaction.
My claim, then, is that empathy is shaped by different forms of intersubjectivity. In my
contributions to these volumes I set out to detail Yapese understandings and practices of
empathy, in particular examining how the ideal of mental opacity is, and is not, reconciled
with dynamic exchanges of suffering and compassion that significantly pattern everyday
social interactions (Throop 2008, 2011). In two more recent publications I explore in
greater detail the personal, interpersonal, cultural, and temporal dynamics of empathy in
the context of experiences of mourning and loss (Throop 2011), as well as the multiple
sensory registers that may be implicated in efforts at empathy in the context of a local
healer’s massage practice (under review). In each case, building upon insights from the
phenomenological tradition, I take empathy to be a particular mode of intersubjectivity
that arises at moments in which interpersonal understanding breaks down in some way.
From this perspective, there are necessarily more basic forms of intersubjectivity that
potentiate possibilities for empathy (see Duranti 2010; Jackson 1998; Zahavi 2001,
2003).

In my work, I have avoided using the concept of ‘theory of mind’, relying instead
upon this more phenomenologically grounded notion of ‘basic intersubjectivity’.
My reluctance to use ‘theory of mind’ is rooted in two related concerns that also have
relevance, I think, for our workshop. The first concern is definitional/theoretical. What
do we mean by theory of mind? Are anthropological formulations in any way different
from psychological or philosophical ones? What are the advantages or disadvantages in
relying upon the concept from an anthropological perspective? How does theory of mind
relate to empathy or intersubjectivity? To what extent is theory of mind an ability based
upon inferential processes (e.g. explicit or implicit theories) as opposed to experientially
based embodied processes? Does the term ‘theory’ implicate an all too rational, cognitive,
and conscious process? Does the emphasis upon ‘theory’ take our attention away from
embodied, sensory, and practical modes of knowing others? Does the term ‘mind’, and all
of the conceptual baggage associated with it, limit the range and varieties of experiences
implicated in our assessments of other modes of being-in-the-world? My second concern
is methodological. What methods should we use to understand the development,
experience, and use of theory of mind in cultural context? Should anthropologists simply
import existing experimental methods (e.g. false-belief tests) in psychology to differing
field settings? Whether or not this is the case, should researchers rely on methods that
focus primarily upon non-verbal cues, such as instances of joint-attention and gaze
monitoring? Or do we need access to more explicit verbalized instances of recognizing
complex emotional and internal states? How can traditional ethnographic methods
contribute to the study of theory of mind?
JASON THROOP
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ANTHROPOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
[email protected]

PERSPECTIVISM
• APARECIDA VILAÇA •
My background: twenty five years of non-continuous fieldwork among the Wari’

(Amazonia). Main research themes: cannibalism (they practiced two types: warfare and
funerary); kinship, shamanism, and more recently conversion to Christianity. Wari’ data
can be readily interpreted using perspectivism as a conceptual tool; indeed this material
was one of the ethnographic sources used to elaborate the theory.
I wish to present a brief sketch of what we could call a theory of mind among Amazonian
peoples, based on an ethnography of the Wari’, an Amerindian group of three thousand
people living in a forest region of Brazil near the border with Bolivia. Any reflection on
‘how to know each other’s minds’ in different cultures must begin, I think, by establishing
who is considered to be an other for the cultures in question—something which is far
from obvious.

Among the Wari’ and other Amazonian peoples the concept of humanity is much more
comprehensive than our own. An enormous variety of beings are conceived as human,
including the Indians themselves, jaguars, tapirs and numerous other mammals, birds, all
kinds of fish, bees and snakes. As human beings, they live in houses, drink beer, hunt and
roast their prey, perform rituals and care for their children. The difference between them
lies in the empirical world they project. For the Wari’, beer is a fermented maize drink,
for the jaguar, beer is blood, while for the tapir, beer is the mud found along river shores.
As Viveiros de Castro (1998) observed, we are faced by something very different from our
multicultural relativism, which presumes a single empirical universe or natural world onto
which diverse culturally-determined perspectives are projected. Perspectivism implies a
single culture common to all and distinct multiple natures. Instead of multiculturalism
we have a multinaturalism. We are also faced with something different from so-called
animism since although all these beings are human, they do not see one another as human
beings. The jaguar sees himself as human, and the Wari’ as animal prey. From the Wari’
point of view, the situation is reversed. The relationship between predator-prey is the
key idiom for establishing the difference between human/non-human, meaning that
humanity is a position related to the predator role in any encounter with an other.
The great spectre haunting this world is not solipsism, as in ours, but metamorphosis,
which implies the risk of being captured by the other’s perspective and—by having his/
her perspective altered—ceasing to be human to one’s own kin. Consequently people are
always attentive to the different signals emanating from other people’s actions since their
eyes can be deceived, perceiving an other as a similar.
Returning to the problem of metamorphosis, numerous situations—mythic or
quotidian—are recounted in which a Wari’ encounters a person or a group of people
and begins to interact with them, perceiving them as equals, until at some point they
suddenly become suspicious not of their actions, but of their world. The Wari’ person
may notice, for example, that although these others act in a completely normal way,
they offer a pot of drink that they call beer but which to the Wari’ person’s eyes looks
like blood. Faced with this evidence, he or she finally realizes that those who looked
like humans are in fact jaguars and, coming to their senses at last, leaves quickly. If the
person accepts the beer and drinks it, he or she turns into a jaguar too, meaning that
they continue to perceive themselves as human, but are not seen as such by their Wari’
kin. Metamorphosis does not affect one’s own self-perception, therefore, but the view
that others have of oneself. Consequently identity is not something carried by the self,
whether in the form of adornments, body painting or a secret thought, but is determined
from the outside, indissociable from the relational context: ‘I am what other people see’.
As a result, sameness and otherness are perspectives, linked to the body, that cannot be
defined a priori but only in the context of the relation.
What does this mean in terms of everyday relations, in particular the relations between
people who consider each other equals, or kin? Firstly kinship, founded on the similarity
of bodies, is something fabricated day-to-day, setting out from the potential alterity
that forms the raw material of all beings: those described as human, who have soul,
are precisely those who can be transformed. Among many Amazonian groups, babies
are said to be born other than human and raising a child among the Trio, for instance,
is expressed as ‘undoing the spider monkey’ (Grotti 2009). This means nurturing,

feeding and constituting a memory ideally expressed through the use of the correct kin
terms. This assimilation of bodies amounts to the fabrication of a shared humanity,
signifying a single perspective, or the same empirical world, thus minimizing the perils
of metamorphosis. However this danger always remains present because of the predatory
activity of other beings. The Wari’ say, for example, that jaguars are always anxious to
capture Wari’ children to make them into their kin. To this end they may prey on them
directly or attract children by looking after them so that they start to see the jaguars as
kin. Tales abound of children who followed a jaguar thought to be their mother or father,
only to be rescued later by their Wari’ kin who had kept their human perspective: that
is, they continued to see the jaguar as a jaguar, telling the child what was happening and
recovering him or her.
For this reason, people always pay considerable attention to others’ actions since it is
through them that they can make an inference about their identity. Given the particular
susceptibility of children, their actions are keenly observed, especially their appetite:
children who reject food given by their Wari’ parents are very likely to be in a process of
alteration, sharing food with other types of beings, incapable of recognizing Wari’ food.
Hence this does not involve an inference concerning the mind per se, since the latter is
in a way common to all insofar as all beings have similar intentions, ultimately desiring
to make kin. Attention is focused on the nature objectified by the process of interaction.
What varies, then, are not minds but worlds.
Finally I note that even non-human beings—those without a soul, which applies to some
animals like the spider monkey, and to plants and objects in general—though incapable
of transforming or producing transformations in others, may possess intentionality, acting
intelligently to capture food, make shelters or defend themselves. Such intentionality is
an attribute of the heart, part of the body. So, for example, on a visit to Rio de Janeiro
my Wari’ father attributed a heart to the garage door, opened by a remote control used
by myself but unseen to him. Among the Wari’, the heart is the seat of moral action.
Someone with heart acts correctly, generously, is a good wife and so on. This involves
another level of apprehending what we could call a theory of mind, a level subsumed by
the first, which concerns humanity. A Wari’ person is ideally someone with heart and a
series of morally condemnable acts always raises the suspicion that a metamorphic process
is under way.
APARECIDA VILAÇA
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM IN SOCIAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
MUSEU NACIONAL/UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO DE JANEIRO
[email protected]
• RUPERT STASCH •
My knowledge base for thinking about cultural variation in theories of mind has been
fieldwork with Korowai of West Papua, Indonesia. Many features of how Korowai talk and
act about minds, consciousness, emotions, and thought echo patterns previously reported

in ethnographic literature on New Guinea and the Pacific. This includes a pattern of
stressing the opacity of other people’s minds, as in the common Korowai verbal formula,
‘Herself her own guts/thoughts,’ or more idiomatically, ‘She thinks/decides for herself.’
People routinely use this formula in conversation to disavow their ability to predict or
explain another person’s actions.
My main addition to discussions of this pattern has been a short article (Stasch 2008)
suggesting that this emphasis in Melanesian theorization of mind is a matter of politics
as well as epistemology. What Korowai are affirming in these statements is the special
authority that persons have to know or determine their own thoughts, as much as special
access they have to their own thoughts. In making this suggestion, I drew partly on
philosopher Richard Moran’s discussion of first-person versus third-person knowledge in
his book Authority and Estrangement (2001). But my main evidence for the suggestion
was patterns of wider linguistic and ethnographic context surrounding the ‘She has her
own thoughts’ statements.
One level of relevant context is the prominence with which Korowai use language
of ‘thought’ to analyze circumstances of political conflict. Discord in action is routinely
described as stemming at base from involved parties’ thoughts being mutually ‘different’
or ‘other’. A wider level of relevant context is the great emphasis Korowai put on personal
autonomy, and on refusal of hierarchy or being ordered around, as a cross-cutting political
value. (Their emphasis on autonomy and egalitarianism may be sharper even than in the
similar political ethos of many other New Guinea societies.) Seeing opacity statements as
in part statements about the political terms of people’s coexistence flowed from my sense
that people’s use of the ‘He has his own thoughts’ formula was usually a context-specific
crystallization of these wider political values.
In sum, my claims with respect to the narrow theme above are:
– We should think about the knowledge aspect and authority aspect of knowing minds
in tandem. (As best I have discerned from Korowai case materials, this would not
involve doubting the experiential reality of the opacity of other minds, as something
people feel. It just involves adding that often a sense of political opacity is a prominent
aspect of the experience.)
– We should examine whether emphasis on opacity goes with, or is a form of, emphasis
on autonomy. This could be true of variation across societies, or across contexts within
societies.
My broader ethnographic and comparative interest would be to then situate the opacity
theme within a wider field of mind talk and mind theorization. My work on this wider
field is at a stage more of putting forward ‘themes’ than ‘claims’. Some Korowai emphases
in modeling of mind that might be good to think with comparatively include:
– Often it seems that mind theory is social theory, or theory of action. Talk about
‘thought’ is very prominent as a daily or moment-to-moment register in which people
parse social affairs.

– The emphasis on opacity of others’ minds is vivid, but coexists with other statements.
People do express claims of positive knowledge of others’ thoughts (even if hedged by
irrealis and/or interrogative suffixes: ‘…perhaps they could be thinking’). They also
frequently affirm that someone else is ‘of the same mind’ or ‘has the same thoughts’ as
themselves (e.g. as a general expression of social unity and agreement). Speakers also
frequently celebrate specific persons as not acting according to their ‘own thoughts’
but instead having ‘good thoughts’ evidenced in material generosity toward others.
Many of these patterns of talk still seem to involve a strong recognition of a baseline
possibility of people’s radical mental-political separateness from each other, while
posing bridges across separateness as a valued accomplishment.
– Perspectivism might be seen as standing in an interesting tension with the opacity

emphasis. ‘Perspectivist’ representations posit parallel, inverted, or otherwise transposed
subjectivities experienced by social beings other than living humans (e.g. they see
our night as their day, they see our houses as their trees and vice versa). Korowai
perspectivist representations are most elaborated around divinities, the dead, or other
occult populations thought to coexist invisibly with humans. On the one hand, these
representations might be taken as reaffirming at a species level what opacity statements
affirm at a personal one: different beings have fundamentally different subjectivity.
(Korowai sometimes use the vocabulary of ‘guts/thought/consciousness’ to talk about
perspectivism, saying that humans and some other population ‘don’t have the same
thoughts/subjectivity’, and these differences are linked to imperatives of segregation).
Yet against the grain of the opacity idea, the perspectivist representations do involve
claiming to know the shape of the feelings and perceptual experiences of non-humans,
and thinking about possibilities of moving between the different subjectivities in
processes of mediumship, reincarnation, and the like.
– The moral emphasis on respecting others’ mental autonomy coexists also with a diverse
array of ideas about persons not knowing or controlling their own mental lives: their
thoughts are startled or stressed by other people, they are possessed in their thoughts/
guts by divinities, they are the reincarnation of a secret predecessor, they are attacked
or injured without being conscious of it, and so on. Great interactional deference
to others’ personal authority over their own mental lives, as a mode of respecting
autonomy, seems correlative also with a highly developed sense of the tenuousness
of that authority. Routinely, too, people are distant or deliberative toward their own
thought: their thoughts are opaque (plural, ambiguous) to themselves; they expect
their thoughts to change or clarify over time, etc.
– Finally, ‘thought’ and emotional experience is often transparently modeled as being

materially fungible: persons’ feelings are known in and as their acts of material giving
or appropriation, and people enter into material transactions deliberately expecting
that articles will change their own or others’ psychological states (e.g. remove grief
or anger, akin to ‘retail therapy’). This overall pattern again might be seen as in an
interestingly two-sided relation to the opacity theme. On the one hand, the focus on
visible, tangible, knowable material articles is a recognition of the basic unknowability

of people’s interior subjectivity per se, and a compensatory shift to something more
knowable. On the other hand, the transactional processes involve not only a sense
that others’ subjectivity is reachable but also a project of the deliberate, knowing
reengineering of each other’s subjectivity, seemingly contrary to the emphasis on
unknowability and ‘hands-off!’ autonomy in the domain of verbal description and
command.
RUPERT STASCH
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
[email protected]
THE LEARNING OF MIND: HOW DO YOU FIGURE OUT

