Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Perceiving
Things Divine
Towards a Constructive Account of
Spiritual Perception
Edited by
F R E D E R IC K D. AQU I N O
and
PAU L L . G AV R I LY U K
1
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/11/21, SPi
1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Oxford University Press 2022
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 2022
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021946207
ISBN 978–0–19–880259–4
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198802594.001.0001
Printed and bound in Great Britain by
Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A.
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/11/21, SPi
Foreword
Mark Wynn
This volume is a successor to Paul Gavrilyuk and Sarah Coakley’s 2012 collection
The Spiritual Senses: Perceiving God in Western Christianity. That text introduced
various traditions of thought, and the present volume draws out, most excitingly,
some of the implications of those traditions for contemporary debate—showing
how close attention to the idea of spiritual perception can deepen and, in some
cases indeed, transform our approach to an array of otherwise apparently quite
disparate theological themes, including: liturgy, the reading of scripture, eschat
ology, spiritual formation, divine hiddenness, and the spiritual import of, for
instance, the experience of nature and of beauty. It is to be hoped that the intel
lectual project that has been initiated in these pages will be taken up more
widely—and in that case, we may expect theological enquiry to become newly
alert to the deep-seated connections between religious understanding and our
capacity to orient ourselves in the everyday world, through our apprehension of
values that are presented to us in sensory and more than sensory form.
The central themes of this collection are very fully and acutely described in
Frederick Aquino and Paul Gavrilyuk’s Introduction, so rather than present a fur
ther survey of the volume’s contents, in the following brief remarks, I shall try to
draw out the significance of its concerns by showing how they intersect with three
further contexts of enquiry, each of which is of obvious practical and theological
interest. I shall introduce these contexts in turn, by touching on: the nature of
knowledge of place; the emotions as sources of evaluative insight; and the role of
salience in the perceptual field in disclosing the import of the sensory world.
We all of us negotiate our physical environment not only by reference to its
structure—as when I duck to avoid a low-lying beam—but also with a view to
acknowledging the existential significance of particular spaces: when I comport
myself differently in a football ground as compared with, say, a lecture theatre or
graveyard, that is not only because of the different physical dimensions of these
spaces. And when we orient ourselves appropriately in a particular place in bodily
terms, in ways that give due recognition to the existential significance of the place,
we do not normally rely on some process of reflection—as if I were to rehearse
first the thought that this place is a graveyard, and then the thought that the dead
are to be treated with respect, and then the thought that I had therefore better not
kick a ball or raise my voice while here. Rather, in standard cases, it is in the
responses of the body, rather than mediately, by means of some process of
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/11/21, SPi
viii Foreword
reflection, that we apprehend the significance of the space, and adapt our
demeanour to fit the space.
Of course, the existential import of a place is commonly defined by the stories
with which it is associated: in such cases, it is the history of the space that defines
its meaning for us in the present and calls for appropriate practical acknowledge
ment in the present. And when we are attuned to the storied significance of a
place in bodily terms, rather than by way of some discursive assessment of its
import, we seem to navigate our way through the world by means of something
like a spiritual perception—that is, by means of a non-inferential apprehension of
the space that tracks not only its sensory but also its existential import. And there
is some reason to think that spiritual perception that is theological in content
works similarly. This is most straightforwardly true of spaces whose religious
meaning is fixed by reference to their history, as with, say, sites of pilgrimage. But
it is also true, potentially, on a wider scale, in so far as theological traditions offer
us a storied account of the significance of particular items in the world, human
beings among them, and indeed of the world itself, considered as the object of
divine creation and care: these distinctively theological storied meanings can also
be acknowledged, we may suppose, immediately in our bodily responses. A num
ber of the essays in this volume carry very fruitful implications for how we might
elaborate on an account of the nature of spiritual perception of broadly this form,
that is, one that understands spiritual perception by reference to our bodily
attunement to place-relative, story-mediated existential meanings.
Moving to a second context of enquiry, it is a commonplace of recent philo
sophical work on the emotions that emotional feelings can themselves be
thoughts, rather than simply stimuli for thought, or the by-products of thought.
