Abstract
Why have material world of daily life and material objects in their conventional features or to say it in other words, why have the mundane world and mundane objects, in which the human beings live and children come to, encounter, experience and develop through, received so little attention from psychologists thus remaining a blind spot in mainstream developmental psychology? Certainly the object has not been totally forgotten (e.g. Piaget’s constructivist paradigm) but it has been considered as theoretically determined by the categories of understanding (cf. Kant), and considered as a key to understanding the world in its physical properties by the infant. But the material world and the material objects that are used for everyday purposes (i.e. pragmatically) belonging to material culture, have been totally neglected by developmental psychologists. Reacting to the Kantian agenda of developmental psychology but also to heterodox non developmentalist thinkers such as Gibson who is a growing source of inspiration for developmental psychologists today, we challenge the taken-for-granted mundane world, arguing for the importance of material objects related to material culture in psychological development during the prelinguistic period. On the basis of recent research in early development grounded in the Vygotskian paradigm, we discuss this issue through Marxist Anthropology, Material Culture Studies and Phenomenology. As a consequence we advocate for a material-cultural turn in psychological development in order to place the issue of material world and material objects in their pragmatic and semiotic features on the agenda of developmental psychology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
« Pragmatically » signifies that the object is understood through its uses.
« Subject » is the term used in developmental psychology but when convoking Heidegger, « Human Being » or « Dasein » in German ; « the To-Be » in English ; « Etre-Là », « Etre-au-Monde » (in French) are used (Heidegger, Being and Time, tr. J. Stambaugh 1927/1996).
In this pragmatic view, the canonical uses refer to « what we have to do with an object » contrasting with Piaget’s practical view (related to the action of the subject and not to the use of the object) for whom the object refers to «what may be done with the object ».
The first phase of this work evidenced that at 7 months old, infants use the objects (a shape sorter truck toy with 6-shaped blocks and a Fisher-Price vintage toy telephone) in an undifferentiated manner (e.g. mouthing, banging the objects, etc.) while at 13 months old, they use them according to their canonical uses (e.g. putting the peg in the correct hole in a sorter truck). At 10 months old, they use the objects in a proto-canonical manner revealing an initial understanding of the canonical uses of the objects (e.g. putting the peg in a hole, but not the correct one). These works invalidate the affordance conception of Gibson (taken up by Tomasello) who omits the « practical [we could say “pragmatic”] and historical relationship » to the world (cf. Macherey 2005, p. 16).
It is noteworthy that the term relations in « social relations » [English translation] which corresponds to Verhälnisse [Marx’s original manuscript in German] and to rapports [in French translation] do not refer solely to interpersonal relations. The objective reality of culture (through its historical products) is involved (Sève 2014, pp. 71–72).
Marx (1845). Theses on Feuerbach (probably written by Marx in Brussels in April Marx 1845, under the heading « ad Feuerbach »). Accessed August 2, 2014, Published on line at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm.
The quotation is imprecise. Sève refers to the recent publication (2014) in French of Histoire du développement des fonctions psychiques supérieures, [The History of the Development of Higher Mental Functions, first published 1931].
Idem.
The fact is that the first concerns of Morhillat (2005) is to denounce the linguicisation [in French] of thought in post-modern thinkers of the Linguistic Turn (such as Rorty, Habermas and Wittgenstein) who reduce thought to language. Evoking this dissolution of this stratum of reality that he fails to qualify, he uses (referring inter alia to Lefebvre 1966) either the « world » (for instance, p. 99), the « reality » (for instance, p. 99), the « real » (for instance, p. 100) or the « existant » (for instance, p. 100), etc. signaling finally that once the materiality of the social practices is evacuated, there only remains language » (p. 101). Through these terminological uncertainties, we understand that the material world and the material objects belonging to material culture are really unthought.
Cf. the group of British archeologists and anthropologists at University College London (UCL), including Miller, Tilley, Rowlands (cf. Tilley et al. 2006; Journal of Material Culture; The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies (Hicks and Beaudry 2010; Woodward, Understanding Material Culture, Woodward 2007/2012). See also Gell (1998), Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. A more American trend of these works is attestable; in the French tradition, see the review of Coupaye and Douny (2009), Dans la trajectoire des choses. Comparaison des approches francophones et anglophones contemporaines en anthropologie des techniques [In the Trajectory of Things. Comparison of Contemporary Francophone and Anglophone Approaches in Technical Anthropology], Techniques & Culture, Thema « Technologies », 52–53, 12–39; Lemonnier (2012), Mundane Objects: Materiality and Non-Verbal Communication. These works provoke lively debates, in particular about the notion of materiality (cf. Ingold 2011).
