[MD] Step two

[david]

Arlo said to Craig:

I agree, Craig. [That "the root of social activity is shared INtention, rather than shared ATtention." ] I mentioned the definition caveat for "activity" to specifically include "purposeful" (which to me is "intentional"). And, I would think Tomasello (who's idea on "shared attention" I am using) would agree with you too. His description of shared attention includes "mutually recognizing the intentionality of the conspecific"; an academic way of saying that shared attention depends on recognizing that, like you, the 'other' is acting with intention. He uses the term "shared attention" as his ideas derive from mediated action, that "intention" requires something to be "acted upon", whereas he might say "shared intention" doesn't necessarily convey acting in the world. In any event (I can't speak for him, obviously), I would agree with your point here, and its a good one to make.
But, I think he would say that two people watching a bird would be social if (1) as mentioned both recognize each other in that moment as intentional agents in the world, and (2) both recognize that they are sharing a social-semiotic reaction to the attentional 'object'. That they DON'T act together in that moment is overshadowed by that they COULD act in that moment. Like I said, I don't think we are in disagreement in substance, maybe just in terminology.


dmb says:

I haven't read Tomasello but it sounds like a description of intersubjectivity in its earliest stage of development, the seed that would eventually grow into a common cultural space, a mental space, so to speak. It sounds like something wolves and chimpanzees could do to some extent. 

It's not exactly clear where to draw the line between biology and culture, as in the case of the social level's twin engines, fame and fortune or celebrity and wealth. Isn't the Alpha male in a wolf pack rich and famous in some sense? The prettiest peacocks get laid more than the others, just as it is in Hollywood or professional sports. Sorta, kinda. And how different from our political debates is it, really, when chimps throw poop at each other? I guess the difference really shows up in the fact that culture grows and evolves whereas the social behavior of canines and primates is relatively fixed. We can pretty well discern the difference even in the history of our species. Stone tools were used for a million years before any innovations began and then - all of a sudden - there was an explosion of new tool designs. And with that came all kinds of new social behaviors involving ritual and art, or at least decoration.