Peirce, Vygotsky and Concept Formation Chris Barnham University College London Phd Thesis 1 Signed Declaration I, Chris Barnham, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. ……………………… 2 Abstract The purpose of this thesis to explore the theoretical similarities between Peirce and Vygotsky with respect to the process of concept formation. It is acknowledged that these two thinkers are seldom associated with each other in relation to the learning process. Peirce is seen as one of the founders of modern semiotics, but he is rarely linked with the activity of concept formation itself. Vygotsky, whilst associated with the latter, is not interpreted as a semiotician – even though he sometimes uses the terminology of signs. It will be argued in the course of this thesis, however, that their views are closer to each other than is commonly recognised and that this convergence derives from the influence of Hegel. In the case of Peirce, Hegel is often viewed in negative terms – as a philosophical legacy that Peirce is reacting against. It will be argued that this interpretation overlooks the deeper impact of Hegelian thought in terms of how Peirce constructs his semiotics. Indeed, an Hegelian interpretation of concept formation helps reframe Peirce’s account of the ‘mediating’ sign, the notion of the ‘determined’ sign, and the role of the ‘object’ in his triadic structure. Moreover, the reference point of Hegel creates an opportunity to re-evaluate Peirce’s icon, index and symbol. Hegel’s influence on Vygotsky is more frequently acknowledged, but seldom pursued in detail by commentators who often draw Vygotsky into a more social account of meaning construction. Full recognition of Hegel’s influence on Vygotsky, however, has the effect of reframing his notion of ‘mediation’, and making his account of concept formation less focused on the social dimension than is commonly recognised. The overall effect of these arguments is to reposition Vygotsky’s ‘natural history of the sign’ in a framework that parallels Peirce’s own account of sign formation. There remain, of course, important differences in the approaches of Peirce and Vygotsky, and these will be highlighted in the course of the discussion. But the broader perspective outlined below suggests that there should be greater recognition of their philosophical similarities. 3 Impact Statement This thesis seeks, primarily, to re-evaluate the work Peirce and to provide a broader understanding of his contribution to semiotics. It is argued that greater recognition of the influence of Hegel on Peirce has the potential to bring new perspectives to his treatment of the sign, the role of the icon, index, and symbol, and the semiotic terminology that he employs. But this re-evaluation of Peirce can equally contribute to our understanding of Vygotsky because their positions emerge as closer to each other than is commonly understood. The similarities between Peirce and Vygotsky have the considerable benefit of bringing Peirce more into the mainstream of educational thinking. Vygotsky is, justifiably, held up as a key source in the philosophy of education. This status derives from his account of concept formation and the mental processes that this involves. This thesis suggests that Peirce should be considered in this same light, and that his semiotic thinking is designed to show how our concepts are formed. This revisionary account of Peirce can also be compared with the thinking of Vygotsky. Although the influence of Hegel on Vygotsky is often noted, its full extent is seldom fully acknowledged because commentators fail to recognise the underlying Hegelian template that he is adopting. This can lead to misunderstandings of Vygotsky’s concepts of dialecticism, and mediation, and often results in an overly ‘social’ account of meaning construction. This thesis outlines, in contrast, a more Hegelian account of Vygotsky which builds parallels with Peirce in a number of areas. Beyond the scope of Peircean and Vygotskian exegesis, this thesis necessarily involves an account of concept formation and how meaning, itself, is constructed. This inevitably has implications in many theoretical fields – including the philosophy of education and the broader spheres of philosophy and psychology. In particular, Peirce’s non-referential concept of meaning is explored, and the implications for his concept of truth are discussed in detail. This raises important questions for the social, and linguistic, accounts of meaning construction that have been dominant in twentieth century philosophy. This thesis builds upon papers that I have published in the International Journal of Market Research - looking at how meaning is created by brands using hierarchies (Barnham: 2009: 593-610), and how such meaning constructions can be explored using qualitative research (Barnham: 2015: 837-854). These have been written for a very different audience – in market research and marketing - but they indicate how the thinking of this thesis can be utilised in other theoretical fields. 