We agree with the criticism by Hicks and Beaudry concerning culturalism which meanings and social relations about material culture are just rhetoric and do not concern the core of the object. These discussions prove that the issue of material culture is still open.
Pragmata originates in what the Greeks and Heidegger name Util (Zeug). Heidegger uses this term largely. « A tool in general concerns all what belongs to the use » (Zarader 2012).
We differ on other key issues of Heidegger’s thought, in particular from the « immediate » subjective position he adopts in the relationship to the world and toward the objects [things]; by the notion of appropriation which concerns the subject and not the object [thing], etc.
These examples are issued from research concerning communication toward oneself (Moro et al. 2015; Moro 2016). Infants are observed interacting with their mother and objects given successively at 8-, 12- and 16 months old from the onset of the use-of-object to first words (Moro et al. 2015) and at 20 months old when infants enter into speech production (Moro 2014b, 2016). Two sets of toys were provided. The order of toy presentation were counterbalanced. The toys were: a sorter box with a key holder with five keys (only the key holder was used in the 1st example); a dining set (only glasses were used in the 2nd example). The adult was given the following instruction: « Play with your child as you usually do ». To remain as close as possible to everyday situations, the dyads were filmed in their home environment. The dyads were free to use objects as they wish. Only one camera was used and the adults were informed that the dyad would be videotaped for around 7 min with each set of toys and that if necessary (if the child is tired for example), the session could be interrupted at any moment.
Immediate pointing signifies that the pointing touches the object (Moro and Rodríguez 2005).
References
Althusser, L. (1965). Pour Marx. Paris: Maspéro.
Althusser, L., Balibar, E., Establet, R., Macherey, P., & Rancière, J. (1965). Lire le Capital (Vol. 2). Paris: Maspéro.
Baillargeon, R., Spelke, E. S., & Wasserman, S. (1985). Object permanence in five-month-old infants. Cognition, 20, 191–208.
Béguin, M. (2016) Object Pragmatics and Language Development. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. doi:10.1007/s12124-016-9361-7.
Brossard, M. (2014). Monde de la culture et développement humain. In. C. Moro & N. Muller Mirza (Eds.), Sémiotique, culture et développement psychologique (pp. 297–312). Villeneuve d’Ascq: Editions du Septentrion.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Coupaye, L. & Douny, L. (2009). Dans la trajectoire des choses. Comparaison des approches francophones et anglophones contemporaines en anthropologie des techniques. Techniques et culture. Revue semestrielle d’anthropologie des techniques, Thema 52–53, « Technologies » I. Matérialiser les processus. Accessed May 6, 2014, Published on line at http://tc.revues.org/4956
Dewalque, A. (2003). Heidegger et la question de la chose. Esquisse d’une lecture interne. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Dimitrova, N., & Moro, C. (2013). Common ground on object use associates with caregivers’ Gesturese. Infant Behavior and Development, 36(4), 618–626.
Dimitrova, N., Moro, C., & Mohr, C. (2015). Caregivers interpret infants’ early gestures based on shared knowledge about referents. Infant Behavior and Development, 39, 98–106.
Dupertuis, V. & Moro, C. (2016) Self-Directed Ostensions and Mediations of the Adult at the Age of 8-, 12- and 16 Months. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. doi:10.1007/s12124-016-9350-x.
Everaert-Desmedt, N. (1994). La pensée de la ressemblance. L’œuvre de Magritte à la lumière de Peirce. In D. Miéville (Ed.), Charles Sanders Peirce. Apports récents et perspectives en épistémologie, sémiologie, logique. Actes du colloque de Neuchâtel, 16–17 avril 1993. Travaux Du Centre de Recherches Sémiologiques. CdRS: Université de Neuchâtel.
Gell, A. (1998). Art and agency: an anthropological theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gibson, J. (1979). The theory of affordances. In An Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Heidegger, M. (1927). Being and Time. Tr. J. Stambaugh. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Heidegger, M. (1962). The thing. In Poetry, language, thought (pp. 163–180). New York: Harper and Row.