WHAT A MIND IS? TEACHING AND LEARNING
• BARBARA ROGOFF •
The basis of my understanding of learning by observing and pitching in:

I first began working in a Tz’utujiil Mayan town in the highlands of Guatemala, thirty
seven years ago, interested in understanding how children learned the complex activities
of their community. I inquired about learning to weave, among other activities. When I
asked mothers ‘How do you teach your daughters to weave?’ they replied, ‘I don’t teach
them to weave, they just learn.’ This was a puzzle for me, as I assumed that children don’t
learn unless they are taught. (My assumption may have been supported by having spent
nineteen years in school at that point.) My career since then has circled around trying to
answer this question.
My research since that eighteen-month period living in San Pedro has involved several
subsequent investigations in San Pedro and approximately yearly trips back. In addition,
I have engaged in research in collaboration with my students and postdoctoral students,
in Mexico and among Mexican-heritage families in the US (varying in involvement
in Western schooling), as well as Anglo families. Our methods include participant
observation, ethnography (at various scales), interviews, and observing how people act
in situations that we design to simulate everyday learning situations so that we can make
cultural comparisons of multiple cases.
We are interested in understanding a way of learning that seems to be widespread among
people with experience with Indigenous-heritage practices of Guatemala and Mexico,
which we call ‘learning through intent community participation’ (see Intent Community
Participation website). Basically, this is learning by observing and pitching in.
Our understanding is amplified by ethnographies of similar practices elsewhere
in these regions as well as through North and South America. We have also learned a
great deal from the international consortium that I founded to look at this question.
The consortium has met for eight years, and involves about thirty-five researchers
(anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, linguists, education folks, historians). All of

us have personal experience in Indigenous-heritage communities of the Americas, and

many of us are from such communities.
My current understanding of learning by observing and pitching in can be contrasted
with the characteristics of assembly-line instruction. The facets of the following prisms
define the approaches:
LEARNING through INTENT COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

3. Learning by means of:
Keen attention and contribution
(current or anticipated) to events. 4.
Guidance from Social
2.
communitywide expectations organization
Motive: of endeavors:
and sometimes people.
Learner is Collaborative.
eager to contribute, Learner trusted to
belong, & fulfill role. contribute with initiative.
Others’ motive is Flexible leadership;
to accomplish endeavor all may guide.
(and maybe to guide). 1. Learner is Calm mutual pace.
incorporated
7. Assessment: of and contributing to
5. Communication:
progress as well as support. family/community Coordination of
To aid contributions shared endeavors with
endeavors.
during the endeavor. nonverbal (+verbal)
Thru direct feedback conversation.
from outcome & Dramatization,
acceptance or 6. Goal of education: narratives.
correction of Transform participation,
efforts. to contribute, belong.
Learn consideration, responsibility, © Barbara Rogoff,
February 2012
information, skills.
ASSEMBLY-LINE INSTRUCTION
3. Learning by means of:

Receiving lessons, exercises 4.
Social
out of context of organization
2. productive activity. of endeavors:
Motive: Unilateral
Learner seeks control, fixed roles.
extrinsic rewards, ‘Expert’ controls pace,
avoids threats. attention, learner behavior.
Others’ motive is to ‘Transmits’info, divides labor,
instruct and sort learners. not collaborating in endeavor.
1.
Learner receives info.
Controlled
instruction in 5.
7. Assessment: Communication:
to sort + test learners. segregated setting.
Limited formats—
Separate from learning. Explanations
Indirect feedback out of context;
6. Goal of education:
from praise, quiz questions.
Transmission of
critique,
isolated information, skills
ranking.
for certification,
© Barbara Rogoff,
prerequisite for inclusion in society. February 2012
With my research group, I have carried out extensive research on most of the facets of the
prism. We have found that children (and in some studies, adults) from Indigenous and
Indigenous-heritage families with little Western schooling are more likely to be:

– incorporated in a broad range of community activities

– expected and eager to contribute with initiative
– supported in their efforts by others nearby who are engaging in related activities, who
allow them initiative and trust their ability to contribute
– attending keenly to events surrounding them, including events that do not directly
involve them
– collaborating by blending agendas with others, with initiative, and attentively even
when not directly involved
– coordinating shared endeavors with articulate nonverbal conversation (in addition to
talk)
– guided by nonverbal conversation (in addition to talk) in the context of shared
endeavors, as well as by counsel in narrative or dramatic form
– showing consideration (respeto) for the direction of the group endeavor
– helping without being asked (being acomedid@)
My claims:
Underlying these cultural differences there seem to be distinct views of childhood and
learning. For example:
– Children are treated as community members from the start, rather than pre-persons or
pre-contributors relegated to a ‘child world’.
– They are assumed to be competent, trusted to make sense of the world and take part
with growing skill and initiative.
– Their involvement is valued not only for the contributions in the moment but also
for their learning of cultural ways, to be able to continue valued activities of the
community.
– Their learning is treated as being a product of being present, observing, and contributing
to the range of ongoing endeavors of the community.
– Calm mindful attention to surrounding events is key to learning, which is not
rushed.
– Talk is used in support of (rather than in place of ) shared endeavors.
– Learning to collaborate with others in support of shared endeavors requires learning
to be alert to the direction of the group and considerate of the efforts of others, in
addition to valued technical skills and information.
This way of organizing learning is not ‘just natural’; it is a highly evolved human practice
that requires specific forms of community organization and individual skill to support
such learning practices. The ambient environment has to be organized for learners’
presence, integration, and contributions.
BARBARA ROGOFF
SANTA CRUZ FOUNDATION DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
[email protected]

• LUKE BUTLER AND ELLEN MARKMAN •
Acquiring generic knowledge about kinds and categories is an essential building block in
cognitive development, allowing children to make generalizations from small amounts
of data and more efficiently construct a conceptual understanding of the world (see
Gelman 2003; Keil 1989; Markman 1989). Moreover, in acquiring generic knowledge,
children often rely on adults to impart information that might otherwise be difficult or
even impossible to learn (Gelman 2009; Harris 2002). But acquiring generic knowledge
poses a challenging inductive problem, as one can never observe a kind or category as
a whole, but must infer for each newly encountered piece of information whether it is
merely relevant or important to an individual or in a particular context, or whether it is
truly a piece of generic information about the world. One way that children can solve
this problem is by attending to linguistic cues. When children hear novel information
conveyed in a way that makes it clear that an adult is referring to a kind rather than an
individual, they treat it as more generalizable and more conceptually relevant to a kind
than if they hear identical information conveyed otherwise (e.g. Cimpian and Markman
2008, 2009; Gelman and Coley 1990; Gelman and Markman 1986).
However, children must also be able to gauge whether information is generic in
situations that don’t provide such clear linguistic cues. One possibility is that children
might attend to cues that an adult is explicitly sharing information with them for the child’s
own benefit (Csibra and Gergely 2009). On a rational, Gricean analysis (e.g. Sperber and
Wilson 1986), children may infer that when adults communicate information to them, it
is likely because it is information that is important and relevant. Children may thus infer
that information being explicitly communicated is likely generic information, and will
make inductive inferences similar to those they make when information is shared using
clear linguistic cues.
In our research, we have found compelling evidence that children as young as four
do make use of communicative cues to guide inferences about whether information is
generic. In one set of experiments (Butler and Markman, in press), we found that in
assessing the importance of new information children are highly sensitive as to whether
an action is performed with the pedagogical intent of sharing information with the child
for their benefit, or is merely performed with the intent to carry out an instrumental
action. Children only formed a strong inductive generalization about a novel property
when evidence for that property was explicitly demonstrated for their benefit. When
children were given identical objects to play with, and discovered that they in fact failed
to share the original demonstrated property, these strong inductive generalizations led
them to persist in exploring and trying to get the objects to work. In contrast, even
when children observed identical evidence that an object had this novel property, but it
was produced in an intentional but not explicitly pedagogical manner, children made a
weaker, more tentative generalization. This suggests that children are quite conservative
about what information supports strong generalizations, and reserve such inferences for
information that someone has deliberately manifested for their benefit.
Further, this sensitivity leads children not only to stronger generalizations but to
fundamentally different conceptions of a novel object kind (Butler and Markman, under
review). Only when children were explicitly shown that a novel object possessed a property,

and not when they observed identical evidence produced in an intentional but non-
pedagogical manner, they made a radically different inference about the nature of that
novel kind of object—as defined by possession of this deeper, functional property rather
than by perceptual similarity. Taken together, these experiments suggest that children
make judicious use of communicative cues to guide nuanced inductive inferences about
whether information is generic.
Our claim is that these studies and those currently under way shed light on the
important role that children’s ability to reason about the minds of those around them
plays in early cognitive development. Children are aware that others, especially adults,
know more about the world than they do. Moreover, they know, or at least assume, that
those adults act with a cooperative motive to manifest and share important information
with them, for their own direct benefit. This type of cooperative exchange of information
may form the bedrock of human culture and cultural transmission, enabling children to
learn from adults, and allowing each generation to capitalize on the wealth of knowledge
accumulated by earlier generations. This capacity begins to emerge early in life (see
Tomasello 2008), and we have found that by preschool age children appear to use cues
that an adult is communicating with them to help solve the crucial inductive problem of
identifying important information about the world.
LUKE BUTLER
GRADUATE STUDENT
PSYCHOLOGY
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
[email protected]
ELLEN MARKMAN
LEWIS M. TERMAN PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
[email protected]

WHAT A MIND IS? PLAY, CREATIVITY, FICTION AND FANTASY
• DANILYN RUTHERFORD •
I feel both singularly unqualified and singularly qualified to contribute to the fashioning
of an anthropological theory of mind. In my research in Biak, an island group in the
Indonesian-occupied part of Melanesia, West Papua, I struck out when it came to collecting
explicit accounts of how minds and bodies work. I’m not so sure that the term ‘theory’
captures what is going on when people make inferences about what others are thinking,
feeling, or doing. I’m not sure we’re going to make the most of what anthropology has
to offer to thinking on this topic if we limit our task to the comparison of theories of
mind.

But in another sense, I am qualified for this conversation. For reasons having less to
do with my research on Biak than with my unusual domestic situation, I’ve given a good
deal of thought to the question of how children develop the ability to stand in another’s
shoes. I’m not quite an auto-ethnographer, but I come close. I feel qualified to share some
ideas about theories of mind—and what I see as shortcomings in the theory—because I
am a participant observer who is tightly enmeshed in a tiny social world I feel compelled
to describe.
This tiny social world revolves around my eleven-year old daughter, Millie. Millie does
not walk without support. She does not talk. She rarely makes eye contact. She is what the
doctors and bureaucrats call ‘severely to profoundly retarded’. They say she has a mental
age of between nine and eleven months. It is hard to imagine Millie entertaining a theory.
Some might even see her as belonging to the ranks of Clifford Geertz famously described
as ‘unworkable monstrosities’, ‘men without culture’, given her apparent lack of language
or much in the way of signs. I have a personal and professional interest in seeing Millie
otherwise. For me, Millie is one of the most instructive social beings I have ever met.
This is because Millie challenges our presumptions on the nature of sociality—our
deep-seated prejudices on the way in which intersubjectivity happens amongst humans
(and perhaps other animals). She brings to light the embodied connective tissue on which
rests the relationship between self and others and all the multifarious modes of human
action, from gossiping to doing math. I’ve just begun investigating the practices of belief
that come to light in the therapeutic settings set up to serve children like Millie, who seem
stalled on the cusp of communication. Based on what some have called ‘the doctrine of
the least dangerous assumption’, speech therapy rests on faith: the faith that one can create
a speaking subject by responding to seemingly random gestures—a burp, a twitch—as
though they were intentional signs. But I’m also after something more elusive than these
practices, which one can study by talking to experts. This has led me to start taking field
notes like the following in which I try to understand Millie on her own terms:
[Millie] is more determined than anyone I know. She tries hard to get herself moved into a position in
which she can reach one of those toys in her room that she loves the best—things with strings, things
with straps, things with zippers—toys only in the loosest sense, the sense that accommodates fleece
vests, shoe laces, Keene sandals, and long hair. Most recent example: It’s Easter. Non-conventional
parent that I am, I do not awaken in the same house as both of my Bunny-worthy children. Ralph
[my fourteen year old] wakes up in LA with his cousins, with whom he had just spent a week skiing.
Millie wakes up in Santa Cruz, but by then I’m long gone, up at Lexington Reservoir with the other
pagan scullers out for a morning row. On the way to San Jose Airport afterwards, I stop at a coffee
house in Los Gatos. Why are all these people so dressed up? Why is everyone talking about church?
Is Los Gatos not only whiter and richer than Santa Cruz—is it also more Christian, too? Easter.
Fortunately, I did have my act together enough the night before to buy baskets, grass, crème eggs,
jelly beans, and lots of Peeps—and the nicest Easter themed toys I could find for Millie at CVS. (Real
toys: a bunny that bends. A sheep that bleats. A funny ball with feathers.)
It’s 3 p.m. Time for the egg hunt! Ralph makes pretty short work of it—he came home with a
suitcase full of Best-Rogowski chocolate but he’s still motivated enough to find eight cream eggs.
Meanwhile, Millie has turned her attention to her basket. Izzi walks her out of her bathroom holding
her shoulders to help her balance, knee poised to prompt Millie to step by applying gentle pressure
to the opposite buttock. No need. Millie is lifting her knees, Gestapo style. Marching forward. She
sees the grass.