4 Contents 1) Introduction 7 1.1 The Purpose and Scope of this Thesis 7 1.2 The Concept and the Sign 9 1.3 Dualism and the Sign 16 1.3.1 Dualism and ‘Mediation’ 16 1.3.2 ‘Secondary Dualism’ 18 1.3.3 ‘The Myth of the Given’ 23 1.4 The Social Creation of Meaning 25 1.5 Thesis Structure 36 2) Hegel’s Influence on Peirce and Vygotsky 38 2.1. The Hegelian Background 38 2.2. Spinoza and Leibniz 39 2.3. The Hegelian Template 47 3) Perception and ‘Indeterminacy’ 52 3.1 Hegel on Perception 52 3.2 Peirce and the ‘Daughters of Nominalism’ 54 3.3 Peirce on Perception 58 3.3.1 The ‘Percept’ 58 3.3.2 The ‘Perceptual Judgment’ 60 3.3.3 What is the Status of a Perceptual Judgment? 62 3.4 Vygotsky on Perception 65 4) Peirce’s Three Categories 72 4.1 Firstness 73 4.2 Secondness 76 4.3 Thirdness 81 5) The Structure of the Peircean Sign 87 5.1 The ‘Representamen’ 88 5.2 The ‘Object’ 90 5.2.1 Interpretations of Sign Structure and the Peircean Model 91 5.2.2 The Object: Kantian, Medieval and Hegelian Models 96 5.2.3 ‘Determination’ 101 5 5.2.4 Immediate and Dynamic Objects 105 5.3 The ‘Interpretant’ 110 6) Icons, Indices, Symbols and Concept Formation 114 6.1 Peirce’s Classification of Signs 113 6.2 Qualisigns, Sinsigns and Legisigns 118 6.3 Peirce on Icons 121 6.3.1 The Icon: The ‘Received’ View 121 6.3.2 Distinguishing Icons from Hypoicons 123 6.3.3 Attacks on the Icon: Early Eco 125 6.3.4 Eco: His Revised Account of the Icon 126 6.3.5 Stjernfelt’s Account of the Icon 127 6.3.6 Revising the Peircean Icon 131 6.3.7 The Purity of the Icon 137 6.3.8 Icons: Are They Predicates? 140 6.4 Peirce on Indices 141 6.5 Peirce on Symbols and Communication 147 6.6 Peirce: The Third Trichotomy 159 7) The Peircean ‘Concept’ and his Pragmatism 162 7.1 The Pragmatic Maxim 162 7.2 Peirce’s Concept of Truth 168 8) Vygotsky: The ‘Higher Psychological Processes’ 175 8.1 Dialecticism in Vygotsky 175 8.2 ‘Mediation’ in Vygotsky 179 8.3 The ‘Natural History’ of the Sign 193 8.4 The Zone of Proximal Development 205 8.4.1 Interpretations of the ZPD 205 8.4.2 The ZPD: Fusing the Iconic and the Indexical 209 9) Peirce, Vygotsky, and the Learning Process 215 Bibliography 229 Chapter Footnotes 246 6 1) Introduction 1.1) The Purpose and Scope of this Thesis Peirce and Vygotsky are infrequently associated with each other in relation to the learning process. The purpose of this thesis is to demonstrate some of the theoretical links that exist between them and to show how each can contribute to a better understanding of the other. At first sight, these two thinkers seem to be strange bedfellows. Vygotsky is viewed primarily as a child psychologist who is concerned with the processes involved in child development. He occasionally uses the terminology of signs, but he is hardly ever associated with semiotics per se. Moreover, in the secondary literature, he is frequently viewed by commentators as a ‘social constructionist’ who sees the social dimension as being critical in the formation of concepts. Peirce, on the other hand, is seen mainly as a philosopher and as a logician. He is recognised as one of the founding fathers of semiotics, and also of pragmatism, but he is neither associated with modern psychology, nor, specifically, with child development. His work seems more concerned with addressing epistemological problems of knowledge and he adopts a system of signs to tackle these issues. The bridge, however, that potentially exists between Vygotsky and Peirce is one based on their account of concept formation. Vygotsky is well known as a thinker on this particular issue, but Peirce is seldom viewed in this specific light. The reasons for this will be discussed in due course, but it will be argued that Vygotsky’s account of concept development shares important similarities with Peirce’s account of sign formation. We will explore, as a result of this, how Peirce’s account of signs parallels Vygotsky’s treatment of concepts. Is there an underlying theoretical framework that underpins these potential similarities between Vygotsky and Peirce? It will be argued that the underlying template that enables these connections to be made can be found in the writings of Hegel. This aspect of Vygotsky’s writings are often recognised in secondary texts (e.g. Derry: 2013; Van der Veer and Valsiner 1991), but the Hegelian foundations of Peircean thought are seldom identified.