Here is one example of how this proposal might be developed, presented by
Peter Goldie:
imagine you are in a zoo, looking at a gorilla grimly loping from left to right in
its cage. You are thinking of the gorilla as dangerous, but you do not feel fear, as
it seems to be safely behind bars. Then you see that the door to the cage has been
left wide open. Just for a moment, though, you fail to put the two thoughts – the
gorilla is dangerous, the cage is open – together. Then, suddenly, you do put
them together: now your way of thinking of the gorilla as dangerous is new; now
it is dangerous in an emotionally relevant way for you. The earlier thought, nat
urally expressed as ‘That gorilla is dangerous’, differs in content from the new
thought, although this new thought, thought with emotional feeling, might also
be naturally expressed in the same words. Now, in feeling fear towards the gorilla
you are emotionally engaged with the world, and, typically, you are poised for
action in a new way – poised for action out of the emotion.1
1 Peter Goldie, The Emotions: A Philosophical Exploration (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000), 61.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/11/21, SPi
Foreword ix
x Foreword
features. Accordingly, the ordering of the perceptual field can track, for example,
the relative moral significance of the items that fall within our purview—so that
we are focally aware of, say, the facial expressions of human beings, rather than of
the inanimate objects that are also presented to us on a given occasion of percep
tion. And by extension, it seems reasonable to suppose, the contouring of the per
ceptual field can also count as more or less appropriate in theological terms—and
will count as theologically fitting to the extent that an object’s salience in the per
ceptual field is directly proportional to its importance relative to some religious or
spiritual narrative. When there is such a correspondence, between the salience of
objects and their theological significance, then the world as it appears in our
experience will mirror the divine vantage point on the world—since the patterns
of salience that are inscribed in the perceptual field will now track a divinely
ordered scale of values. We might even say that, in such a case, the world as it
appears will offer a window onto the mind of God—by giving us a sensory image
that matches the divine assessment of the relative importance of the contents of
the perceptual field.
Here, then, are three ways of thinking about the nature of spiritual perception,
namely, by reference to: the body’s spontaneous sensitivity to the storied signifi
cance of particular places; the integrative, action-guiding understanding that is
afforded by emotional feelings; and our ability to track the relative importance of
objects via the structuring of the perceptual field. When understood in these
ways, spiritual perception turns out to be rooted in capacities that are continuous
with our capacity to apprehend the normative significance of the world in other
respects. These accounts allow us to see, therefore, how it is possible for human
beings to register the full range of values in their practical engagement with the
sensory world—that is, not just, say, prudential and moral values, but in addition
spiritual values. The essays in this volume lead us more deeply into these same
issues—and thereby they show us both what we need to understand if our lives
are to be well-ordered in theological terms, and what it would take for a creature
of our capacities and mode of embodiment to display that sort of understanding
in their relationship to other human beings and the everyday world.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/11/21, SPi
Acknowledgements
We owe a debt of gratitude to many scholars and organizations. The first impetus
for this book project was given by the Analytic Theology Seminar at Southern
Methodist University in August 2012, organized by William Abraham, at which
we agreed to assemble a team of researchers in order to advance the work of The
Spiritual Senses volume (2012) in a constructive direction. As a result, we organ
ized three symposia to discuss individual chapters and form a coherent vision of
the volume. The first symposium was held in Atlanta, Georgia, in November 2015
with the participation of William Abraham, James Arcadi, Kenny Boyce, Sarah
Coakley, Boyd Taylor Coolman, Brandon Gallaher, Amber Griffioen, Stephen
Grimm, Douglas Hedley, John Kern (as an assistant), Dominika Kurek-Chomycz,
John Martens, Mark McInroy, Timothy O’Brien, Marcus Plested, Michael Rea,
Ann Taves, Allan Torrance, Sameer Yadav, and Ray Yeo. The second symposium
was held in San Antonio, Texas, in November 2016 and additionally included
Chance Juliano (as an assistant), David Luy, Michael McClymond, Kevin Nordby,
Nicole Reibe, and Mark Spencer. The third symposium was held at the University
of St Thomas, St Paul, Minnesota, in July 2017 and included William Abraham,
Hans Boersma, Sarah Coakley, Boyd Taylor Coolman, Richard Cross, Erika Kidd,
John Martens, Mark McInroy, Faith Pawl, Darren Sarisky, and Erika Zabinski (as
an assistant).
In the fall 2017, Paul Gavrilyuk and Mark Spencer organized a faculty seminar
on spiritual perception at the University of St Thomas co-funded by the Dean’s
office and the Templeton Foundation through the Philosophy of Religion Center
at the University of Notre Dame. The seminar participants were John Froula,
William Junker, Stephen Laumakis, Mathew Lu, John Martens, Mark McInroy,
Stephen McMichael, Faith Pawl, Barbara Sain, and Deborah Savage. The guest
speakers who presented their work at the seminar and offered public lectures
were Aquino, Greco, and Taves. In June 2017 Gavrilyuk’s graduate seminar
‘Perceiving God: The Spiritual Senses in History and Theology’ at the St Paul
School of Divinity, University of St Thomas, was enriched by the contributions
of the following guest speakers: Aquino, Coolman, Greco, McInroy, Spencer,
and Yadav.