She’s smiling. She’s squealing. She’s taking huge steps. When she gets within two feet, she stops
walking and leans forward, holding out her arms, reaching with her fingers, giggling hysterically. We
laugh with her—she laughs even harder when she hears us laugh. One more step. She’s forgotten
about stepping, so determined is she to grab this stuff—she’d rather fly or dive into the little pile of
shredded green paper. But then she is there. She grabs a fistful. It’s not coming out quickly enough.
She grabs the basket by the handle and shakes it upside down. Jelly beans spray onto the couch and
carpet. (Look out for the dog!) She squeals. The bendy bunny catches her eye; she catches him by
the leg—but she’s not ready to give up the grass, looking over her shoulder to see where it went. Izzi
turns her to sit on the couch—she can do this now, unsupported—I gather up the grass and jelly
beans, unbending her fingers to release the final piece, and carrying her basket, along with Ralph’s,
to the kitchen. She keeps looking for them, not giving the bleating sheep the attention it deserves. I
put the baskets back into their original hiding place—in the kitchen cupboard. She still gazes in their
direction wistfully. Determination.
Millie experiences the world around her through channels quite unlike those used by
typical people. Millie has trouble organizing her visual field; she prefers to rely on sound
and touch. It’s not surprising that strangers find it hard to interact with her. Millie doesn’t
share attention by following the gaze of another; instead she vocalizes, laughing merrily
when someone imitates her sounds. She doesn’t lock eyes; instead she strokes flesh, gently
fondling people and their clothing, reaching for their jewelry, laces, and belts. Although
Millie has not been labeled autistic, scholarship on this topic has provided me with useful
leads for thinking about her experience. Critics of the theory of mind theory of autism
have raised the possibility that what researchers have described as a ‘deficit’ in autistic
children could in fact stem from their atypical ways of organizing their sensory field.
Some have even suggested that intersubjectivity begins with proprioception: our reflexive
experience of our bodies in time and space. We need not define autism as a lack of
sympathy, to use an eighteenth century term for the ability to identify with others. We
could view it as sympathy in another key.
Anthropologists often get cast in the role of naysayer. For the purposes of this project,
I’m wondering whether we can use our comparative method in more sophisticated ways.
Linguistic anthropologists have described how people’s ‘language ideologies’ foreground
certain functions of language, while leaving others unremarked. I wonder whether we
could coin a new term—‘sensory ideologies’—to describe how people navigate the
multiple avenues that are available for entering the give and take that makes humans
what they are. My daughter’s ways may seem strange. But they may well bring to light
capacities that all of us share.
DANILYN RUTHERFORD
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN ANTHROPOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ
[email protected]

• SUZANNE GASKINS •
I have done fieldwork for many years in a small Maya village in Yucatan, Mexico. I have
done a wide range of projects looking at children’s development and their everyday lives
from infancy through middle childhood.
My basic claim:
The cultural organization of children’s worlds provides different demands and opportu-
nities to children who are learning to understand their social partners. When caregivers
initiate and organize children’s social experiences and intentionally structure the world to
support their learning, children must master their caregivers’ expectations and also come
to learn how to manipulate their attention. When caregivers give the responsibility to the
children to organize their own learning through observation and participation, children
focus not only on others’ understandings about the interactional space but also on their
understandings about the larger world and how to operate in it. Thus, there are many
ways in which Yucatec Mayan children’s understanding of others’ minds is very different
from that of a middle class, European-American child, and so is their use of their under-
standing in conducting their daily lives.
Infancy
One area that I have worked in is Mayan infants’ rules of engagement with the physical
and social world—which both structure and provide evidence for how they understand
others’ minds and motivations. Beginning in infancy, Yucatec Maya children’s caregivers
do not usually actively stimulate them nor construct experiences for them designed to
maximize their learning experiences. Maya caregivers are highly responsive to their infants’
signals about desires and distresses, but they do not work nearly as diligently as European-
Americans to engage their infants in extended, face-to-face social interactions nor direct
their attention to objects and events in the world around them. Thus, Mayan infants have
much more control over directing their attention to the social and physical world around
them—they must take the initiative to pay attention, and they must decide what is worth
paying attention to, including making sense of others’ thoughts and feelings.
Researchers are currently investigating whether Yucatec Mayan infants’ pre-verbal
communicative gestures (e.g. pointing) are similar to those studied in the US and Europe,
and whether they develop at the same time. It appears that while the emergence of the
capacity to point and to follow points happens in many cultures around the infants’ first
birthdays, the amount of time spent in practicing this new skill differs based on the social
input the infant receives. Yucatec Mayan babies appear to be able to point around their
first birthdays, but they point less (and have fewer points directed to them), and their
points are frequently ignored by their social partners. In addition, it appears that one key
component to shared pointing is not consistently present in early pointing—checking to
see if the intended audience’s attention has been successfully directed by the point—‘is the
other person paying attention to what I’m pointing at?’ This social referencing is used in

the US and Europe as a necessary component for crediting the infant with an intentional
pointing gesture, but among Yucatec Maya infants, many of their points go ‘unchecked’.
One would expect that other early theories of mind skills, like gaze following, might in
fact be practiced earlier or more extensively by Yucatecan infants. (Again, we do not yet
know the answer to this question, but it is being worked on.)
Pointing, as an early system for commenting on the shared world of infant and
caregiver, is also influenced by what counts as an interesting topic for interaction—what
the infant finds interesting and what they predict their social partners will find interesting.
For US and European babies, much caregiver interaction is mediated through objects:
showing, pointing, labeling, demonstrating, giving, etc. For Yucatec Maya babies, almost
all social interaction is about interpersonal interaction, unmediated by objects: physical
movement, greetings, facial expressions, etc. The infants’ engagement with the physical
world is much more independent, with almost no social referencing to caregivers or
playmates. Because of this, Maya infants also spend less time in trying to sustain the
attention of caregivers unless they actively need care. They are not seeking nor expecting
mediation of the physical environment. Moreover, I have argued, as have Pablo Chavajay
and Barbara Rogoff, that Maya adults are able to sustain attention to more than one
thing at once, and so caregivers’ attention is distributed simultaneously across activities
and events, including whatever the infant is doing; in turn, Yucatec infants explore their
environment as if they assume someone is always watching (a good assumption in their
world). This helps explain why they do not check for partners’ attention when they point.
European-American adults, on the other hand, distribute their attention sequentially,
and their babies factor in to their behavior the need to direct caregivers’ attention toward
them and to confirm that they have it.
Children three-to-eight years of age
At somewhat older ages, I have studied two kinds of behavior that are relevant to theory
of mind: observational learning and pretend play. With Ruth Paradise, I have argued
that growing out of an environment where children are invited to be present at virtually
all activities and events, are expected to watch in order to learn, and are allowed to
participate only when they have developed some level of competency, they learn through
observation by exercising a kind of attention we have called open attention. We define
it as attention that is wide–angled and abiding, that is, attention that is distributed
across all that is occurring in the environment and is sustainable across time. This kind
of attention contrasts strongly with the kind of attention expected in a Western school
setting, which is narrowly focused and sustained in bursts. It comes closer to the kind
of attention that someone who is ‘street-wise’ might use while walking in a dangerous
neighborhood. Concrete skills can obviously be learned through observing behaviors,
but when open attention is habitually practiced, much more subtle information can be
inferred. Since there is little intentional teaching occurring, with an organized curriculum
and explanations, the children are responsible for directing their attention and for making
sense of what they observe in their everyday lives. It falls on the learner to identify
and integrate relevant information, much of which involves making inferences about

unobservable characteristics of other people, such as their knowledge, ideas, motivations,

and emotions.
One of the ways that children integrate their observations of the world around them
into organized understanding is through pretend play. I have argued that in most cultures,
pretend play is primarily limited to interpreting what they have observed in their everyday
lives: assuming roles and enacting scripts drawn from events that the children participate
in and/or observe. Vygotsky argues that children, though playing at roles they have in
everyday life, come to understand the roles better through the process of extracting the
more general characteristics of those roles in order to play them. To play at roles that they
have observed others hold, children also must come to understand better the thoughts,
motivations, and understandings of others—especially if the goal is to give accurate
enough interpretations of someone in those roles that they will be accepted as sensible
and adequate by fellow-players. In this sense, interpretive pretense, based on experience,
requires children to apply their theories about others to their own actions within the
pretend field. To play at being a mother, in a convincing and satisfying way, one cannot
just create behaviors and talk, but rather, one must invoke one’s understandings about
the motivations behind a real mother’s actions and talk. It is in this sense that this kind of
pretend play goes beyond imitation and into interpretation. The other kind of pretend,
inventive pretend, does not make this same demand on children. When children pretend
at things that are not real, or they have not observed, as European-American children
often do, they may construct roles and scripts that are not bound by the understandings of
others—a new, personal reality is constructed. In this case, the theory-of-mind demands
on a player come not from producing adequate content for the play, but from negotiating
the play space with other players. The social demands of interaction are higher because the
play is less constrained by shared knowledge, and children must take into consideration
the minds of others to sustain the play space itself.
SUZANNE GASKINS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY
NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
[email protected]
• GRAHAM JONES •
Connections between play and games and the theorization of mind run deep. Scholars
have linked play and the development of a theory of mind in children, and games involving
strategic interaction in which players must dissimulate their own mental contents and
make conjectures about opponents’ thoughts are particularly rich in this regard. For
instance, Sacks (1980: 320) describes a game in which children try to guess which one
among them has received a button from another player as a setting where ‘you learn that
others can see what you’re thinking and you learn to see what others are thinking’ by
inferring mental states from visible behaviors or expressions.
Anthropologists have studied similar forms of strategic interaction among adults. In an
ethnographic study of Cretan card gamblers, Malaby (1999: 153–154) explains,

The distinctive skill in poker is the ability to read the other players’ intentions (…) with
a corresponding control over what oneself reveals (…) Thus the game behind the game in poker is
one of strategic concealment and disclosure, as one attempts to give others an inscrutable posture
while simultaneously making one’s own guesses about other players’ situations.
Similarly, in a recent ethnographic study of international arena of competitive chess,

Desjarlais (2011: 68–69) writes:
Chess psychology holds that other minds are largely opaque—it’s often difficult to know what an
opponent is truly thinking or feeling—and this mental opacity sets limits on interpersonal empathy
(…) Many chess players strive to drum up acts of agonic empathy: they try to know their opponents
better, through a variety of means, in order to triumph over them (…) These days, players often adopt
‘counterempathy’ measures (…) so that their prospective rivals cannot pin down their inclinations.
Some players are concerned about their opponents ‘reading their minds’ while playing, and they try
not to let on too much about what they’re thinking.
Entertainment magic, which involves someone fooling and someone being fooled,
is another arena in which strategic interaction becomes a form of play, and which
necessitates a high capacity for representing the mental states of others. Recent studies
in brain sciences have focused on the patterns of thought and perception that magicians
expertly manipulate. A representative review in Trends in Cognitive Sciences argues that
‘any serious magician has a theory about how to deceive his or her audience. If this theory
is wrong, the magic trick will fail and the audience will spot the secret’ (Kuhn et al.
2008: 350). It follows that ‘each performance can be viewed as an experiment that tests
the magician’s theory (…) Years of such testing enables a magician to learn much about
human cognition. Moreover much of this knowledge is shared with fellow magicians and
is passed on from one generation to the next.’
In an ethnographic study of the social world of entertainment magicians in
contemporary France, I describe the production and transmission of this kind of situated
expertise as part of what I call a ‘working theory of mind’ (Jones 2011: 58). Magicians
must remain constantly aware of how the spectators they encounter, often in face-to-
face interactions, perceive their words and actions (it is important to note that their
theories are developmentally calibrated to spectators of differing ages). One common
strategy for imagining spectators’ viewpoints in the context of magic lessons is to verbalize
their thoughts as hypothetical reported speech. For instance, in a magic class I attended
as a participant observer, the instructor made the following remarks about the need to
perform a particular concealed maneuver without making any noise: ‘If you allow the- the
slightest suspicion about the fact that you might have tossed it, you’re dead. People will say,
‘OK, he tossed it, we didn’t see it go.’ It’s too easy to say. (…) If there’s a “clack” at the last
moment, people say to themselves, “OK he tossed it.”’
This example suggests a number of directions for anthropological research on theories
of mind. In imagining what spectators might think or say to themselves under certain
conditions, expert magicians enact a working theory of mind that construes mentation as
a continuous inner monolog that is also potentially speakable. This construal is calibrated
both to the specific dynamics of magic performance as a situated activity system and to
the exigencies of magic pedagogy, rendering the contents of spectators’ thoughts available