Hicks, D. (2010). The material-cultural turn. In D. Hicks & M. C. Beaudry (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of material culture studies (Eds ed., pp. 25–98). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hicks, D., & Beaudry, M. C. (2010). The Oxford handbook of material culture studies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ingold, T. (1995). Building, dwelling, living: how animals and people make themselves at home in the world. In M. Strathern (Ed.), Shifting contexts (Ed. ed., pp. 57–80). London: Routledge.
Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive. Essays on movement, knowledge and description. London and New York: Routledge.
Lawrence, J. A., & Valsiner, J. (1993). Conceptual roots of internalization: from transmission to transformation. Human Development, 36, 150–167.
Lefebvre, H. (1966). Le langage et la société. Paris: Gallimard.
Lemonnier, P. (2012). Mundane Objects. Materiality and Non-Verbal Communication. UCL Institute of archeology critical cultural heritage series 10. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press, Inc..
Macherey, P. (2005). Le quotidien, objet philosophique ? Dossier « Approches plurielles du quotidien ». Articulo. Journal of Urban Research, 1, 1–14. Accessed May 15, 2014, Published on line at http://articulo.revues.org/871
Magritte, R. (2009). Ecrits complets. Edition écrite et annotée par André Blavier. Paris: Flammarion.
Marx, K. (1845). Theses on Feuerbach (probably written by Marx in Brussels in April 1845, under the heading « ad Feuerbach »). Accessed August 2, 2014, Published on line at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm.
Milbank, J. (2006). Scholasticism, modernism and modernity. Modern Theology, 22(4), 651–671.
Miller, D. (2010). Stuff. Cambridge: Polity.
Morhillat, G. (2005). Empire du langage ou impérialisme langagier ? La pensée, 344, 99–112.
Moro, C. (2000). Vers une approche sémiotique intégrée du développement humain. Université de Bordeaux 2. 118 p. Ouvrage déposé à la bibliothèque de l’U.F.R. des sciences sociales et psychologiques à l’Université de Bordeaux 2 – Victor Segalen.
Moro, C. (2010). La culture « dans » l’objet: aux sources de la cognition et de la communication humaines. Conférence au Colloque « Psychologie, sciences sociales et humaines. 2ème journée: Psychologie et disciplines voisines: complémentarité, coopération ou compétition ? ». Programme doctoral romand en Psychologie (organisateurs: C. Moro, Université de Lausanne et Cl.-A. Hauert, Université de Genève), 15–16 septembre 2010, Université de Lausanne.
Moro, C. (2011a). Material culture, semiotics and early childhood development. In M. Kontopodis, C. Wulf, & B. Fichtner (Eds.), Children, development and education. Cultural, historical, anthropological perspectives (Eds. ed., pp. 55–70). London, New York: Springer Verlag.
Moro, C. (2011b). Vygotski et le risque d’ « enfermement linguiciste » de la pensée. Réflexions sur Penser avec Marx aujourd’hui: L’homme ? et questions à Lucien Sève. Conférence invitée au colloque international « Penser avec Marx aujourd’hui: L’homme ? Rencontre autour de Lucien Sève », Université de Paris V, Sorbonne, Amphithéâtre Durkheim, Paris 2 avril 2011.
Moro, C. (2012). Heuristique des thèses sémiotiques vygotskiennes pour l’approche du développement des fonctions exécutives chez le jeune enfant Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Liguaggio, Vygotskij and language/Vygotskij e il linguaggio (a.c. di F. Cimatti, L. Mecacci, E. Velmezova) 6 (2), 210–224. Open Access Journal ISSN: 2036–6728. doi:10.4396/20120718. http://www.rifl.unical.it/index.php/component/content/article/182-vygotsky-and-language-indice.html.
Moro, C. (2014a). Le rôle de l’usage de l’objet dans la construction de l’attention conjointe et dans l’accès aux intentions d’autrui. In. C. Moro & N. Muller Mirza (Eds.), Sémiotique, culture et développement psychologique (pp. 55–77). Villeneuve d’Ascq: Editions du Septentrion.
Moro, C. (2014b). Le référent dans l’intersubjectivité secondaire. Un objet aussi ignoré que « l’autre face de la lune » ? In C. Moro, N. Muller Mirza, & P. Roman (Eds.), L’intersubjectivité en questions: agrégat ou nouveau concept fédérateur pour la psychologie ? (pp. 69–106). Lausanne: Antipodes.