In addition, the following events were held at different venues: a panel on
spiritual perception at the annual meeting of the International Society of
Neoplatonism Studies in Seattle, Washington, in June 2016 organized by Frederick
Aquino with contributions from Paul Gavrilyuk (in absentia) and Mark McInroy;
‘Retrieving Premodern Understandings of Spiritual Perception for Contemporary
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/11/21, SPi
xii Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
List of figures xv
List of contributors xvii
Introduction xix
PA RT I . FAC E T S
PA RT I I . I N T E R SE C T IO N S
xiv Acknowledgements
List of figures
2.1 The Water Lily Pond. Claude Monet’s Estate in Giverny, France.
Photo: P. Gavrilyuk, 1 August 2015, 11.22 a.m. 23
2.2 Claude Monet, Water Lilies (1906). The Art Institute of Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois. Photo: P. Gavrilyuk, November 2019. 24
2.3 Claude Monet, Grainstack, Sun in the Mist (1891), Minneapolis Institute
of Art, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Photo: P. Gavrilyuk, May 2016. 27
13.1 Lewis Bowman, Transfiguration (2005). 222
Rembrandt Van Rijn, “The Good Samaritan” (etching). 230
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/11/21, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/11/21, SPi
List of contributors
xviii List of contributors
Paul L. Gavrilyuk is the Aquinas Chair in Theology and Philosophy at the University of
St Thomas and the Founding President of the International Orthodox Theological
Association. His books include The Suffering of the Impassible God (Oxford, 2004), Georges
Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance (Oxford, 2013), and The Spiritual Senses:
Perceiving God in Western Christianity (Cambridge, 2012), co-edited with Sarah Coakley.
John Greco is the Robert L. McDevitt, K.S.G., K.C.H.S. and Catherine H. McDevitt L.C.H.S
Chair in Philosophy at Georgetown University. He is the author of Putting Skeptics in
Their Place: The Nature of Skeptical Arguments and Their Role in Philosophical Inquiry
(Cambridge, 2000); Achieving Knowledge: A Virtue-theoretic Account of Epistemic Normativity
(Cambridge, 2010); and The Transmission of Knowledge (Cambridge, 2020).
Mark Wynn is Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the
University of Oxford. He is the author of Spiritual Traditions and the Virtues: Living
Between Heaven and Earth (Oxford, 2020) and Renewing the Senses: A Study of the
Philosophy and Theology of the Spiritual Life (Oxford, 2013).
Introduction
Frederick D. Aquino and Paul L. Gavrilyuk
1 For a classical treatment of this issue in Jesuit spirituality, see Augustin Poulain, Des grâces
d’oraison; traité de théologie mystique (Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne, 1901).
2 Paul L. Gavrilyuk and Sarah Coakley, eds, The Spiritual Senses: Perceiving God in Western
Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
3 Online at spiritualperceptionproject.wordpress.com with videos on The Spiritual Perception
Project Channel on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzQwXDBp6xIw_f4_z7eodeQ.
Frederick D. Aquino and Paul L. Gavrilyuk, Introduction In: Perceiving Things Divine: Towards a Constructive Account of
Spiritual Perception. Edited by: Frederick D. Aquino and Paul L. Gavrilyuk, Oxford University Press.
© Oxford University Press 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198802594.001.0001
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/21, SPi
xx Introduction
Reflecting the results of the second phase of the Spiritual Perception Project,
this volume argues for the possibility of spiritual perception. More exactly, it seeks
to make progress towards a constructive account of the different aspects of spirit-
ual perception while exploring its intersection with various theological and philo-
sophical issues, such as biblical interpretation, aesthetics, liturgy, race, ecology,
eschatology, and the hiddenness of God. Spiritual perception can be explained in
two ways, on the analogy with the (five) physical senses, and, without such an
analogy, as a perceptual capacity sui generis. When the analogy of the five senses
is in play, it is often appropriate to use the tradition-sanctioned expression ‘spiritual
senses’, especially when the emphasis is on the nature of the spiritual sensorium.
Spiritual perception may also be construed as a perceptual power sui generis, akin
to but not reducible to intuition, moral discernment, conscience, or aesthetic
taste, and thus not to be correlated exclusively with the fivefold sensorium.4 For
this reason, our general preference in this volume is for the broader expression,
‘spiritual perception’, which includes all phenomena associated with the operation
of the spiritual senses without necessarily implying an analogy with the physical
senses. In what follows, we discuss the general features of perception, introduce a
new interdisciplinary field of spiritual perception, and sketch out future research
trajectories in this field.
Varieties of Perception
7 William Alston, Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1991), 27; emphasis in the original.
8 Alston, Perceiving God, 37.
9 Caroline Franks Davis, The Evidential Force of Religious Experience (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1989), 148–9.
10 Some argue that there is a form of perception (e.g. simple perception) that does not require the
possession of concepts (although this claim has been challenged). On the non-conceptual aspect of
perception, see Robert Audi, Moral Perception (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013); for a
good overview of the relevant issues, see Daniel O’Brien, ‘The Epistemology of Perception’, https://
www.iep.utm.edu/epis-per/.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/21, SPi
xxii Introduction
background beliefs, dispositions, and practices may also restore, purify, and
enhance spiritual perception, for example, in how we read scripture (Yadav),
interact with the environment (Christie), and engage in liturgical acts (Pickstock).
We emphasize that training enables one to make fine-grained perceptual judge-
ments (Aquino, Gavrilyuk). Of equal importance to this volume is the expansion
of the scope of perception.
