2015 Volume 66 Issue 3 Pages 364-378
The purpose of this paper is to elaborate on the reflexivity of Anthony Giddens' social theory in terms of both the coevolutionary theories of human cognition and culture and recent findings of neuroscience.
First, the paper outlines the coevolutionary theories as well as the types of reflexivity in Giddens' social theory. Mimesis, oral culture and literacy are crucial in the history of cognition and culture of humankind. Giddens has distinguished the reflexivity of traditional culture from that of oral culture; the criterion for his distinction is the historical emergence of writing. However, he has not fully explained the transformation of non-literate society into literate society. Thus, this paper applies the Great Divide theory and neuroscientific findings to the explanation of the transformation, arguing that the mirror neuron is the neuroscientific basis of reflexivity in non-literate societies. On the other hand, the invention of literacy should have changed the neuron systems in our brain, as stated by the neuronal recycling hypothesis. This is the neuroscientific basis of reflexivity in literate societies.
Second, the paper examines the historical classification of types of society in Giddens' theory. He emphasized the qualitative difference in reflexivity between traditional literate cultures and modernity, followed by the discontinuity between traditional society and modern society. However, the emergence of literacy was a critical turning point in human history, and therefore the difference should be regarded as quantitative rather than qualitative, or continuous rather than discontinuous. This paper then maintains not only the continuity between traditional society and modern society but also the discontinuity between traditional society and preliterate society.
Finally, the paper investigates the consequences of literacy. We are now in the historical stage when the evolution of reflexivity has spread throughout human society. This suggests that we obtain an ability to modify reflexively our own selection pressure.