Moro, C. (2016) Usage de l’objet, signification et émergence de la conscience à l’étape préverbale du développement: Une perspective édusémiotique. Semiotica, in press.
Moro, C. & Muller Mirza, N. (2014). Sémiotique, culture et développement psychologique. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Editions du Septentrion.
Moro, C., & Rodríguez, C. (1989). L’interaction triadique bébé-objet-adulte dans la première année de la vie de l’enfant. Enfance, 42(1–2), 75–82.
Moro, C. et Rodríguez, C. (1998). Towards a Pragmatical conception of the object: the construction of the uses of the objects by the baby in the pre-linguistic period. In M.C.D.P. Lyra And J. Valsiner (eds.). Child Development within Culturally Structured Environments. Construction of Psychological Processes in Interpersonal Communication (vol. 4), pp. 53–72. Stamford, Connecticut, London, England: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Moro, C., & Rodríguez, C. (2005). L’objet et la construction de son usage chez le bébé. Une approche sémiotique du développement préverbal. Berne: Peter Lang.
Moro, C., & Schneuwly, B. (1997). L’outil et le signe dans l’approche du fonctionnement psychologique. In C. Moro, B. Schneuwly, & M. Brossard (Eds.), Outils et signes: perspectives actuelles de la théorie de Vygotski (pp. 1–17). Bern: Lang.
Moro, C., Dupertuis, V., Fardel, S., & Piguet, O. (2015). Investigating the development of consciousness through ostensions toward oneself from the onset of the use-of-object to first words. Cognitive Development, 36, 150–160. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2015.09.002.
Peirce, C. S. (1931). Collected papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Piaget, J. (1936). La naissance de l’intelligence chez l’enfant. Neuchâtel-Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Piaget, J. (1937). La construction du réel chez l’enfant. Neuchâtel-Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Rochat, P. (1989). Object manipulation and exploration in 2 to 5-month-old- infants. Developmental Psychology, 35(6), 871–884.
Rodríguez, C. et Moro, C. (1998). El mágico número tres. Cuando les niños aún no hablan. Barcelona: Paidós.
Schütz, A. (1945). On multiple realities. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 5(4), 533–576.
Schütz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1973). The Structures of the Life-World (Vol. 1. Translated by R.M. Zaner & H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr). London: Heinemann.
Sève, L. (2004). Penser avec Marx aujourd’hui. Marx et nous. Tome I. Paris: La Dispute.
Sève, L. (2008). Penser avec Marx aujourd’hui. L’Homme ? Tome II. Paris: La Dispute.
Sève, L. (2014). Présentation. Histoire du développement des fonctions psychiques supérieures (pp. 7–76). Paris: La Dispute.
Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S., Rowlands, M., & Spyer, P. (2006). Handbook of material culture. London: Sage.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA, London England: Harvard University Press.
Valsiner, J. (2014). An invitation to cultural psychology. London: Sage.
Valsiner, J., & Litvinovic, G. (1997). Le développement de la nouveauté dans le raisonnement. La coordination des processus inductifs et déductifs dans le raisonnement parental. In C. Moro, B. Schneuwly, & M. Brossard (Eds.), Outils et signes: perspectives actuelles de la théorie de Vygotski (pp. 135–157). Bern: Lang.
Veresov, N. (2014). Emotions. Perezhivanie et développement culturel. In. C. Moro & N. Muller Mirza (Eds.), Sémiotique, culture et développement psychologique (pp. 209–235). Villeneuve d’Ascq: Editions du Septentrion.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1931). The History of the Development of Higher Mental Functions. In R.W. Rieber (Ed.), The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol. 4). New York and London: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Woodward, I. (2007). Understanding material culture. London: Sage.
Zarader, M. (2012). Lire Etre et temps de Heidegger. Paris: Vrin.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank all the researchers of the Aalborg Valsiner team (Jaan, Brady, Jorge, Luca, Maria, Pina, Vlad… Morten and all the Kitcheners). I thank them all warmly for the vibrant talks we had and for the memorable Wednesdays.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
The author declares that she has not received any grant for this study.
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moro, C. To Encounter, to Build the World and to Become a Human Being. Advocating for a Material-Cultural Turn in Developmental Psychology. Integr. psych. behav. 50, 586–602 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-016-9356-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-016-9356-4