Some forms of perception in everyday experience appear to go beyond phys
ical perception. These forms include moral and aesthetic perception. In Moral
Perception, for example, Robert Audi seeks to show how perception factors in the
acquisition of moral knowledge. In this regard, he makes a distinction between
two kinds of properties: the perceptual and the perceptible. The former are sensory
properties such as colours and shapes, while the latter are ‘not all sensory and
include certain moral properties’ such as ‘being wrong, being unjust, and being
obligatory, among others’.11 So, the phenomenal aspect of moral perception is a
non-sensory perception of injustice but not in ‘pictorial’ terms, say in how we see
the Mesquite tree in our backyard. In this respect, Audi thinks that we should not
expect moral perception to be reducible to physical properties. Consequently, this
kind of research opens the door for exploring a phenomenon like spiritual per-
ception. For example, in Chapter 1, John Greco explores the parity between moral
and spiritual perception. In Chapter 11, Paul Moser locates spiritual perception in
conscience thereby aligning it even more closely with moral perception.
Similarly, the perception of beauty or aesthetic perception may include the
apprehension of non-sensory properties such as harmony, unity, complexity, and
proportion, which are also plausible candidates for being perceptible in Audi’s
sense of the term. Even if the apprehension of these properties is typically more
cognitively loaded than the apprehension of physical properties, such as shapes
and colours, as we saw above, the influence of cognitive factors on sensory aspects
of perception does not warrant excluding a given property from the range of
perception. Along these lines, the parallels between aesthetic and spiritual per-
ception are explored in this volume by Gavrilyuk (Chapter 2) and McInroy
(Chapter 13). Mark Spencer’s discussion of value perception in Chapter 4, which
draws on the phenomenology of Max Scheler, also provides an important bridge
between moral, aesthetic, and spiritual perception.
xxiv Introduction
xxvi Introduction
12 Jean-Luc Marion, In Excess: Studies of Saturated Phenomena, trans. Robyn Horner and Vincent
Berraud (New York: Fordham University Press, 2002).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/21, SPi
offer. Within the Christian tradition, such accounts may draw on all loci of
systematic theology, including the doctrines of God, Christ, Holy Spirit, creation,
human nature, fall, sin, incarnation, redemption, church, sacraments, and last
things. As a creator of the world, God remains transcendent and as such not
available to ordinary perception in the manner characterizing his creation. And
yet, in the incarnation, God has appeared in the world, and as a result God can
now be perceived in the person of Christ. Furthermore, the ongoing presence of
Christ can be perceived in the sacraments, which suggest that all five senses are
involved in the perception of the divine.
Christian theological anthropology postulates that humans are created ‘in the
image and likeness of God’, and some accounts of spiritual perception assume
that pre-lapsarian human beings were capable of perceiving God. The fallen con-
dition alters this state of affairs without, however, severing the communicative
link altogether. The purpose of divine action in the incarnation and redemption is
the restoration of the divine–human communication, including the perception of
God. This communication is impossible without the work of the Holy Spirit.
A question emerges, whether the operation of spiritual perception is a matter of
grace or is it a function of human effort and practice? In our judgement, divine
grace and human effort are not in causal competition; while the operation of spir-
itual perception is inconceivable without the sustaining and illuminating power
of divine grace, its activation, cultivation, and habituation also involve a measure
of human cooperation with God. While graced perception may be a divine gift,
the main emphasis of this volume is on a developed perceptual power that
becomes a vital aspect of the transformed human self. As such, the restoration of
spiritual perception is a vital, if unjustly neglected, aspect of the process of sancti-
fication and deification.
A related question is whether spiritual perception is for everybody, or whether
it is reserved exclusively for a few unique individuals with high-level perceptual
training, such as mystics. In Chapter 13, on theological aesthetics, Mark McInroy
defends a strong version of the everyday spiritual perception and argues that spir-
itual perception is a constitutive feature of physical perception. Such an account
would not rule out mystical spiritual perception, but would treat it as the culmin
ation and ultimate fulfilment of the everyday spiritual perception. We propose
that spiritual perception is a capacity that is latent in all humans, although not all
exercise it in an equal measure. The account of spiritual perception put forth in
this volume presupposes that perceiving spiritually is to some extent a feature of
everyday human experience, even if it is not always recognized as such. Just as it
is possible to speak of weaker and stronger functioning of other human powers,
such as, for example, physical strength or memory, it is equally reasonable to
speak of spiritual perception as more or less attuned to the apprehension of God.
While it is notoriously difficult to chart the precise stages of mystical ascent, it is
nevertheless possible to speak of the experiences of God that are more mundane
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/21, SPi
xxviii Introduction
and those that point to the possibilities of the resurrection state, when God will
be ‘all in all’.
