Abstract

In his writings, Gibson firmly claimed that cultural or social factors could never distort perception. Cultural artefacts, social norms, language and signs were instead described as influencing perception and behavior only indirectly. At the same time, in his last monumental monograph, Gibson introduced the concept of affordance as applicable to the “whole realm of social significance”. Unfortunately, Gibson did not elaborate further on the relationship between the notion of affordance and the socio-cultural organization of niches like ours. This issue divided Gibson’s followers into two sides. Some of them followed Gibson, claiming that socio-cultural factors can drive behavior but never permeate perceptual experience to its bottom layers. A second group assumes instead that the presence of a structured socio-cultural context permeates the meaning of affordances already at the perceptual level. The aim of this chapter is twofold. The first part of the chapter aims to reconstruct Gibson’s view on the role of culture and sociality and then highlight the reasoning that animates both groups of theorists. In particular, a large part of the discussion is based on motivating the problematics that led the second group of theorists to disagree with Gibson and his idea that the individual’s social background never permeates sensory perception. The second aim is to throw the seeds to develop a methodological tool available to these theorists in order to characterize the experience of affordances as shaped by the social and cultural context in which they are embedded; the notion of field. This notion has a long history in psychology but its methodological consequences are often overlooked. Notably, one of the risks of the concept of field is, as scholars of the Gestalt school like Parlett and Lee claimed, that the notion could be framed so broadly to include “anything and everything”, making it theoretically and scientifically trivial and hence unable to provide a rigorous characterization of what is encountered in individual experiences. To avoid the trivialization of this concept, I conclude by developing a recent proposal that suggests endorsing the notion of field specifically elaborated by the phenomenologist Aron GurwitschGurwitsch, A..