for scrutiny. It may also reflect an ideology of mind specific to a cultural setting where
others’ thoughts are considered both knowable and speakable (cf. Schieffelin 2008). This
analysis leads me to ask: How do participants in other forms of play involving strategic
interaction—and other communities of practice more broadly—draw upon cultural
and linguistic resources such as reported speech or constructed dialogue to discursively
elaborate and interactionally transmit working theories of mind as a form of expertise?
Incidentally, magic may also be relevant to the consideration of other minds as an
epistemological problem in social scientific research. Within anthropology, the topic of
instrumental, occult, and ritual magic has played a pivotal role in research on cross-
cultural psychology. Once taken as a primitive worldview, ‘magical thinking’ is no longer
theorized as a form of cognitive alterity (e.g. Luhrmann 1989). Elsewhere, I have argued
that entertainment magic was a significant cultural backdrop for the historical elaboration
of a theoretical dichotomy between magical and rational thinking, with the ability to
interpret magic tricks naturalistically functioning as a metonym for modernity (Jones
2010). This example raises a broader question about consequences of researchers’ own
conceptual models for cross-cultural research on mental phenomena.
GRAHAM JONES
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ANTHROPOLOGY
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
[email protected]
• MICHELLE KARNES •
My field is medieval literature and my work thus far has focused on imagination. I have
just published a book that focuses on imagination in medieval meditations and theories
of cognition. The Middle Ages abounded in meditations that instructed their readers or
hearers to imagine the events of Christ’s life systematically and to participate imaginatively
in them. The imaginative exercises counseled by these authors—that you should imagine
picking up the baby Jesus, calming him when he cries, handing him over to Mary if
he starts squirming too much, and so forth—have tended to appear unsophisticated. I
resist that characterization in part by reading the meditations in tandem with medieval
philosophy. In the period’s theories of cognition, imagination was integral to every act of
understanding. Only through it could you proceed from perceiving a particular, upright,
square, and tiled structure, from a particular house, to understanding what a house is more
generally, that is, a form that can shelter people and goods. That journey from the particular
to the universal is, in the Aristotelian theory of knowledge then dominant, simply the way
that understanding occurs. It only happens, according to medieval Christian philosophers,
with the aid of Christ. He shines his illuminative light on the images within imagination
so that they can properly represent their objects. The point of all this is that Christ is
nowhere more present to the individual than in his or her imagination. One who imagines
Christ’s life participates spiritually, not just figuratively, in it.
What especially interests me about this philosophy is imagination’s relationship to
the real and true: one discovers truth by using imagination, and one discovers Christ as

he exists within the mind by imagining him. How people theorize imagination surely
affects how they experience it. Today, we value imagination above all as a creative faculty,
one that forecasts and foresees things that might one day be but at present are not. In its
negative aspect, it is simply illusory—he only imagined it, we say. In either case, what
you imagine is something that doesn’t exist, even if it should. So what does it mean to say
that imagination gives you access to what’s real? How does that change one’s perspective
on imagination or on reality?
I am continuing to work on these questions now. I’m in the midst of a chunky article
that again looks at imagination, but this time as it relates to marvels, not meditation.
Marvels or mirabilia include many sorts of wonderful things in medieval writings: they
are the products of magic-like illusions and transmutations, they are the special properties
of natural things like curative herbs and unusual stones when put to use, and they are
crafted machines, called automata, that run themselves. These last include such things as
clockworks and mechanical birds, and all evidence indicates that there was a real passion
for them in the Middle Ages. There is also the darker side of magic, typically called
necromancy and referring to any magic performed with the aid of demons. Imagination
is integral to all of them. It is how demons possess you, although also how God delivers
prophecy to you. It is how you are led to see, or believe you see, what the magician wants
you to. It is even how you affect or move external objects. To take some common medieval
examples: you can use your imagination to make a camel fall down, bewitch someone,
make them sick or well, alter the elements, and change weather conditions. Imagination
is also why, when a menstruating woman looks into a new mirror, that mirror becomes
foggy, as though stained with blood (the phenomenon of the red mirror is described
by Aristotle, and medieval philosophers were eager to explain it). Much of medieval
philosophers’ discussion of the subject focused on the realness or not of imagination’s
creations. Are you really having sex with a demon when you think you are? Is the illusion
that a demon or magician creates really in the world or does it exist only in the mind?
This takes me, finally, to the topic of play, because the imaginative marvels I’ve been
describing are staples in medieval romance. For instance, in a text popular in several
languages throughout medieval Europe, Floris and Blancheflour, we find a well that tests
a woman’s virginity. When a non-virgin touches it, it screams and turns red. In the work
of a thirteenth-century philosopher, William of Auvergne, we similarly find a stone that
tests virginity. A non-virgin will vomit it up, which is why, William tells us, brides were
often asked to swallow it. The connection between medieval philosophy and medieval
romance on the topic of marvels is hard to make sense of. Philosophy, of course, seeks to
discover truth, but medieval romance is wholly unconcerned with truth. It concerns itself
with fairyland, werewolves, and magical women who have really nice clothes. Imagination
is entertaining, but not because it deals with things fictive. Rather, the wonder it elicits
matters more than the truth or illusoriness of its productions.
My final interest is in the much-written-about medieval belief in things like monsters
and werewolves. As Caroline Walker Bynum (1999) rightly notes, these are the aspects
of medieval culture that most capture the modern imagination. It was not always so: the
Middle Ages used to feature in scholarship as a monumental point of origin, the era when
cities and universities and so forth were born. Now it intrigues because it is unlike our
world. You will note, and you are right, that many people alive today believe in monsters

in some form or another. Nonetheless, the Middle Ages is, in Max Weber’s famous
formulation, the enchanted world, now viewed above all as the un- or pre-modern. By
the time we meet, I hope I can say how I think the simultaneous real and fictiveness
of imagination’s creations might lead us to a more satisfying perspective on medieval
enchantment.
MICHELLE KARNES
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
[email protected]

WHAT A MIND IS? METAPHORS FOR MIND
• DEDRE GENTNER •
My work is on human cognition and its development, mostly using the techniques of
cognitive psychology, but also drawing on linguistics and other areas of cognitive science.
My chief foci are analogical thinking and interactions between thought and language. I
see both of these as fundamental in human thinking.
People use analogy and metaphor to understand things that are hard to understand.
This often means using a concrete or familiar domain to explain an abstract or unfamiliar
domain. For example, Freud often used a metaphor from hydraulics to explain his
psychodynamic theory of the mind. To explain how taboo thoughts may surface in
unexpected ways, he used the intuition that if water is dammed in one place, it will show
up somewhere else. Bowlby’s influential theory of attachment explicitly makes use of an
analogy with control systems theory (cybernetics). In Bowlby’s case the source domains
include a simple home heating thermostat, the power steering system in a car, and the
sophisticated control systems that allow an anti-aircraft gun to track and hit a moving
target. In a sense, the most striking thing about these efforts is that both these highly
influential theories implicitly assume that our own minds are harder to understand than
these external systems. Often, the source domains involve new technology, as suggested
in Gigeranzer’s work, and in the following quote from Searle (1986: 44):
Because we do not understand the brain very well we are constantly tempted to use the latest
technology as a model for trying to understand it. In my childhood we were always assured that the
brain was a telephone switchboard. (‘What else could it be?’) I was amused to see that Sherrington,
the great British neuroscientist, thought that the brain worked like a telegraph system. Freud often
compared the brain to hydraulic and electro-magnetic systems. Leibniz compared it to a mill, and I
am told some of the ancient Greeks thought the brain functions like a catapult. At present, obviously,
the metaphor is the digital computer.
Although the examples just cited are explicit academic theories, there is much evidence
that people spontaneously use analogies (for better or worse) to explain things they want
to understand. To the extent that people use analogical processes to understand the mind,

research on how these processes take place may be relevant to the themes of this workshop.
We know a fair amount about how carrying out an analogy can change one’s understanding
of a topic, by suggesting inferences, inviting new abstractions and new perspectives, and
even by making specific differences salient. Less is known about what exactly leads someone
to think of a new analogy. But for our perception of other minds, I suspect what’s important
is the conventional cultural analogies that pervade cultural institutions.
A crucial aspect of analogical processing is its interactions with language. Our analogical
capacity is magnified by language in several ways. For example, when a novel analogy is
carried out, naming the resulting abstraction may make it more likely to persist and be
used again. Language can also serve to invite analogical processing: if a child hears the
same term used for two different situations, she is likely to compare them analogically
and derive a new (for her) abstraction. In the other direction, analogical processes enter
into language learning. For example, children are better able to understand a new abstract
term if they are encouraged to analogically compare two instances of the term. The role
of this analogy/language interaction becomes larger the less ‘cut and dried’ the domain
of inquiry. Analogy and language form a mutual bootstrapping system by which humans
can build up large-scale metaphoric systems.
I make two claims that bear on the broad question of how we think about minds. First,
we know that disciplinary ideas about the mind change over time. I have been working on
an historical study (with Jonathan Grudin) of the evolution of metaphors for the mind in
psychology over the ninety years from 1890 to 1975. In this evolution, we can see an early
reliance on animate beings as the source domain, as well as on spatial metaphors; these give
way over time to a preference for complex systems—especially computers—as sources.
Second, we know that conceptions of the mind are influenced by current technology.
I have also been working on an historical study of the use of metaphors in alchemy
(with Michael Jeziorski). For this workshop, the most relevant are metaphorical
correspondences between the components of a human being (e.g. body, mind and soul)
and the components of metals (e.g. mercury, salt and sulfur). These correspondences
entered into the quest to turn base metals into gold, in pursuit of the Philosophers’ Stone.
As the work was perfected, the alchemists’ spirit would also be perfected; for example, an
early stage in the alchemical process was calcination—heating the base metal until it turns
to ash. This corresponded to the alchemist’s purging his soul through the fire of aspiration
and self-discipline.
Of course the first question is what relation (if any) these essentially academic theories
bear to people’s informal day-to-day perceptions of other people’s minds. Do such theories
penetrate ordinary language and thought? We can find conventional metaphorical
language that might suggest Freudian views as in: ‘His resentment built up to where
he couldn’t contain it any longer.’ If there is such a relation, the next question will be
whether the influence is in the reverse direction: whether the academic theories are based
on existing cultural views.
DEDRE GENTNER
ALICE GABRIELLE TWIGHT PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
[email protected]

• ALLEN TRAN •
My research focuses on the emerging sources, forms, and subjects of anxiety in post-reform
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and is based on ethnographic research on the transformation
of people’s emotional lives across various settings, including psychiatric clinics and
counseling centers as well as people’s homes and work places. Since Vietnam’s neoliberal
reforms were initiated in 1986, many Ho Chi Minh City residents have benefited from
a vastly increased standard of living yet reported worrying more now than ever before.
This stands in marked contrast to a past when, according to many people I talked to,
extreme suffering stunted people’s souls as much as their bodies. Recent scholarship on
neoliberal modes of modernity has called attention to affective practices and relationships
of sentiment as a medium linking structural transformations and subject formation.
However, such studies rarely examine how the experience of practices and relationships
come to be understood as specifically emotional themselves, a process that I argue is
crucial to subject formation in Vietnam’s transition to a market-oriented economy.
What stands out to me about the theory of mind at work in Vietnam comes from
two observations: (1) people infrequently discuss or articulate their own interior states,
especially their emotions; and (2) people are very observant of other people’s behavior and
actions. For example, people described the psyche (tâm lý, lit. heart and reason) as if it were
a ‘black box’ of mental activity, but often could not elaborate psychological processes. On
the other hand, they could infer the details of such processes from discrete and specific
events; mental activity is understood and talked about through the medium of people’s
actions. Thus, theory of mind in Vietnam is embedded in theories of social action and
relatedness. As the ethnopsychological basis of intersubjectivity, theory of mind identifies
basic parameters of the mind-world relation. However, to what extent does a theory of
mind overlap with a theory of behavior, action, or practice? And what is the relationship
between theory of mind as a mental representation and as externalized in practice?
My claims is that the case of Vietnam has much to contribute to our thinking of theory
of mind, focusing mostly on recent changes in the landscape of Vietnamese theories of
emotion and sentiment, through the lens of metaphors for the heart. The shift implied
in notions such as the ‘angry gut’, which is rooted in Traditional Chinese Medicine,
to the ‘force in our hearts’, which is rooted in both Taoism and Western psychological
disciplines, to express emotional experiences reflects new models of personhood. New
ideas of emotionality construct individuals in terms of vivid interior lives, which have
a tantalizing link to the powers of the self taken up by neoliberalism with aims towards
modern goals of individual achievement through rationalization. However, this process of
rationalization via individuation brings with it an attendant emotionalization of the self. In
terms of people’s everyday lives, an emphasis on how an individual feels about something
is a shifting away from both Confucian and socialist forms of social organization that
valorize communality and hierarchy. Changing concepts of emotion also alter people’s
relationships to the objects of those emotions. In re-casting social experience within

a rubric of emotion, individuals are not only paying greater attention to the emotions but
changing the concept of emotion itself.
ALLEN TRAN
GRADUATE STUDENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
[email protected]