The restoration of the whole person in the resurrection state will feature the
‘spiritual body’ (1 Cor. 15:44), in which all human perception will be at once fully
embodied and fully spiritual. Thus, a complete account of spiritual perception is
inescapably theological and must present ‘perceiving things divine’ in relation to
a grace-filled human striving after a full communion with God. In the eschaton,
this communion is so complete that it is Christ, who as the head of his mystical
Body, the Church, does the sensing in the believers, who have acquired the ‘mind
of Christ’ (1 Cor. 2:16, Phil. 2:5). This trope of medieval Western theology, con-
sidered in Chapter 6 by Boyd Taylor Coolman on eschatological fulfilment of
human knowledge of God, is significant for understanding spiritual perception as
the Christological transformation of the natural powers of the human self. For
spiritual perception is not a secret sense that is a prerogative of the mystics; on the
contrary, spiritual perception is how we are all meant to perceive God, the world,
and each other.
PART I
FAC ET S
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/21, SPi
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/21, SPi
1
The Possibility of Spiritual Perception
Objections and Replies
John Greco
Throughout history and in different cultures, many persons have taken themselves
to have a perception of God on some analogy to the perception of physical objects.1
There are numerous variations on the theme, but the central idea is that the ana
logy is apt on at least two important dimensions. First, the idea is that there is
some analogous kind of cognitive contact—that the mind–object relation in the
two sorts of case are somehow importantly alike. Second, the idea is that there is
some analogous epistemic relation—that the experience of God serves to ground
beliefs about God in a way importantly similar to how sensory experience grounds
beliefs about material objects. Again, variations on both themes abound, including
variations that eschew talk of analogy. That is, some have thought that we can quite
literally experience God in our lives, and that this quite literally counts as a kind of
perception. No analogy needed.2
Others, of course, have thought that a perception of God would be impossible.
Here we need not get into verbal disputes about the ordinary language meaning
of ‘perception’. The real issues concern the ideas above about cognitive contact
and epistemic grounding. Those who deny that a perception of God is possible, or
who deny that the analogy is apt, are really denying that an experience of God
could put us in a similar cognitive relation as we have with physical objects of
perception. Likewise, they deny that an experience of God could provide epi
stemically good grounds for beliefs about God, in a way similar to how sensory
experience provides epistemically good grounds for beliefs about physical objects.
And again, variations on the theme abound. That is, the specific reasons regard
ing why such a relation would be impossible, or why such grounding would be
possible, are various. Nevertheless, I think we can identify three broad lines of
1 For numerous examples, see Paul Gavrilyuk and Sarah Coakley (eds), The Spiritual Senses:
Perceiving God in Western Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). See also
William P. Alston, Perceiving God (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), especially chapter 1; and
William James The Varieties of Religious Experience (New York: Longmans, Green, 1916; originally
published in 1902).
2 For example, in Perceiving God, Alston offers a general analysis of perception on which perceiving
God counts as an instance.
John Greco, The Possibility of Spiritual Perception: Objections and Replies In: Perceiving Things Divine: Towards a
Constructive Account of Spiritual Perception. Edited by: Frederick D. Aquino and Paul L. Gavrilyuk, Oxford University Press.
© Oxford University Press 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198802594.003.0001
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/21, SPi
reasoning put forward by the naysayers. As it turns out, the details will not matter
for our purposes.
The first broad line of objection to the possibility of spiritual perception is that
there is no good inference from religious experience to divine reality. Put differ
ently, there is no rationally sound route from (a) experience of a religious charac
ter to (b) the conclusion that such experience is caused by or accurately represents
a divine reality. Let us call this the ‘no good inference’ objection. Like other objec
tions to spiritual perception, this line of reasoning does not assume that God does
not exist. That is, the idea is not that we cannot perceive God because there is no
God to perceive. Rather, the idea is that, even if God does exist, it would be impos
sible to perceive God, either literally or in an importantly analogous sense. More
specifically, even if God does exist, there is no good inference from religious
experience to divine reality.
The second broad line of objection to the possibility of spiritual perception is
that all religious experience is theoretically loaded, and therefore cannot provide
the kind of immediate relation to God that perception is supposed to provide to
the object of perception. Put differently, experience of a religious character is
always ‘thick’ with the concepts, assumptions, and expectations of the religious
believer. This sort of mediation is sometimes thought to be inconsistent with the
kind of cognitive contact (the kind of mind–object relation) that perception is
supposed to provide. Alternatively, this sort of mediation is thought to be incon
sistent with the kind of epistemic grounding that perception is supposed to pro
vide. Either way, the idea is that experience which is thus theoretically loaded
cannot play a role similar to that which sensory experience plays in the percep
tion of physical objects. Let us call this the ‘loaded experience’ objection.
Finally, a third line of objection claims that neither God nor God’s properties
can be a proper object of perception. The idea behind this objection is that per
ception and perceptual experience are necessarily narrow in scope. For example,
the properties that are presented in perception are restricted to relatively ‘low-
level’ properties, such as colour, sound, motion, and shape. Higher-level proper
ties, involving causation and agency, for example, always fall outside the scope of
what is presented by perception proper. Beliefs that are about such properties
therefore require some kind of inference or interpretation, in that their contents
are not delivered by perception itself. If this is right, then it turns out that God’s
properties and activities, and thus God Himself, must fall outside the scope of
perception. Call this the ‘no proper object’ objection.
