Educational Psychology—Limitations and Possibilities

480 The Praeger Handbook of Education and Psychology
that the specification of a reality is an individualistic and solipsistic matter; in fact, this cannot be
the case. It is, ironically, the very fact that the operation of the nervous system is solipsistic that
makes this impossible. Since an individual alone cannot make this distinction, a social consensus
is required. The determination of a reality, then, depends upon social interaction, an understanding
that what is perceived by oneself is also perceived by others. We share a reality because we have
cospecified it through the coordination of our actions with the actions of others. This can lead
to the specification of many different realities because it is an activity that can be engaged by a
small group as easily as a large group. So one may speak of multi-verses in place of a uni-verse.
By focusing on interaction rather than representation, Varela has avoided the mind–body,
physical–mental dualism. Existence and interpretation are the same thing. Those things that we
label information, knowledge, and semantic content are constructions, structurally determined
products of structural coupling. They have no independent existence. So, we may say that reality
is both socially determined and dependent upon the interpretation of individuals. It is the creation
of the process of inquiry rather than discovered through inquiry.
Effective action
Effective action is simply successful ways of being-in-the-world. More precisely, it is the
history of structural coupling that brings forth a world in such a manner as permits the continued
integrity of the systems involved. Effective action is metaphorically a conversation; maintaining
the continued integrity of the system requires keeping that conversation going. Survival is proof
of effective action. Within this framework, information, knowledge, and semantic content are
all constructions of the cognitive system and products of structural coupling. They are effective
to the extent that they permit the continued integrity of the system. What we call knowledge is
effective action within a given domain. What is called content in the representational framework
becomes part of the environment through which we must wend our way.
Communication
Seen from a representational perspective, communication is deterministic. The responsibility
for understanding lies with the sender. The process is easy if the sender is competent at transmitting
semantic content. Within the enactive framework, on the other hand, communication requires
effort and patience. It is a reciprocal process of interpretation and reflexive understanding. I must
interpret what my partner is saying, I must interpret my partner’s understanding of what I am
saying, and I must interpret my partner’s understanding of my understanding of what he is saying,
etc. The process is like the experience of looking in a three-way mirror, where the images go on
into infinity. The involved parties will assume they share an understanding until such time as their
conversation breaks down, then, and only then, they will engage in a problem-solving process to
get the conversation back on track if they consider the effort worthwhile. Communication within
this framework requires mutual respect—it is impossible unless both parties are willing to make
a space for the other in their lives.
GENERAL IMPLICATIONS
Abandon the Transmission Model with Its Container Metaphor
The most obvious implication is that we must abandon the transmission model of communication.
This is troublesome because the English language conspires against us. We talk of sending
information, or putting information into messages that can be sent. We put knowledge into books