WHAT A MIND IS? ISSUES OF LANGUAGE
• EVE DANZINGER •
All of my thinking about theory of mind is inspired by twenty five years of acquaintance
with speakers of a Yucatecan Mayan language called Mopan Maya. There are about five
thousand Mopan speakers, most of whom live as subsistence agriculturalists in southeastern
Central America. I have been making extended visits to Mopan country since 1986,
doing ethnographic, linguistic-anthropological, and psycholinguistic observation. Over
the years I’ve learned to speak Mopan, and I have published on Mopan grammar as well
as on Mopan culture. My most recent visit was this past summer, July 2011. Mopan
people in the area where I visit (Southern Belize) speak English, not Spanish, as their
second language. Where I provide English translations for Mopan expressions below, they
are endorsed by Mopan speakers who are bilingual in English.
I started thinking about theory of mind after I realized that Mopan Maya culture does
not include an institutionalized genre of fiction. There is lots of storytelling, but stories are
either believed (sometimes even stories with fantastical elements), or they are condemned
as ‘lying’ (tus). This is theory of mind-relevant because successful interpretation of fiction
depends on assessment of whether or not there is intention to deceive (we both know
that we both know that what I say is not really true. But you will not condemn me
as a liar since under this state of mutual knowledge, I clearly cannot be attempting to
deceive you). I used a formal elicitation task to confirm that intention to deceive didn’t
have much to do with classifying even everyday utterances as tus in Mopan. Mistakes as
well as deliberate attempts to deceive are classified this way by Mopan, even though it
means moral condemnation of the speaker. In general, assessment of mental state is not
an important part of interpreting or of morally evaluating others’ utterances and actions
in Mopan.
Don’t get me wrong. Mopan people know that mental states exist. They even believe
that they play an important role in motivating people’s actions. There are vocabulary
words for philosophically classic mental states like ‘to want something’ (k’ati), and ‘to
know something’ (eel). Apart from the absence of fiction, and a few other little quirks
(Mopan interactional style is often marked by reticence and linguistic caution), Mopan
conversational interaction proceeds in ways that feel fully familiar when it comes to things

like real-time audience design (taking into account as you speak what you believe that
your interlocutor does and does not already know). And I’ve performed some standard
False Belief tasks with Mopan children, which document the expected development of an
understanding that others could believe something which I know to be false.
But not all theory of mind tasks can be replicated with Mopan (ask me about
‘interpretive theory of mind’). And I’ve also repeated the ‘no-mental-state-calculation’
effect with Mopan vocabulary items beyond tus. For example, the philosophically
important ‘believe’ (tz’ok-es) is only fully appropriate in Mopan usage if the ‘believer’
also ‘obeys’ what s/he is told. And one can say in Mopan that someone has ‘tried’ doing
something (u yaal-tah) only if they have actually accomplished it (‘tried it out’). There is
no lexical way to recognize mental effort alone in Mopan. From this and also from more
diffuse ethnographic evidence, including evidence from religious practice, from attitudes
to children’s play, and from occasions when traditional and ‘theatrical’ costumed dances
were performed in Mopan villages, I have concluded that what Mopan know perfectly
well about the existence of others’ mental states is not elaborately consulted when they
bring their interpretations of other people’s actions—including linguistic actions—into
awareness. In fact, when awareness of such matters is demanded (as in elicitation tasks,
but also when explicit moral or legal judgments are required), Mopan downplay the
importance of actors’ mental states.
To make sense of all this, it helps to know that Mopan believe that truthful speech
and correct action are part of what keeps the universe running. Violations ‘automatically’
cause cosmological difficulties, so the question of interpersonal bad faith becomes only
one—and not always the most severe—negative consequence of false speech and other
transgressions. There are other ethnographic cases (many among other Native American
groups), where a similar kind of philosophy seems to be in operation. This is different
from the non-Western ‘opacity’ theory of mind doctrine (we can’t know what’s in another’s
mind) which is documented in many parts of the Pacific.
My basic claim(s)
In general, there are cultural particularities in theory of mind, and they have some effect
on everyday behavior, and perhaps on people’s own mental experience. But the effect
of cultural theory of mind philosophies on the actual conduct of interaction is also not
limitless. Much of everyday interactional exchange is organized universally, at a level to
which cultural philosophy does not penetrate. This is a radical conclusion, because it means
not only that non-intentionalists like the Mopan actually do unconsciously monitor and
adjust to what they know of their interlocutors’ mental states as interaction proceeds, but
also that intentionalists like Euro-American moderns may do less accessible-to-awareness
mutual knowledge calculation during online interaction than they think they do.
‘Theory of mind’ is not one thing, but has multiple components. Some of these
components are found universally in our species and some are elaborated only under
certain conditions of cultural philosophy. It is an important project to work out where
the boundaries among these components lie, and what sorts of components they are.
Which components can and cannot come under the influence of cultural belief-systems?
Among other things, this involves study of differences among non-Euro-Americans, not

just differences of one or another group from Euro-Americans. We can aim for a multi-
dimensional typology of cultural theory of mind possibilities.
Preferred forms of figurative speech across cultures follow from cultural beliefs about
language, including beliefs related to the importance of mental states. Particular figurative
speech types such as the production of novel metaphor are therefore not ‘natural’ to all
humans. Exploration of poetic speech across cultures is an avenue into the investigation
of cross-cultural theory of mind.
Another area where local belief-systems influence the presence of mutual
knowledge calculation is in working out what to do when things go wrong (including
misunderstandings in conversation). When things are going without a hitch, even high
mutual-knowledge calculators like modern Euro-Americans may not actually conduct
such calculation. Central places to look for variation in theory of mind across cultures
are therefore in moral philosophies, legal codes, and household regimes of blame and
reward.
The modern Euro-American belief that accessible-to-awareness mutual-knowledge
calculation is constantly taking place perhaps arises erroneously from experiences with
in-awareness assessment of blame for wrongdoing, under a culturally relative moral code
in which mental state is the primary determinant of blameworthiness.
EVE DANZINGER
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN ANTHROPOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
[email protected]
• BAMBI SCHIEFFELIN •
My work centers on language use in context, its forms, functions, and meanings and
the relationships that obtain across those domains. To this end I integrate ethnographic,
ethnomethodological, linguistic and sociolinguistic methods and theories to understand
what participants in a community do with language (speech practices) in conjunction
with how they think about and talk about language (language ideologies). Audiorecorded,
naturalistic interaction is my starting point for exploring these relationships, and I
take cultural, linguistic and situational variation to be significant, requiring systematic
investigation.
My long-term research program in Bosavi, Papua New Guinea, (1975–1998), a
small-scale, relatively egalitarian society of hunters and horticulturalists, provided me
with opportunity to document linguistic and cultural change over developmental as well
as socio-historical time. In terms of theories of mind, research on children’s language
socialization practices revealed implicit theories or tacitly held cultural beliefs that were
critically tied to Bosavi notions of personhood and sociality. During everyday interactions
with caregivers, very young children acquire appropriate communicative conventions
for participating as speakers, which in this community means talking only about things
for which one has particular types of knowledge and evidence. Talking about one’s own
and others’ internal states and intentions is one domain that highlights this cultural
orientation.

While children (and others) talk about their own cognitive and affective states, when
young children verbally report others’ unexpressed internal states, they are corrected
with a description of what the person is doing, that is, what is visually evident (e.g.
crying, as opposed to being sad). If a child verbally interprets inarticulate vocalization as
meaningful, (e.g. babbling), an adult will repeat the babbled vocalization retaining the
phonological shape as a quotation of what was said. In both cases, these restated utterances
are marked with appropriate evidentials, linguistic markers of the epistemological basis
of assertions (heard, seen or inferred from specific types of evidence). Thus, as part of the
discursive structures of talk in interaction, children simultaneously acquire the linguistic
means for marking their source of knowledge when making assertions. The obligatory
use of evidentials suggests that attention to epistemic stance is central to communicative
competence.
Complementing these socialization practices, caregivers never expand or guess at the
meaning of a child’s referentially or pragmatically unclear utterances. To do so would
provide verbal evidence that they might have independent knowledge of someone’s
inarticulate or incomprehensible thoughts. Small children are encouraged to observe
what others do, and to repeat what others say as reported speech.
Bosavi people do not explicitly discuss these ideas, but other verbal activities substantiate
a cultural and linguistic preference for maintaining a verbal boundary between unexpressed
thoughts or internal states and those that are uttered and free to circulate, with citation.
Bosavi people respond to others’ actions (intentions) nonverbally (e.g. reaching to get
something); they do not produce utterances that might be construed as verbal speculation
about another’s thoughts, feelings or desires. People ask, ‘what are you doing?’ not, ‘are you
doing X?’; or ‘what are you saying?’ not, ‘are you saying Y?’ Speakers do not repair others’
utterances but rather ask for repetition, giving responsibility to the original speaker for his
or her own utterances. People do not ask each other what they ‘mean’. At the genre level,
gossip (saying what is not yours to say) is viewed negatively and is actionable; confession
in the context of Christian missionization is avoided.
These cultural and linguistic orientations challenged newly missionized Bosavi
pastors, who, for over twenty years, struggled to translate New Testament passages that
describe Jesus as knowing, and quoting the thoughts of others from Tok Pisin into their
Bosavi vernacular. This type of cultural/linguistic contact situation raises the question of
habitual and potential practices—in this case, presenting both a linguistic and cultural
challenge: how to translate the text that reports a practice that makes little cultural sense.
The spontaneous solutions offered by pastors offer insights into local problem-solving
strategies for dealing with this with local linguistic parameters. This situation more
generally raises questions about unexamined assumptions of one language/one culture
models in broader thinking about theories of mind. In situations of cultural and linguistic
contact, such theories also enter the contact zone.
Questions:
What can linguistic and cultural analyses of naturalistic and spontaneous discursive
practices and everyday actions tell us about local theories of mind and modes of achieving
intersubjectivity, broadly conceived? What might be the limits of such methodologies?

How are theories of mind, intentionality, and intersubjectivity expressed through

and across cultural domains, linguistic repertoires, and language ideologies? Are such
constructs socially variable (gender, age, status)?
What are the consequences for local theories of mind during periods of contact and
change, such as the introduction of Christianity, which usually brings new languages,
cosmologies, social structures, and cultural practices?
BAMBI SCHIEFFELIN
COLLEGIATE PROFESSOR; PROFESSOR OF ANTHROPOLOGY
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
[email protected]
• SONYA PRITZKER •
My knowledge base for theories of mind consists of two major projects that both focus on
Chinese language and Chinese medicine.
The first consists of over ten years of wrangling with the Chinese expressions of and
for mind, including especially the language that describes different kinds of mental
experience in Chinese: heart-bitterness, heart-sourness, a sinking heart, dizziness,
thinking-not-moving-through, a heavy brain-sack (Pritzker 2003, 2007). Several specific
research endeavors focused on this question of how to understand, and translate, the
Chinese language of mind into terms that made sense for psychology, and from there,
how to translate Western psychology into Chinese (Pritzker 2001; Phillips et al. 2007).
In studying the intersections of psychology and Chinese medicine, focusing all along
on the language used to describe mental and emotional experience in both Chinese and
English, I have learned a lot about cultural differences in theories of mind, though I
never specifically thought about it these terms. I have also learned about the creative
adaptability of human minds to very quickly learn and work comfortably with multiple
theories of mind that on paper seem incompatible and culturally at odds.
The second major project examined the translation of Chinese medicine in the
US. Chinese medicine is a highly developed, extremely textual tradition. In the richly
interdiscursive web that comprises textuality in Chinese medicine, canonical, classic texts
are articulated with commentaries, case studies, and treatises on ‘integrative medicine’.
Authors of Chinese medical texts—both in Chinese and in translation—often explain
the meaning of illness concepts by strategically weaving a whole network of quotes
from classic and modern texts into a particular inscription. Translating in this context
is a challenge wrought with immense social, political, and economic considerations
(Pritzker 2011a). Debates abound over what it means to faithfully represent Chinese
medicine, whether or not there should be an officially adopted standard terminology
for the translation of Chinese medicine, and whether or not biomedical terminology
should be used to translate Chinese medical concepts into English. All of these debates
are framed by struggles over the cultural rights to translate, the authority to publish,
and the epistemological foundations of knowledge in this diverse healing tradition. The

specific goals of the individuals involved in these struggles have led to the development
of multiple strategies for translating Chinese medical terms, with one Chinese term often
carrying up to five different English translations.
My ethnographic research for this project, which in many ways is still ongoing, was
carried out over two years in the US in a Southern California school of Chinese medicine
and with several major publishers and over 30 translators in the US and China. One key
aspect I have considered in this work is the relationships that form between translators
and the texts that they are translating. For example, how do translators make sense of
the intentions of multiple authors working as part of a two thousand-year-old textual
tradition? How do they anticipate the intentions (and desires) of their audience? What is
the relationship that emerges between a reader of an English translation and the author
of the original Chinese text? I have thought deeply about these questions, and have
paid particular attention to the ways in which students and teachers in the classroom
discuss the meanings and intentions of translators (which they often do): the way they
try, in conversation, to relate back to the intentions of original authors with the ultimate
goal of discovering how the ancients saw the body, diagnosed the mind, treated illness,
and promoted health. There is a very practical goal to this interpretive activity, and so I
have also attempted to track the ways in which different kinds of clinical interpretations
and practices emerge from acts of translation that themselves use different kinds of
evidence to determine the ‘actual’ or ‘authentic’ meaning of certain Chinese medical
terms. Aside from a few key anthropologists and sociolinguists who have looked at the
dialogic, emergent nature of translation in social context (see, for example, Wadensjo
1998; Schieffelin 2007; Hanks 2010), most discussions of translation have focused on the
message itself—the ‘content’ to be translated and the way this content is transformed in
translation. Instead of focusing on this content, I have become more and more attuned to
the multiple conversations and meaning-making encounters that together comprise the
translation of Chinese medicine. I have come to understand translation as a lived event
where interactions with language and about language serve as the basis for interpretive
moves that constitute the ‘living translation’ of Chinese medicine (Pritzker 2011b).
In this work, I have also been particularly interested in the translation of Chinese
medical theories of mind into US communities of practice and linguistic repertoires. It
has been fascinating to witness the process by which students learn new theories of mind
as a self-process unfolding through interaction, and in language: how their experience of
themselves shifts, for example, when they begin to interpret their patterns of thinking as
a result of a tendency to ‘dampness in the middle jiao’ rather than through the lens of
their ‘personalities’. These types of shifts then cascade into the choices they make in daily
living, for example by choosing soup, which is considered to be ‘warming’ instead of salad,
which is ‘cold’. It also fans out into the way they interpret and interact with others.
Most relevant to the subject of theory of mind, for example, is the observation that
Western students of Chinese medicine seem particularly keen to discover alternative ways
of accessing the mind in Chinese medical diagnosis and treatment (Pritzker 2011c). Rather
than needing a theory to make inferences about a patient’s interior state of mind, students
discover, in Chinese medicine the mind can be observed exteriorly, even touched: felt in
the pulse, seen in the tongue, and described in simple language that indexes complex states
of being. Astute fingers can touch a wrist and can feel the rapid and chaotic bouncing of