We have identified three broad lines of objection to the possibility of spiritual
perception. I said above that variations of these abound but that further details will
not matter for our purposes. That is because, I will argue, all three lines of objec
tion are clearly misguided from the point of view of the contemporary cognitive
science of perception. That is, they are clearly misguided even at this very general
level of presentation. Accordingly, adding further details cannot save them.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/21, SPi
John Greco 5
The remainder of the chapter is organized as follows. The first part considers
three issues in the cognitive science of perception that speak directly to our three
lines of objection: (a) in what sense does perception involve inference or reason
ing?; (b) to what degree is perception ‘cognitively penetrated’ by higher-level
mental states of the perceiver?; and (c) what is the proper object of perception?
We will see that all three issues do involve substantive disagreements in the sci
ence of perception, but none in such a way that leave our three lines of objection
standing. That is, consensus positions about the nature and functioning of percep
tion are enough to show that all three lines of objection are without force. The
next part puts forward a model of moral and spiritual perception that shows how
(a) these can be both conceptually and theoretically loaded and yet (b) non-
inferential. The model also shows how moral and spiritual perception can be
understood as kinds of expert perception, that is, perception that is enabled and
improved by accumulated knowledge and training. The model is also psycho
logically realistic, in the sense that it is consistent with what we know about the
nature and functioning of perception in general.
The science of perception is rife with interesting and difficult issues. Nevertheless,
these issues are debated within a broad consensus about the nature of perception
and perceptual functioning, and that consensus is enough to put aside the famil
iar lines of objection considered above. These were framed as objections to the
possibility of spiritual perception, but it is interesting to note that they might be
framed as objections to moral perception as well. That is, the very same consid
erations that were reviewed above could be directed against the possibility of
moral perception with little or no adjustment. Thus, one might argue that there
is no good inference from moral experience to moral reality—that there is no
rationally sound route from (a) experience of a moral character to (b) the conclu
sion that such experience is caused by or accurately represents the moral facts.
Likewise, one might insist that all moral experience is conceptually and theoretic
ally loaded and therefore cannot provide the kind of immediate relation to moral
reality that perception is supposed to provide. Finally, one might think that moral
properties cannot be the proper object of perception, precisely because they are
the sort of higher-level properties that go beyond the low-level properties that are
made available by perception proper.
Accordingly, our three broad considerations against the possibility of spiritual
perception count just as well against the possibility of moral perception. But
again, we shall see that all three lines of objection are misguided, and that this is
made clear by consensus positions in the cognitive science of perception.
Accordingly, let us turn to three relevant issues in that domain.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/21, SPi
The first issue I want to consider is whether, or in what sense, perception involves
inference or reasoning. This is important because our first line of objection claims
that there is no good inference from religious experience to religious reality. Put
differently, the idea is that religious experience does not ‘support’ religious belief.
This line of objection is premised on the idea that perception in general, for
example the perception of physical objections via sensory experience, does involve
a good inference from experience to reality. The central thought of the objection
is that spiritual perception falls short in a way that physical object perception does
not. Put differently, the central thought is that religious experience fails to sup
port religious belief in a way that sensory experience successfully supports percep
tual beliefs about physical objects.
The problem with this line of objection is that no one now thinks that physical
object perception involves good inference from sensory experience to physical
reality. More carefully, no cognitive scientist thinks that physical object percep
tion involves inference or reasoning in the way that the objection requires. Clearly
enough, and without controversy, physical object perception involves inference in
some sense. And in fact, texts on perception frequently speak about ‘inferences’
in perception. But cognitive scientists use the word ‘inference’ in a very broad
way. In effect, what they mean by ‘inference’ is any kind of information processing.
Let us make a distinction between (a) information processing in general and
(b) reasoning proper in particular. Information processing in general takes repre
sentations as inputs, operates on those according to some relevant set of process
ing rules, and then outputs further representations on that basis. In this very
broad sense, physical object perception involves lots of information processing, as
when the visual system represents distance from a variety of binocular and
monocular cues. Much of this processing is subpersonal, in terms of both the rep
resentations that are operated on and the processing rules that are used.3
Now let us consider the kind of information processing involved in reasoning
proper. Reasoning takes prior beliefs as inputs, operates on these according to
some relevant set of inference rules, and then outputs further beliefs on that basis.
Moreover, the relevant processing operates on person–level representations (i.e.
beliefs) according to person–level inference rules. ‘Good reasoning’ is reasoning
that takes us from input beliefs (premises in the reasoning) to output beliefs (con
clusion of the reasoning) in an appropriate way.
3 Subpersonal processes, in the sense intended here, are computational processes operating on
r epresentations that are sub-doxastic and hence not available to the subject, in this case the perceiver.
