Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for your comments regarding my last submission. I have made changes aligning with
your comments. I elaborate below.
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 1: According to reviewer 1, the introduction did not work very well. It was indicated that the
introduction ‘should provide a clear introduction to the problem addressed here, the direction of your
solution, and a clear purpose. Right now, there are several purposes that appear in unexpected places
and that do not help the reader to get a good sense of where the paper is going.’
Response: I have completely reworked the introduction. I have deleted some of the sentences outlined
by this reviewer so that it is clear what I am looking at in this paper. It now has one single purpose
stated. I believe it is much better.
Reviewer 1: Another point, a detail, which confused me as a reader was this sentence: “The shift away
from the immaterial is a challenge”. I thought you were proposing a materialist view. Why is such a
shift necessary? Or do you mean that mathematics has an ideational aspect which needs to be
accounted for? Or that a materialist shift is a challenge but still one worth the effort? From the context
I could not infer how this opening sentence of the paragraph was meant.
Response: I meant that ‘a materialist shift is a challenge but still one worth the effort’ but I’ve deleted
the sentence since I agree that it was confusing.
Reviewer 1: Then, as a last point about the introduction: In my view, the author falls prey to what
happens a lot in embodied/enactivist and holistic or non-dualist analyses—the suggestion that
elements or subsystems should not be seen as separate entities but as relations or bigger systems. Yes,
I fully agree that interacting systems should be studied together in situations where they do form new
systems (think of dynamical systems theory and ecological dynamics perspectives), but this does not
mean that they are always forming such systems. For example, Anthony Chemero and colleagues have
shown how systems fall apart when a crucial connection is taken out. When people successfully
perform a task (keeping an object in the middle of a screen), then their bodies and representations on
the screen form a dynamic system that should be studied in its entirety. But that does not mean that are
always in such a relation. Most of the time the people/bodies, mouse, computer, … are separate
systems. Similarly, the students studied here in the first example indeed form a complex system with
the computer, software, mouse, triangles on the screen, the concept of triangle etc. But that does not
necessarily imply that these elements cannot operate as quasi-independent objects or subjects
Response: I had difficultly knowing what to do regarding this comment. I agree with the reviewer’s
points re systems and that they are not always working as a system, sort of. I say sort of bc in this
paper I’m trying to move away from elements and systems. I didn’t use the word ‘system’ in my paper
(it actually occurs twice but not in relation to a materialist approach) bc I do not accept the idea of
system. Maybe a similar word is assemblage (which I do use) but I think a system hints toward a more
efficient, rational interaction while assemblage can grow or shrink depending on what is going on.
Maybe I need to explore assemblage more in this paper, let me know.
In addition, I also do not accept the notion of elements, since this is exactly what Ingold is challenging
that there are no things.
Reviewer 1: Then there are several places where conceptual clarity is missing. A few examples:
The paper often switches between phylogenetic and ontogenetic views and claims. For example,
top of page 2: “mathematics emerges amid the dynamic relations of humans and materials.” As far as I
can see, the philosophers cited here focus on the phylogenetic development of mathematics, whereas
the author is interested in ontogenetic development. This implicit transition is problematic: learning is
not a recapitulation of historical development.
Response: This reviewer is correct in that I do not mean phylogentic, I have moved this line, and
attached it to authors that clearly have a strong ontogenetic perspective. I have not changed the
phrasing however since this is fundamental to my thesis.
Reviewer 1: The term anthropomorphic is inappropriate; stick to anthropocentri, or humancentric.
Response: All uses of ‘anthropomorphic’ have been changed.
Reviewer 1: The slogan “no things a priori to activity” as presented here is rather meaningless without
a clearer context. In the ordinary common sense, it sounds meaningless: put objects in a room and ask
a kid to play with them, and the kid can play with the objects. These things are prior to the kid’s
activity. So you must mean something different.
Response: I have addressed this point very clearly. I added three paragraphs and added to another
paragraph to elaborate this point, all occur on page 6 and 7. One paragraph begins with ‘It is within
this framework that Ingold (2011)…’ another begins with ‘Ingold elaborates his argument against…’,
another with ‘Meta-level descriptions of students …’ and the addition of text to an already existing
paragraph addresses this reviewer’s comments about toys.
I believe that this point is fundamental to my thesis and that is why I have elaborated. I also
recognized in analysing this section of Ingold that I hadn’t elaborated on ‘narrative’ and this also
accounts for my added text.
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 2: Although initially I was ambivalent about the term "resistance", as it felt
too loaded with assumptions from previous embodied theories, I think the
author shows how this term can be reclaimed in the new paradigm. I still
might suggest friction and a more concerted effort to trouble the idea of
the "shared" goal that is being thwarted by the resistance - to what extent
is it shared? How? How do you know?
As mentioned above, the term 'resistance' still needs
more work, to ensure that it doesn't become a throw-back to earlier
approaches, and to make sure it's adequate to the post-human approach.
Response: In the first paragraph on page 5, I elaborated the construct of resistance. There are a few
other sentences that I’ve added throughout as well to clearly articulate what I (Pickering, in fact) mean
when ‘resistance’ is used. I did not elaborate on the notion of ‘shared’ goal however. Instead I added
elaboration both in the Pickering section (on page 5) and in the Ingold section that ‘goals’ are troubled
in the framework I elaborate in this paper. To have expectations at a micro level is not supported in
this paper. I discuss this a little in my analysis of both episodes. I hope this is satisfactory.