24 research outputs found
How does it really feel to act together? : Shared emotions and the phenomenology of we-agency
Research on the phenomenology of agency for joint action has so far focused on the sense of agency and control in joint action, leaving aside questions on how it feels to act together. This paper tries to fill this gap in a way consistent with the existing theories of joint action and shared emotion. We first reconstruct Pacherie’s (Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13, 25–46, 2014) account on the phenomenology of agency for joint action, pointing out its two problems, namely (1) the necessary trade-off between the sense of self- and we-agency; and (2) the lack of affective phenomenology of joint action in general. After elaborating on these criticisms based on our theory of shared emotion, we substantiate the second criticism by discussing different mechanisms of shared affect—feelings and emotions—that are present in typical joint actions. We show that our account improves on Pacherie’s, first by introducing our agentive model of we-agency to overcome her unnecessary dichotomy between a sense of self- and we-agency, and then by suggesting that the mechanisms of shared affect enhance not only the predictability of other agents’ actions as Pacherie highlights, but also an agentive sense of we-agency that emerges from shared emotions experienced in the course and consequence of joint action.Peer reviewe
Recommended from our members
Interstitial Spaces: Microinteraction Settings and the Genesis of New Practices Between Institutional Fields
I develop a model linking specific microinteraction dynamics between members of different institutional fields and the genesis of new practices. The model centers on the concept of interstitial spaces—that is, small-scale settings where individuals from different fields interact occasionally and informally around common activities to which they devote limited time (e.g., hobbyist clubs, hangouts, workshops, meet-ups). I argue that the features of interstitial spaces (e.g., their institutional diversity and their occasional and informal nature) facilitate the individuals interacting in these settings to temporarily break free from existing institutions and experiment collectively with new activities and ideas. However, these very same features hinder the constitution of such new activities and ideas into new practices. I identify two microlevel conditions that enable the new activities and ideas developed in interstitial spaces to be constituted into new practices: the emergence of successful interaction rituals, and the presence of catalysts sustaining others' interactions and assisting the construction of shared meanings