‘heart fire’ or the sopping, droopy languidness of ‘phlegm misting the mind’ (Wiseman
and Ellis 1996; Maciocia 2005, 2009). A trained eye can similarly see the state of the fire-
tormented mind in the peeled tongue coat and burnt red tongue tip, or the confusion
of the phlegm soaked mind in the thick, white tongue coat and swollen tongue body.
This evidence, in the Western treatment room, often still requires confirmation, and so
it doesn’t necessarily wipe out the old stand-by Western theories of mind that demand
more explanation and discussion in order to parse out how someone is really feeling or
thinking. The ‘psychologization’ of Chinese medicine in the US is alive and well actually,
and often functions to transform Chinese theories of mind into a ‘hybrid’ of New Age
psycho-spiritual Chinese medicine (Barnes 1998). However, in the precarious balance
of needing to find an authentic way of reaching the minds of suffering patients, and
the desire to learn a culturally rooted system of healing in translation, there is often a
noticeable shift as students transform the standard Western theories of mind in order to
fit their new practice.
My claim is that language not only plays an enormous role in the way we imagine
our minds and the minds of others, and the way we act based on such imaginings, but
that when we bring in the notions of translation, cultural complexity, bilingualism, and
medical diagnosis, we have the opportunity to witness the ways in which multiple theories
of mind articulate with each other—how they are learned, how they function in concert
with each other, how individuals selectively draw upon them in everyday life, and at least
in medical contexts, the impact that shifting theories of mind have on practice and in
healing.
SONYA PRITZKER
ASSISTANT RESEARCHER AND CLINICAL SPECIALIST
UCLA CENTER FOR EAST-WEST MEDICINE
[email protected]
BROKEN AND DESPAIRING MINDS

• DOUGLAS HOLLAN •
As an ethnographer who has conducted extensive fieldwork in Indonesia (Hollan and

Wellenkamp 1994, 1996), and a part-time psychoanalyst and psychotherapist for over
twenty years, I am particularly interested in this issue of the accuracy of our theorizing
about others. As Throop and I have discussed (Hollan and Throop 2008, 2011), people
around the world often fear others’ intimate knowledge of themselves and attempt to
defend themselves against it. In part, this is a fear that accurate knowledge can be used
to hurt rather to help or understand, but it is also partly a concern that others frequently
misunderstand and mischaracterize, sometimes accidentally and sometimes for sinister
purposes. Such ‘hiding’ is clearly evident in clinical settings as well and even there poses a
challenge to the accurate understanding of others, even though the therapist’s or healer’s
right to theorize is explicitly acknowledged and sanctioned (Hollan 2008). Given the

strong evidence that misunderstanding of others is common, I believe we need to be

examining how and why people theorize inaccurately about others as well as accurately.
Much recent research on theory of mind and empathy, inspired by neurobiological
findings about mirror neurons, sensitivity to facial expressions, emotional contagion, and
other embodied forms of imitation and attunement, imply that our simulations of others’
minds must be fairly fast and accurate, given how automatic and biologically based they
are. Indeed, some go so far as to define and limit ‘empathy’ to this capacity to detect,
in a visceral or perceptual way, that another is in a certain emotional state or involved
in a certain goal-directed behavior, ignoring the question as to why someone might be
thinking, feeling, or acting the way they do (Hollan and Throop 2008, 2011; Hollan in
press). Such a restricted definition is a pale shade of what many people would understand
as empathy, especially in cultural anthropology, and raises the question of just what kind
of ‘minds’ we are positing when we imagine ourselves or others developing theories about
them. What do people want or need to know about others? Can we know anything
beyond another person’s most basic actions and intentions? How deep or extensive is the
knowledge or understanding implied when we speak about someone having a ‘theory of
mind’ about another?
The ‘why’ question about someone else’s behavior raises another important issue: if
theory of mind implies something more than understanding another’s most basic intentions
(e.g. that a person is about to eat when he or she picks up a piece of food), how accurate
do we assume these theories or understandings of others to be? Those who emphasize
that simulation processes are embedded in visceral and perceptional sensitivities that
have evolved over long periods of time, imply that our theories of others’ minds are fast
and fairly accurate. And yet as the philosopher, Karsten Stueber (2006), points out, our
knowledge of others is dependent upon cognitive, emotional, and imaginative capacities
that allow us to use our own first-person, folk psychological knowledge and experience
as engaged actors to model and understand the experience of others. Our knowledge of
others is thus both culturally and historically bound in a double sense: the subjects of our
theorizing are people who think, act, and feel in very specific culturally and historically
constituted moral worlds while we ourselves, as theorizers and empathizers, are similarly
bound and constrained. Given the challenges this poses for accurate understanding of
others’ behavior, especially in a cross-cultural context, Stueber underscores the fallibility
and limitations of our theorizing about others and why it can never be as rote and
automatic as some simulation theorists would suggest.
My basic question:
What are the social, cultural, political, and economic conditions that promote accurate
theorizing about others, and what are the conditions that impede it?
My basic claim:
That while all people theorize about others’ thoughts, feelings, and intentions, a number
of factors will affect the accuracy of this theorizing, including whether it is culturally

encouraged or not and whether the theorizer can ‘afford’ (economically and politically)
to think or feel seriously about another’s state of mind.
DOUGLAS HOLLAN
PROFESSOR OF ANTHROPOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
[email protected]
• ALEXA HAGERTY •
I have been carrying out fieldwork on the home funeral movement for two years. The
home funeral movement advocates that families and friends care for the bodies of their
dead at home, without intervention from professional funeral directors. They eschew
embalming and encourage direct and intimate care of the corpse—washing, dressing,
placing ice, filing paperwork such as the death certificate, and transporting the body to
the crematorium or cemetery. It is a fledging North American movement, largely middle
class and white, but increasingly being taken up by immigrant communities in urban
areas such as Los Angeles. Leaders of the movement often position it as belonging to
a genealogy of care that includes the hospice and home birth movements.
The movement is rapidly organizing and professionalizing. Within the last three
years organizers have hosted the first national conferences, formalized a non-profit (the
National Home Funeral Alliance), fought the funeral industry in state legislatures for the
legal right to care for and transport corpses, and established a training and certification
process for ‘home funeral guides’.
My own training to become a certified home funeral guide (also sometimes called
a ‘death midwife’) has been the backbone of my fieldwork and the means through which
I have sought to better understand the ethics of care in the movement. I have been
particularly interested in the care of the corpse and the home funeral practice of keeping
the body at home for three days (sometimes more), during which time the corpse shows
its marks of death—the subtle but unmistakable onset of decay.
The relationship between the living and the dead that I think can enrich our discussion
of theory of mind emerges in the presence of the corpse during these three days. The
ethics of care in the home funeral movement is not best understood as one in which the
living care for the dead, in a simple uni-directional movement. The dead also are seen as
caring for the living. Mourners are encouraged to spend time in the presence of the dead.
The living are encouraged to talk softly when in the presence of the dead and to choose
their words with care. The dead are understood to continue to understand and even
respond to the words of the living. The dead might respond through facial expressions,
through scent, through signs in the immediate environment or nature. The dead may
also speak to the living through the thoughts or memories that occur to those in their
presence. In these exchanges the living are seen as helping the dead ‘get used to being
dead’ as someone in the movement once described it to me. In this equation, the dead are
helping the mourners ‘get used to’ being bereaved.

The relationship between the living and the dead can continue in the absence of the
corpse through practices of meditation, prayer, and dream work. People in the movement
informally—and increasingly formally—share tips and ideas for connecting with the
dead. This communication is seen as a skill that can be acquired through practice.
Contact is understood to be beneficial to both the living and dead. The living experience
the pleasure of their loved ones presence, have an opportunity to address issues that may
have been left unsatisfactorily resolved at the time of death, and sometimes even receive
useful or comforting information. The dead are seen as being nurtured and nourished
by this contact. In some instances, people describe the dead as continuing to live—for
example, continuing to age—through the process of these exchanges. One mother
described conversations with her daughter who died at age seven as now being held with
a young woman of twenty. This mother relates a process of bringing her daughter into
being through what she calls a relationship that exists ‘across the threshold’ just as she was
brought into being through her mother’s body at birth.
Claim:
The home funeral practices of communicating with the dead, both in the presence and
absence of the corpse, disrupt common assumptions about middle-class North American
experiences and conceptions of death and grief: that death is a moment rather than
a process; that consciousness ends at death; that corpses are material artifacts that cannot
be understood to listen, respond, or feel and as such are not involved in intersubjective
exchange.
The disruption of these assumptions can illuminate something about theory of mind.
In the example above, the mother and daughter in some sense share the mother’s mind—
and through this sharing they bring each other into being—the daughter is brought into
being as twenty-year old and the mother as mother. This disrupts the model of a singular
bounded individual mind. Importantly, it also challenges ideas about grief that emerge
from such a model, namely the Freudian imperative to withdraw object-cathexes from
the lost object. This sense of the danger of mourning slipping into melancholia is seen
in the everyday encouragements offered to mourners (and made explicit on commercial
sympathy cards) to ‘move through’ grief and ‘get over’ loss.
Home funerals offer a model of grief in which it is not something to get over, but
to cultivate. Rather than arriving on the other side of grief, the bereaved travel with
it, sometimes for many years, moving deeper into relationship with the dead. Home
funerals offer a particular (but I suspect not singular) lens through which to consider
grief as an experience in which boundaries of mind are destabilized, negotiated, and even
purposefully re-configured.
ALEXA HAGERTY
GRADUATE STUDENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
[email protected]

• GIULIA MAZZA •
Between November 2010 and April 2011, I spent time in the city of Chennai, South India,
doing ethnographic research. During my stay there I was affiliated with an NGO called
The Banyan, which rescues and rehabilitates homeless women suffering from mental
illness from in and around Chennai. The Banyan houses about three hundred women in
a large, comfortable building in the city, and provides them with food, shelter, clothing,
and medication free of charge. During their stay, clients also have access to occupational
training programs, fun activities, and, to some extent, therapy. As clients improve, they
‘graduate’ through levels of increased independence and responsibility. If the team of
mental health professionals deems a client ready, The Banyan attempts to reintegrate
her into society, either by reuniting the client with her family, or by connecting her with
other Banyan women who live and work together in so-called ‘support groups’. For those
clients who are too chronically ill to pursue either of these options, The Banyan provides
a long-term care facility outside urban Chennai, in the rural town of Kovalam.
Towards the end of April, I conducted three interviews with a client living at Kovalam
named Amna P. Each interview lasted about an hour and a half, and we spoke English, in
which Amna was fluent. Amna was rescued by The Banyan in 2003, when she had been
found, half-naked, wandering and talking to herself on the streets of Chennai. Amna had
developed symptoms of schizophrenia after the birth of her fourth child, notably auditory
hallucinations and delusions of grandeur, as well as some aggressive behavior. Most
distressing to her family was Amna’s listlessness, inertia, and general withdrawal from
domestic life, which took a huge emotional and financial toll on the already impoverished
household. Despite the family’s pleading, Amna’s husband left her for another woman.
The family tried to get Amna help, but she wandered away from them at a Hindu temple
they had taken her to for healing. Homelessness and begging followed, as Amna traveled
aimlessly across India, intermittently spending time at mental hospitals and charitable
institutions along the way until The Banyan took her in. Though The Banyan has
established contact with Amna’s family members, they lack the resources to care for her
appropriately and have not been willing to take her back.
My aim during the interviews was to reconstruct Amna’s fragmented and marginalized
life before she arrived at The Banyan, and to get a sense of how she experienced her own
illness. Though the prior line of inquiry was fraught with memory gaps and fanciful
reconstructions, Amna spoke candidly about the voices she heard and the effects they had
on her life.
On return to the States, I read a series of interviews (conducted by Tanya Luhrmann)
with Americans who met criteria for schizophrenia, and who spoke in these interviews
about their experience of hearing voices. I was surprised by the ways in which their
experience matched Amna’s, and the ways in which it did not. I would like to stress
that the following impressions are very preliminary, and that more evidence is needed to
draw any conclusions. Nevertheless, I hope this might shed some light on a model of the
psychotic mind that may be different from the one we are accustomed to in the US, and
provide a jumping-off point for further discussion.
It was clear from the interviews that the voices heard by Amna and the Americans
were remarkably similar: the ‘characters’ were alike (sometimes familiar, sometimes

supernatural), and they spoke the same cruel taunts and criticisms. In addition, the voices
universally caused a great deal of distress: both Amna and the Americans often expressed
a sense of fear, helplessness, and exhaustion when talking about the voices they heard.
The reason for this distress, however, was quite different. Amna was mainly troubled
by how much the voices interfered with her daily functioning; the Americans complained
about interference, but also expressed great concern that ‘hearing voices’ meant there was
something fundamentally different, wrong, or broken about them. This emerges, I think,
from the different way in which Amna and the Americans conceptualize the connection
between the voices and their minds, selves, and sanity. Amna spoke about the voices as
instigators of madness; they ‘drove her mad’ by taunting, threatening, and distracting her.
The Americans, on the other hand, spoke of the voices more as evidence of madness; as
a symptom, not a cause.
In the interviews I looked at, the Americans often grappled with the paradox of voices
which seemed alien to their persons, and yet emanated from them, lived inside them, and,
(a terrifying thought), maybe even were them. These were not questions Amna posed to
herself. For Amna, the voices were foreign invaders who staged an assault on her: they
battered her badly, but she remained whole. For the Americans, on the other hand, the
voices seemed to attack from without (certainly, that was their sensory experience), but
the voices also seemed to flow forth from the cracks within, from their own broken
minds. Given the way Amna places herself in relationship to the voices she hears, I am not
sure that this ‘broken mind’ construct is a salient one for her, and, possibly, for Indians
in general.
Both Amna and the Americans were extremely distressed and disturbed by the voices.
Across the board, the interviewees complained about how constantly they heard the voices:
even if medications were able to turn down the ‘volume’, the voices still hounded them
ceaselessly by day, and drove away all hope of sleep at night. Though some Americans
(as well as Amna) said that the voices spoke nicely on occasion, the content of the voices
was most often negative, critical, or threatening. Amna, for example, was visited by
two categories of voices: those she called ‘spirits’, who hailed from her home-town of
Puna (the most powerful of these was a ghostly version of a young woman she knew
years before), and, less commonly, by important figures in Indian politics. Though the
politicians flattered her, the spirits were extremely malicious, and repeatedly threatened
to wound, kill, rape, or rob Amna.
Indeed, the voices harassed Amna so much, she told me, that she ‘became mad’. Their
insistent chatter distracted her from the real world, their ominous threats frightened her
into paralysis—she couldn’t sleep, couldn’t sit, couldn’t eat, let alone work in the house
and take care of her children. This, to Amna, was the essence of ‘madness’. The Americans
also bemoaned the toll that the voices took on their lives. One interviewee found she could
no longer play sports comfortably, because the voices kept criticizing her performance;
another found herself breaking into tears when the voices would share her innermost
secrets aloud (she thought) for everyone to hear. But the core of the pain the Americans
felt, it seemed to me, lay not so much in the practical effects of the voices, but in the
metaphysical implications of hearing voices that others could not. These abnormal, extra-
ordinary experiences were signal and symbol of a structural defect, a ‘broken mind’.