For an informative discussion of the personal/subpersonal distinction as it is typically used in
cognitive science and the philosophy of mind, see Zoe Drayson, ‘The uses and abuses of the personal/
subpersonal distinction’, Philosophical Perspectives 26/1 (2012): 1–18.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/21, SPi
John Greco 7
And now here is the point: physical object perception involves lots of information
processing, but that processing is not relevantly like reasoning from premises to a
conclusion, as the present line of objection requires. In short, the present line of
objection misapplies the norms of good reasoning to perception. That is, when
the objection claims that ‘there is no good inference’ from experience to belief in
some candidate episode of perception, it is using the norms of reasoning to evalu
ate perception. But perception is not a kind of reasoning, and is therefore not
subject to the norms of reasoning.
The moral of the story is that not even physical object perception involves a
good inference from experience to reality. That is the wrong way to think about
perception in general. Accordingly, it can be no objection to spiritual perception
that there is no good inference from religious experience to religious belief. As
noted above, the same point applies to moral perception.
What do we mean when we say that cognition does not affect perception, such
that there are no top-down effects on what we see? The primary reason these
issues have received so much historical and contemporary attention is that a
proper understanding of mental organization depends on whether there is a
salient “joint” between perception and cognition . . . whether visual perception is
modular, encapsulated from the rest of cognition, and “cognitively (im)pene
trable.” . . .We single out this meaning of top-down not only because it may be the
most prominent usage of the term, but also because the questions it raises are
especially foundational for our understanding of the organization of the mind.4
4 Chaz Firestone and Brian J. Scholl, ‘Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence
for “top-down” Effects’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39 (2016): 3.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/21, SPi
One might think that the controversy here has implications for the possibility of
spiritual perception. For it seems that the best candidates for spiritual perception
are clearly influenced by higher-order mental states of the believer. For example,
religious experience by Christians will typically have a Christian content, as
opposed to a Hindu or Buddhist content. Likewise, the influence of desire,
expectation, and other aspects of will on religious experience are readily acknow
ledged in various religious traditions.5 But if perception proper is supposed to be
isolated from the influence of higher-order cognition, then these candidates for
perception can be ruled out as proper instances.
In fact, however, the relevant debates about cognitive penetration in percep
tion have no such implications. We can see this by making a four-way distinction
between (a) the perceptual processing that takes place before or ‘upstream’ from
the construction of a conscious sensory experience; (b) the qualitative features of
conscious sensory experience, such as phenomenal colour, phenomenal pitch,
etc.; (c) the conscious experience of low-level perceptual features of objects in the
environment, such as shape, texture, motion, distance, etc.; and (d) the perceptual
beliefs or judgements that are provoked by sensory experience. And now the
point is this: the controversies over cognitive penetration concern only categories
(a)–(c). They concern: (a) whether higher-level cognition affects perceptual pro
cessing upstream from conscious experience; (b) whether higher-level cognition
affects the phenomenal quality of sensory experience; and (c) whether higher-
level cognition affects the experience of perceived features such as shape and dis
tance. Moreover, the reason that issues over cognitive penetration concern only
categories (a)–(c) is that it is uncontroversial that top-down effects occur at (d),
the level of perceptual belief or judgement. That is, all parties to the dispute agree
that perceptual belief is affected by prior beliefs, desires, expectations, and the
like.6 Accordingly, it can be no objection to spiritual perception that beliefs based
on religious experience are affected by higher-level cognitive resources. That is
completely in keeping with the nature and workings of perceptual belief in
general.
To see this point more clearly, let us take a closer look at what is and is not a
matter of substantive disagreement here. First, let us take a closer look at what is
controversial. In each of the cases below, a number of researchers have presented
experiments that purport to demonstrate the relevant effect, and others have in
one way or another disputed their findings.7
5 See Caroline Franks Davis, The Evidential Force of Religious Experience (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1989); as well as some of the chapters in this volume, especially the Introduction and Chapter 3.
6 For example, see the discussions in Jack Lyons, ‘Circularity, Reliability, and the Cognitive
Penetrability of Perception’, Philosophical Issues 21/1 (2011): 289–311; William F. Brewer, ‘Perception
is Theory Laden: The Naturalized Evidence and Philosophical Implications’, Journal for General
Philosophy of Science 46 (2015): 121–38; and Firestone and Scholl, ‘Cognition does not affect percep
tion’, 1–77.
7 See Firestone and Scholl, ‘Cognition does not affect perception’.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/21, SPi
John Greco 9
Consider the perceptual processing that takes place en route to but before the
production of a conscious sensory experience. In the case of visual processing,
this would include the subpersonal processing that begins when light hits the
retina, and continues as the perceptual system builds up initial representations
that will eventually be recruited to produce a three-dimensional representation of
the perceived environment. This is sometimes called ‘early vision’. Some contro
versies in perception science are in regard to whether early vision and analogous
early processing in other perceptual modalities is subject to cognitive penetration
by higher-order cognition.
