We recently ended the class (Tuesday) with discussion concerning the existence of a "cognition of the United States" or any other nation. This seemed to get the class somewhat 'riled up' so it might be a good blog topic.
I think what the professor was speaking to was the notion that cognitive science allows us to consider the input-output (percepts to behavior; stimulus to response) system of nations just as easily as it does individuals. I recall from the beginning classes, hearing the course outlined as starting from the microscopic (neural) level and then traveling outward, resting for a period at the level of the individual (as would be expected) but then continuing outward and ending up looking at the cognition of cultures, societies, nations, families, etc. No mention was made of cockpits at the time, but the scenario was interesting nonetheless.
To me, the best way to consider the "cognition of a nation" is to take an example that is familiar. In class, the prof used an example that involved "us" but then asked us to put ourselves "outside" and look back at the United States. That's somewhat tough to do, I would think. Why not take "us" and just look at Russia? Or China? Or Canada? Some comments were made relating this as close (or related) to stereotyping, but the prof was quick to point out the distinction. Again, to me (and I could be wrong, but more on the 'wrong' idea later) it seems the cognition of the aggregate can best be viewed from the perspective of the decisions made and overall behavior. When that aggregate is a nation, the decisions and behavior (the responses to stimuli; output resulting from particular input; using the 'black-box' framework from class) are all based largely on whatever political and/or social process employed. The US democratic process dictates that the people vote for laws and politicians and then the laws and politicians go and do our 'dirty work' internationally. So, now, when other countries see the US as "bullying" or a nation with misplaced values, they are not saying that the average citizen displays these characteristics, but that the aggregate does. Stimulus: display or show that you (random nation) have some resource that the US considers valuable (like oil). Response: US "bullies" their way into getting some of that resource. A more complimentary example involves Input: earthquake in Haiti; billions in damages. Output: US sends humanitarian aid. I was going to continue with my example using Russia, but did not want to offend anyone who might happen to be from Russia.
In this way, we can see and analyze the cognition of nations understanding understand that, while the individual citizens are at the root of the decision making, the resultant behavior might be very different from any demonstrated by the "stereotypical" national. I might be wrong but, as the prof always says: there are no wrong answers when it comes to cognition... just varied ways of thinking about it. I'll be sure to reference this notion on my final paper...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Can a nation have a "cognition" without having a "conscience"? The cockpit can remember the speed, but can the country remember (or be forgiven) the deed(s)?
ReplyDeleteI think another interesting way of looking at this theory is to look at the cognition of "outside observer" as was proposed by someone in the class.
ReplyDeleteIf a Russian citized looks at US as a unit, it reveals many interesting features about that Russian observer and his cognition and not about US itself.
In my opinion this part of problem is more interesting and needs more attention. The question is not "why US acts as an agent?" but "why a human being is able to see a society as a unit?" or what is going on inside the mind of an observer which enables him to forget about all different people living in a society and generalize them to a single unit?