These different approaches are probably shaped, to some extent, by cultural

understandings of mental illness. In India, bhoot (ghosts) are widely recognized as beings
who spread discord and often cause insanity. In America, on the other hand, psychosis is
more often attributed to a chemical imbalance, or a genetic predisposition (environmental
causes are not as popular nowadays). Indeed, I was shocked by how immediately, even
eagerly, the Americans mentioned their medications, and how fluently they discussed
their effects and side-effects. Amna had no idea what medications she was taking, and did
not seem particularly convinced of their usefulness.
If it is true that people in India conceive of the psychotic mind in a different way than
people in America, there may also be implications for the approach to recovery. That is,
if madness is the result of a supernatural attack or possession, the cure would be to drive
out, to purge, and to protect. If madness is the expression of a broken mind, on the other
hand, the treatment should aim to mend, fill, and consolidate. It would be interesting to
explore whether these strategies underlie current treatments in India and America, and if
not, whether it would be useful if they did.
GIULIA MAZZA
GRADUATE STUDENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
[email protected]
RELEVANT BIBLIOGRAPHY
................................................................................................................................................................
Abrams, M. H. 1953. The Mirror and the Lamp. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ameka, F. K. 2002. Cultural Scripting of Body Parts for Emotions: On ‘Jealousy’ and Related
Emotions in Ewe. Pragmatics & Cognition 10 (1): 27–55.
Ariès, Philippe 2008 [1981]. The Hour of Our Death. New York: Vintage-Random House.
Astuti, R., G. E. A. Solomon and S. Carey 2004. Constraints on Conceptual Development: A Case
Study of the Acquisition of Folkbiological and Folksociological Knowledge in Madagascar. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development 69, Serial no. 277, no.3.
Barnes, Linda L. 1998. The Psychologizing of Chinese Healing Practices in the United States.
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry 22 (4): 413–443.
Baron-Cohen, Simon 1995. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Boston: MIT
Press.
Barrett, Robert 2004. Kurt Schneider in Borneo: Do First Rank Symptoms Apply to the Iban? In
Janis Jenkins and Robert Barrett (eds), Schizophrenia, Culture, and Subjectivity: The Edge of Experience.
Cambridge Studies in Medical Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bartlett, Robert 2008. The Natural and the Supernatural in the Middle Ages: The Wiles Lectures Given
at the Queen’s University of Belfast, 2006. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Ian 2009. The Boy in the Moon: A Father’s Search for his Disabled Son. New York: Random
House.
Butler, L. P. and E. M. Markman (under review). Observation Is Not Enough: Evaluation of
Evidence in Preschool Children.
Butler, L. P. and E. M. Markman (in press). Preschoolers use intentional and pedagogical cues to
guide inductive inferences and exploration. Child Development.

Bynum, Caroline Walker 1999. Miracles and Marvels: The Limits of Alterity. In Franz J. Felten
and Nikolas Jaspert (eds), Vita Religiosa im Mittelalter: Festschrift für Kaspar Elm zum 70. Geburtstag.
Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Carsten, J. 1995. The Substance of Kinship and the Heat of the Hearth: Feeding, Personhood, and
Relatedness among Malays in Pulau Langkawi. American Ethnologist 22 (2): 223–241.
Cassaniti J. 2006. Toward a Cultural Psychology of Buddhism in Thailand. Ethos 34 (1): 58–88.
Cassaniti J. 2009. Control in a World of Change: Emotion and Morality in a Northern Thai Town. PhD
thesis. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Cassaniti, J. and T. M. Luhrmann, in press. Encountering the Supernatural: A Phenomenological
Account of Mind. Religion and Society.
Cimpian, A. and E. M. Markman 2008. Preschool Children’s Use of Cues to Generic Meaning.
Cognition 107 (1): 19–53.
Cimpian, A. and E. M. Markman 2009. Information Learned from Generic Language Becomes
Central to Children’s Biological Concepts: Evidence from Their Open-Ended Explanations. Cognition
113 (1): 14–25.
Clark, H. H. and C. M. Marshall 1981. Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge. In A. K.
Joshi, B. L. Webber and I. A. Sag (eds), Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Classen, C. 1993. Worlds of Sense: Exploring the Senses in History and Across Culture. London:
Routledge.
Coleman, Linda and Paul Kay 1981. Prototype Semantics: The English Verb ‘Lie’. Language 57 (1):
26–44.
Csibra, G. and G. Gergely 2009. Natural Pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13 (4): 148–153.
Danzinger, E. 2006. The Thought that Counts: Understanding Variation in Cultural Theories of
Interaction. In N. Enfield and S. Levinson (eds), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and
Interaction. Oxford and New York: Berg/Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.
Danziger, E. 2010. On Trying and Lying: Cultural Configurations of the Gricean Maxim of Quality.
Intercultural Pragmatics 7 (2): 199–219.
Danziger, E. 2011. Once More with Feeling: A Forbidden Performance of the Great Speech of the
Mopan Maya. Anthropological Quarterly 84 (1): 121–140 .
Danziger, E., forthcoming. Conventional Wisdom: Imagination, Obedience and Intersubjectivity.
Language and Communication.
Danziger, E. and Alan Rumsey (eds), in progress. Intersubjectivity: Cultural Limits, Extensions and
Construals. Special Issue, Language and Communication.
Desjarlais, Robert 2011. Counterplay: An Anthropologist at the Chessboard. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Duranti, Alessandro 1992. Intentions, Self and Responsibility: An Essay in Samoan Ethnopragmatics.
In J. Hill and J. Irvine (eds), Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge: University Press.
Duranti, Alessandro 2010. Husserl, Intersubjectivity, and Anthropology. Anthropological Theory 10
(1): 1–20.
Eilan, Naomi, Christoph Hoerl and Johannes Roessler 2005. Joint Attention: Communication and
Other Minds. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Freud, Sigmund 1995 [1917]. Mourning and Melancholia. In James Strachey, Anna Freud, and
Angela Richards (eds), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud,
Volume XIV (1914–1916): On the History of the Psycho-Analytic Movement, Papers on Metapsychology
and Other Works. London: The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis.
Frith, Ute 2003. Autism: Explaining the Enigma. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Gaskins, Suzanne, in press. Pretend Play as Culturally Constructed Activity. In Marjorie Taylor (ed.),
Oxford Handbook on The Development of Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University.
Gaskins, Suzanne 2006. Cultural Perspectives on Infant-Caregiver Interaction. In N. Enfield and
S. Levinson (eds), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction. Oxford and New York:
Berg/Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.

Gaskins, Suzanne, Wendy Haight and David Lancy 2007. The Cultural Construction of Play.
In Artin Göncü and Suzanne Gaskins (eds), Play and Development: Evolutionary, Sociocultural and
Functional Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gelman, S. A. 2003. The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Gelman, S. A. 2009. Learning from Others: Children’s Construction of Concepts. Annual Review of
Psychology 60: 115–140.
Gelman, S. A. and J. D. Coley 1990. The Importance of Knowing a Dodo Is a Bird: Categories and
Inferences in 2-Year-Old Children. Developmental Psychology 26 (5): 796–804.
Gelman, S. A., and E. M. Markman 1986. Categories and Induction in Young Children. Cognition
23 (3): 183–209.
Geurts, Kathryn 2002. Culture and the Senses: Bodily Ways of Knowing in an African Community.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Geurts, Kathryn 2003. On Rocks, Walks, and Talks in West Africa: Cultural Categories and an
Anthropology of the Senses. Ethos 30 (3): 178–198.
Geurts, Kathryn 2005. Consciousness as ‘Feeling in the Body’: A West African Theory of
Embodiment, Emotion and the Making of Mind. In D. Howes (ed.), Empire of the Senses. Oxford and
New York: Berg.
Gigerenzer, Gerd 1991. From Tools to Theories: A Heuristic of Discovery in Cognitive Psychology.
Psychological Review 98 (2): 254–267.
Gordon, R.M. and J. Barker 1995. Autism and the ‘Theory of Mind’ Debate. In G. Graham and
G. L. Stephens (eds), Philosophical Psychopathology. Boston: MIT Press.
Gopnik, Alison and Andrew Mltzoff 1997. Words, Thoughts and Theories. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Grice, H. P. 1989. Logic and Conversation. In Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Grotti, Vanessa 2009. Protestant Evangelism and the Transformability of Amerindian Bodies in
Northeastern Amazonia. In Aparecida Vilaça and Robin Wright, Native Christians: Modes and Effects
of Christianity among Indigenous Peoples of the Americas. Hampshire (England) and Burlington (USA):
Ashgate.
Hacking, I. 2007. Kinds of People: Moving Targets. Proceedings of the British Academy 151: 285–318.
Hacking, I. 2009a. Autistic Autobiography. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364
(1522): 1467-1473.
Hacking, I. 2009b. Humans, Aliens, and Autism. Daedalus 138 (3): 44–59.
Hacking, I. 2009c. How We Have Been Learning to Talk about Autism: A Role for Stories.
Metaphilosophy 40 (3–4): 499–516.
Hagerty, Alexa. 2011 Composing and Decomposing the Dead: Politics and Ethics in the American
Funeral Home Movement. Master’s Thesis, Folklore Program, Department of Anthropology,
University of California, Berkeley.
Halpern, Jodi 2001. From Detached Concern to Empathy: Humanizing Medical Practice. New York:
Hanks, William 2010. Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Harris, P. L. 2002. What Do Children Learn from Testimony? In P. Carruthers, S. Stich and M. Siegal
(eds), The Cognitive Basis of Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hertz, Robert 1960. Death and the Right Hand. Aberdeen: Cohen and West.
Hobson, P. 1993. The Emotional Origins of Social Understanding. Philosophical Psychology 6 (3):
277–249.
Hogan, Pat 1999. Alison’s Gift: The Song of a Thousand Hearts Opening. Silver Spring, Maryland:
NosilA Publishing.
Hollan, Douglas 1994. The Thread of Life: Toraja Reflections on the Life Cycle. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Press.

