The homunculus is usually treated as an embarrassment: a small person in the head, an obvious fallacy, a category error best dispatched with a wave of the hand. But this response misses something important. The homunculus is not a mistake in reasoning; it is a symptom of a deeper architectural problem.
Whenever language is treated as a conduit for pre‑existing thoughts, a homunculus is not merely possible — it is required. Something must already possess the meanings that language is supposed to transmit. If that something is not language, then it must be a mind furnished with ready‑made contents. The homunculus enters not through carelessness, but through necessity.
Why the Homunculus Keeps Returning
Attempts to banish the homunculus tend to focus on patching local errors: refining definitions of “representation,” invoking neural processes, or appealing to ineffable mental states. But none of these moves address the underlying structure that summons the homunculus in the first place.
As long as meaning is assumed to pre‑exist language, explanation must bottom out in an inner bearer of meaning. The details can change — symbols, images, neural patterns, conceptual spaces — but the role remains the same. Something inside must already know what is meant.
This is why the homunculus keeps reappearing across theories that otherwise disagree profoundly. The problem is not what the homunculus is made of. The problem is why it is needed at all.
The Architectural Error
The error lies in treating meaning as a substance rather than a relation. Once meaning is reified into a thing that can be possessed, stored, or transferred, it must be housed somewhere. The head becomes the obvious candidate.
But housing meaning inside the individual does no explanatory work. It does not tell us:
why particular distinctions matter in particular situations
how new meanings emerge historically
why coordination sometimes succeeds and sometimes fails
These questions are answered not by appealing to inner contents, but by examining systems of choice, contexts of use, and histories of differentiation.
The homunculus is thus a red flag. It signals that meaning has been misplaced.
Why Eliminating the Homunculus Is Not Enough
Many theories congratulate themselves on having “got rid of” the homunculus, while quietly preserving the assumptions that require it. The language of inner representations is replaced with talk of processing, activation, or computation, but the architecture remains unchanged.
If meaning is still assumed to exist prior to semiotic activity, then the homunculus has merely been renamed.
This is why critiques that stop at mocking the homunculus are ineffective. They target the symptom, not the disease.
What Changes When the Architecture Changes
Once meaning is understood as relational and semiotically actualised, the homunculus disappears automatically. Not because it has been refuted, but because there is no longer any role for it to play.
There is no need for an inner knower of meanings if meanings are not things to be known in advance. Distinctions emerge through construal: patterned alignments of semiotic resources with situations of use.
On this view, experience provides potential, not content. Language does not transmit meanings; it organises possibilities into functional distinctions. Explanation moves outward — into systems, contexts, and histories — where analytic traction is actually gained.
A Useful Heuristic
Whenever a theory seems to require something inside the head that already understands meaning, treat this not as a flaw to be patched, but as a diagnostic clue.
The question to ask is not, “How can we eliminate the homunculus?” but rather:
What assumptions about language made it necessary in the first place?
Answer that, and the homunculus vanishes without argument.
Not defeated. Simply unemployed.
No comments:
Post a Comment