Hollan, Douglas 2008. Being There: On the Imaginative Aspects of Understanding Others and Being
Understood. Ethos 36 (4): 475–489.
Hollan, Douglas 2011. The Anthropology of Empathy: Introduction. In The Anthropology of
Empathy: Experiencing the Lives of Others in Pacific Societies. Douglas W. Hollan and C. Jason
Throop, eds. New York: Berghahn Press.
Hollan, Douglas, in press. Emerging Issues in the Cross-Cultural Study of Empathy. In a special issue
of Emotion Review.
Hollan, Douglas W. and C. Jason Throop 2008. Whatever Happened to Empathy? Introduction.
Ethos 36 (4): 385–401
Hollan, Douglas W. and Jason Throop 2011. The Anthropology of Empathy: Experiencing the Lives of
Others in Pacific Societies. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Hollan, Douglas W. and Jane C. Wellenkamp 1994. Contentment and Suffering: Culture and
Experience in Toraja. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hume, David 1962 [1738]. A Treatise of Human Nature with an intro. by D. G. C. Macnabb.
Cleveland: Meridian Books.
Ingold, T. 1991. Becoming Persons: Consciousness and Sociality in Human Evolution. Cultural
Dynamics 4 (3): 355–378.
Intent Community Participation website. Available at: <http://www.intentcommunityparticipation.
net> (accessed March 2012).
Jackson, Michael 1998. Minima Ethnographica: Intersubjectivity and the Anthropological Perspective.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jaynes, Julian 1976. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Jones, Graham 2010. Modern Magic and the War on Miracles in French Colonial Culture.
Comparative Studies in Society and History 52 (1): 66–99.
Jones, Graham 2011. Trade of the Tricks: Inside the Magician’s Craft. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Jones, Graham M. and Bambi B. Schieffelin 2009. Enquoting Voices, Accomplishing Talk: Uses of
Be + Like in Instant Messaging. Language & Communication 29 (1): 77–113.
Karnes, Michelle 2011. Imagination, Meditation, and Cognition in the Middle Ages. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Kaufman, Sharon R. and Lynn M. Morgan 2005. Anthropology of the Beginnings and Ends of Life.
Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 317–341.
Keane, Webb 2003. Semiotics and the Social Analysis of Material Things. Language & Communication
23 (3-4): 409–425.
Keil, F. C. 1989. Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kieckhefer, Richard 1990. Magic in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knox, Elizabeth, Alice Trembour, Romey Pittman and Pat Hogan 2010. Crossings Resource
Guide: A Manual for Home Funeral Care. Available online at: <http://www.crossings.net>.
Kuhn, G., A. A. Amlani and R. A. Rensink 2008. Towards a Science of Magic. Trends in Cognitive
Science 12 (9): 349–354.
Kübler-Ross, Elisabeth 1969. On Death and Dying. New York: Macmillan.
Laderman, Gary 2003. Rest in Peace: A Cultural History of Death and the Funeral Home in Twentieth-
Century America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lillard, Angela 1998. Ethnopsychologies: Cultural Variations in Theory of Mind. Psychological
Bulletin 123 (1): 3–32.
López, A., B. Najafi, R. Mejía Arauz and B. Rogoff, in press. Helping and Collaborating as Cultural
Practices. In J. Valsiner (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lucy, John 1992a. Grammatical Categories and Cognition: A Case Study of the Linguistic Relativity
Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lucy, John 1992b. Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity
Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luhrmann, T. M. 1989. Persuasions of the Witch’s Craft: Ritual Magic in Contemporary England.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Luhrmann, T. M. 2011. Hallucinations and Sensory Overrides. Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol.
40: 71–85.
Luhrmann, T. M. 2012. When God Talks Back. New York: Knopf.
Maciocia, Giovanni 2005. The Foundations of Chinese Medicine: A Comprehensive Text for
Acupuncturists and Herbalists. 2nd Ed. London: Elsevier.
Maciocia, Giovanni 2009. The Psyche in Chinese Medicine: Treatment of Emotional and Mental
Disharmonies with Acupuncture and Chinese Herbs. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier.
Majid, Asifa and Stephen Levinson 2010. The Sense in Language and Culture. Sense and Society 6
(1): 5–18.
Malaby, T. M. 1999. Fateful Misconceptions: Rethinking Paradigms of Chance among Gamblers in
Crete. Social Analysis 43 (1): 141–165.
Markman, E. M. 1989. Categorization and Naming in Children: Problems of Induction. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Markus, Hazel Rose and Shinobu Kitayama 1991. Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition,
Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review 98 (2): 224–253.
Marrow, Jocelyn, forthcoming. Feminine Power or Feminine Weakness? Non-elite North Indian
Mothers’ and Daughters’ Struggles with Identity, Aspirations, and Illness.
Marrow, Jocelyn, forthcoming. The Rhetoric of Women and Children’s Rights in Indian Psychiatry.
Marrow, Jocelyn and Tanya Marie Luhrmann, in press. The Zone of Social Abandonment in
Cultural Geography: On the Street in the United States, Inside the Family in India. Culture Medicine
and Psychiatry, September 2012.
Mead, George Herbert 1965. Self. In Anselm Strauss (ed.), On Social Psychology: Selected Papers.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Metcalf, Peter and Richard Huntington 1991. Celebrations of Death: An Anthropology of Mortuary
Ritual. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mitford, Jessica 1998 [1963]. The American Way of Death Revisited. New York: Borzoi.
Moran, Richard 2001. Authority and Estrangement: An Essay on Self-Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Morris, Colin 1972. The Discovery of the Individual 1050–1200. Toronto: Univeristy of Toronto Press.
National Home Funeral Alliance. National Home Funeral Alliance website at: <http://
homefuneralalliance.org> (accessed 2011).
Ochs, Elinor 1982. Talking to Children in Western Samoa. Language in Society 11 (1): 77–104.
Ong, Walter 1982. Orality and Literacy. London: Routledge.
Paradise, R. and B. Rogoff 2009. Side by Side: Learning Through Observing and Pitching In. Ethos
37 (1): 102–138.
Peirce, Charles S. 1998. What Pragmatism Is. In The Peirce Edition Project (ed.), The Essential Peirce:
Selected Philosophical Writings, Vol. 2 (1893–1913). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Phillips, Michael R., Q. J. Shen, X. H. Liu, S. Pritzker, D. Streiner, K. Conner and G. H. Yang
2007. Assessing Depressive Symptoms in Persons Who Die of Suicide in Mainland China.
Journal of Affective Disorders 98 (1–2): 73–82.
Pinker, S. 1997. How the Mind Works. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Pritzker, Sonya 2001. Beyond Our Own Language: Thinking about Psychology and Chinese
Medicine. California Journal of Oriental Medicine 12 (3): 40–42.
Pritzker, Sonya 2003 The Role of Metaphor in Culture, Consciousness, and Medicine: A Preliminary
Inquiry into the Metaphors of Depression in Chinese and Western Medical and Common Languages.
Clinical Acupuncture & Oriental Medicine 4 (1): 11–28.
Pritzker, Sonya 2007. Thinking Hearts, Feeling Brains: Metaphor, Culture, and the Self in Chinese
Narratives of Depression. Metaphor and Symbol 22 (3): 251–274.

Pritzker, Sonya 2011a. Standardization and its Discontents: Four Snapshots in the Life of Language
in Chinese Medicine. In Volker Scheid and Hugh McPherson (eds), Authenticity, Best Practice, and the
Evidence Mosaic: Integrating East Asian Medicines into Contemporary Healthcare. London: Elsevier.
Pritzker, Sonya 2011b. The Part of Me That Wants to Grab: Embodied Experience and Living
Translation in U.S. Chinese Medical Education. Ethos 39(3): 395–413.
Pritzker, Sonya 2011c. Transforming Self, World, Medicine: The Trend Toward Spiritualization in
U.S. Chinese Medicine (short vignette). In Volker Scheid and Hugh McPherson (eds), Integrating
East Asian Medicines into Contemporary Healthcare. Edinburgh, London and Philadelphia: Churchill
Livingstone Elsevier.
Reddy, V. 2008. How Infants Know Minds. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Robbins, Joel 2001a. Ritual Communication and Linguistic Ideology: A Reading and Partial
Reformulation of Rappaport’s Theory of Ritual. Current Anthropology 42 (5): 589–612.
Robbins, Joel 2001b. God is Nothing But Talk: Modernity, Language and Prayer in a Papua New
Guinea Society. American Anthropologist 103 (4): 901–912. (Also published in Chinese; French
translation is forthcoming).
Robbins, Joel 2004. Becoming Sinners: Christianity and Moral Torment in a Papua New Guinea Society.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Robbins, Joel 2008. On Not Knowing Other Minds: Confession, Intention, and Linguistic Exchange
in a Papua New Guinea Community. Anthropological Quarterly 81 (2): 421–429.
Robbins, Joel and Alan Rumsey 2008. Introduction: Cultural and Linguistic Anthropology and the
Opacity of Other Minds. Anthropological Quarterly 81 (2): 407–420.
Rogoff, B. 2011. Developing Destinies: A Mayan Midwife and Town. New York: Oxford.
Rogoff, B., L. Moore, B. Najafi, A. Dexter, M. Correa-Chávez and J. Solís 2007. Children’s
Development of Cultural Repertoires through Participation in Everyday Routines and Practices.
In J. E. Grusec and P. D. Hastings (eds), Handbook of Socialization. New York: Guilford.
Rogoff, B., R. Paradise, R. Mejía Arauz, M. Correa-Chávez and C. Angelillo 2003. Firsthand
Learning through Intent Participation. Annual Review of Psychology 54: 175–203.
Rosen, Laurence 1995. Other Intentions: Cultural Contexts and the Attribution of Inner States. Santa Fe:
School of American Research Press.
Rumsey, Alan 1990. Wording, Meaning and Linguistic Ideology. American Anthropologist 92 (2):
346–361.
Rumsey, Alan and Joel Robbins (eds) 2008. Cultural and Linguistic Anthropology and the Opacity
of Other Minds. Anthropological Quarterly 81 (2): 407–494.
Rutherford, Danilyn 2008. The Enchantments of Secular Belief. Religion and Culture Web Forum
October. The Martin Marty Center for the Advanced Study of Religion. Available online at: <http://
divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/archive.shtml>.
Rutherford, Danilyn 2009. An Absence of Belief? The Immanent Frame: Secularism, Religious, and the
Public Sphere. December 1. Available online at: <http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2009/12/01/an-absence-of-
belief>.
Sacks, Harvey 1980. Button Button Who’s Got the Button? Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 318–327.
Schieffelin, Bambi B. 2008. Speaking Only Your Own Mind: Reflections on Confession, Gossip, and
Intentionality in Bosavi (PNG). Anthropological Quarterly 81 (2): 431–441.
Schieffelin, Bambi B. 2007. Found in Translating: Reflexive Language across Time and Texts. In Miki
Makihara and Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds), Consequences of Contact: Language Ideologies and Sociocultural
Transformation in Pacific Societies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schieffelin, Bambi and Paul Kroskrity 1998. Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York:
Searle, John 1986. Minds, Brains and Science: The 1984 Reith Lectures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Shoaps, Robin 2002. Pray Earnestly: The Textual Construction of Personal Involvement in
Pentecostal Prayer and Song. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12 (1): 34–71.

Shweder, Richard A. 1991. Thinking Through Cultures: Expeditions in Cultural Psychology. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Silverstein, Michael 1976. Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description. In K. H. Basso
and H. A. Selby (eds), Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Slocum, Joshua and Lisa Carlson 2011. Final Rights: Reclaiming the American Way of Death.
Hinesburg, Vermont: Upper Access Books.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Stasch, Rupert 2008. Knowing Minds is a Matter of Authority: Political Dimensions of Opacity
Statements in Korowai Moral Psychology. Anthropological Quarterly 81 (2): 443–453.
Stueber, Karsten 2006. Rediscovering Empathy: Agency, Folk Psychology, and the Human Sciences.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Tager-Flusberg, H., R. Paul and C. Lord. 2005. Communication in Autism. In F. Volkmar, A. Klin,
R. Paul and D. Cohen (eds), Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders. 3rd ed. New
York: Wiley and Sons.
Taylor C. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge: Harvard University.
Throop, Jason 2008. On the Problem of Empathy: The Case of Yap, Federated States of Micronesia.
Ethos 36 (4): 402–426.
Throop, Jason 2011. Latitudes of Loss: On the Vicissitudes of Empathy. American Ethnologist 37 (4):
271–282.
Throop, Jason, under review. On the Varieties of Empathic Experience: Tactility, Mental Opacity, and
Pain in Yap. Medical Anthropology Quarterly.
Throop, C. Jason and Douglas Hollan (eds). 2008. Whatever Happened to Empathy? Special Issue,
Ethos 36 (4).
Tomasello, M. 2008. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tomasello, Michael, Malinda Carpenter, Josep Call, Tanya Behne and Henrike Moll 2005.
Understanding and Sharing Intentions: The Origins of Cultural Cognition. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences 28 (5): 675–735.
Vilaça, Aparecida 2000. Relations between Funerary Cannibalism and Warfare Cannibalism: The
Question of Predation. Ethnos 65 (1): 83–106.
Vilaça, Aparecida 2005. Chronically Unstable Bodies: Reflections on Amazonian Corporalities.
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 11 (3): 445–464.
Vilaça, Aparecida 2009. Conversion, Predation and Perspective. In Aparecida Vilaça and Robin
Wright (eds), Native Christians: Modes and Effects of Christianity among Indigenous Peoples of the
Americas. Burlington, UK: Ashgate.
Vilaça, Aparecida 2010. Strange Enemies: Indigenous Agency and Scenes of Encounters in Amazonia.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo 1998. Cosmological Deixis and Amerindian Perspectivism. Journal of
the Royal Anthropological Institute 4 (3): 469–488.
Wadensjo, Celia 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London and New York: Longman.
Watkins, Mary 1986. Invisible Guests: The Development of Imaginal Dialogues. Hillsdale, N.J.: Analytic
Press.
Wellman, H. M., D. Cross and J. Watson 2001. A Meta-Analysis of Theory of Mind Development:
The Truth About False Belief. Child Development 72 (3): 655–684.
Wiseman, Nigel and Andrew Ellis 1996. Fundamentals of Chinese Medicine. Brookline: Paradigm
Publications.
Witherspoon, Gary 1977. Language and Art in the Navajo Universe. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Woolard, Kathryn and Bambi Schieffelin 1994. Language Ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology
23: 55–82.
Zahavi, Dan 2001. Beyond Empathy: Phenomenological Approaches to Intersubjectivity. Journal of
Consciousness Studies 8 (5–7): 151–167.
Zahavi, Dan 2003. Husserl’s Phenomenology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Theory of Mind - Tanya Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theory of Mind - Tanya Etc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theory of Mind - Tanya Etc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOWARD AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL

Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 5

Different theories of mind

We identiﬁed at least six such theories.

6 Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011

Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011 7

8 Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011

How these different theories matter

Do different theories of mind matter developmentally?

Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011 9

Do different theories of mind make a difference to the experience of mind?

Do different theories of mind make a difference to illness experience and health?

10 Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011

Do different theories of mind interfere with knowledge of the other’s intentions?

Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011 11

How would we take this further?

12 Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011

One could imagine a terriﬁc comparative project.

TANYA MARIE LUHRMANN

THE POSITION PAPERS

How do we think about researching an anthropological theory of mind?

The constitution of mind: what’s in a mind? Interiority and boundedness

The constitution of mind: what’s in a mind? Selves

The constitution of mind: what’s in a mind? Senses and experience

The constitution of mind: what’s in a mind? Perspectivism

Broken and despairing minds

Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011 13

HOW DO WE THINK ABOUT RESEARCHING

I am an anthropologist with an ethnographic interest in Madagascar and a theoretical

In my work on Vezo understandings of biological inheritance and of the mechanisms

14 Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011

THE CONSTITUTION OF MIND: WHAT’S IN A MIND?

Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011 15

16 Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011

Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011 17

18 Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011

• TANYA MARIE LUHRMANN •

I have been working for years on two different projects.

Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011 19

20 Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011

TANYA MARIE LUHRMANN

THE CONSTITUTION OF MIND:

My research explores how the contemporary socio-economic context of North India,

Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011 21

Indian commonly take a somatic form: ‘ﬁts’ of unresponsiveness locally referred to as

22 Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011

In my research I focus on the relation between language and thought. My expertise

Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011 23

24 Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011

THE CONSTITUTION OF MIND: WHAT’S IN A MIND?

In relation to an ‘anthropological theory of mind’, my research has focused on sensory

Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011 25

26 Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011

unconscious “schematizing process,” a kind of analogical transfer that underlies the

Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011 27

28 Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011

Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 4/2011 29

THE CONSTITUTION OF MIND: WHAT’S IN A MIND?

My background: twenty ﬁve years of non-continuous ﬁeldwork among the Wari’