A second kind of controversy regards whether the qualitative character of con
scious sensory experience can be affected by higher-order cognition. For example,
there is controversy over whether knowledge of an object’s typical colour (bananas
are typically yellow, for example) can affect experienced colour. Similarly, some
researchers claim to have shown that knowledge of race affects the experience of
skin tone.
There is also controversy regarding cognitive penetration at the level of per
ceived low-level properties, such as shape, size, and distance. For example, there
is controversy over whether the anticipation of a physical task, such as climbing a
hill, can affect perception of slope. Likewise, there are controversies over whether
knowledge of an object’s desirability or perceived value can affect perceptions of
distance.
Now let us take a look at what is not controversial. For one, it is not controver
sial that higher-order cognition can affect the quality of sensory experience by
means of attentional direction. For example, suppose that one is particularly fear
ful of spiders and is therefore, due to some prompt or other, hypersensitive to the
possibility of spiders in one’s environment. It is uncontroversial that in such a
situation, one is more likely to perceive spiders if they are there to be perceived.
Similarly, suppose that you are a bird lover and that you are highly knowledgeable
about and interested in local birds. It is uncontroversial that in such a situation,
one is more likely to perceive birds in one’s environment—more likely than some
one who is uninterested in birds and so not thus attentionally attuned. This is in
fact commonplace, and no one working on perception denies it.
It is easy to see why these kinds of attentional phenomena do not touch on
the controversies over cognitive penetration reviewed above. Namely, one’s atten
tional direction, at least in the examples we considered, affects what is input into
early processing, as opposed to the processing itself.8 Thus, someone who is look
ing for birds, even subconsciously, scans her environment differently from some
one who is not looking for birds. For example, someone who is eager and
interested to see birds will change their gaze in response to subtle movement on
the periphery of the visual field, or in response to a chirp from above. But again,
this kind of attentional direction can be understood as affecting input to early
processing, as opposed to the early processing itself. Nor does it affect the qualita
tive features of one’s sensory experience, nor how low-level features of the percep
tual environment are presented, once the input is given.9
Another thing that is not controversial is that higher-order cognition can affect
one’s perceptual recognition abilities. Again, if one is a trained bird watcher, one
is more likely to perceptually recognize an ambiguous figure as a bird. Likewise,
one is more likely to perceptually recognize a bird if one is primed to do so, either
by testimony, story-telling, promise of a reward, or some other priming mechan
ism. Again, this is commonplace, and no one working on perception would
deny it.
Also again, we can see why this kind of phenomenon does not touch on actual
controversies over top-down processing. Namely, the kind of differential recogni
tion presented in our examples can be explained by different reactions to the
presentation of low-level perceptual properties. For example, someone who is
expert at identifying birds, or who is simply primed to see birds, will be more
sensitive to bird-relevant perceptual cues, such as shape and size, and thus more
likely to recognize a bird as a bird. But this sort of phenomenon is consistent with
enjoying the very same ‘thin’ qualitative experience as someone not disposed to
see birds.10 It is also consistent with being perceptually presented with the very
same low-level features of the environment. In the examples we considered, it is
the reaction to perceptual cues, rather than the cues themselves, that are subject
to top-down effects.
In sum, it is uncontroversial that higher-order cognition can affect perceptual
judgement and perceptual belief. This is because it is uncontroversial that higher-
order cognition can affect one’s perceptual experience by means of attentional
direction, and that it can affect one’s ability to recognize perceived objects. There
are other uncontroversial top-down effects on perceptual belief as well.11 Thus
it can be no objection to spiritual perception that beliefs based on religious
experience are subject to the same top-down effects. Again, that would be entirely
consistent with our best understanding of perception in general.
What is controversial within perception science is whether there are top-down
effects on (a) ‘early’ perceptual processing, that is, processing before conscious
sensory experience; (b) the qualitative character of sensory experience, such as
phenomenal colour; and (c) the presentation of low-level features such as size and
distance. But the defender of spiritual perception need not take a stand on these
John Greco 11
controversial issues. At least not until there is some reason to think that religious
experience involves some such phenomena in a way that perception proper
does not.
At this point, a sceptic about spiritual perception might think that we have
missed the relevant issue. For the point of the ‘loaded experience’ objection is
about religious experience, not religious belief. The problem with spiritual percep
tion, the objection goes, is that religious experience itself is shaped by higher-level
resources, and this is the crucial disanalogy with physical object perception.
To answer this charge, we may invoke a distinction that is more familiar in
philosophy than in cognitive science—that between ‘thin’ and ‘thick’ experience.12
According to this distinction, thin experience is supposed to have a purely quali
tative nature, exhausted by purely phenomenal properties. Thick experience, on
the other hand, is supposed to involve representational content—it presents
experienced objects as having properties. In different terms, thin experience is
understood as uninterpreted qualia, whereas thick experience is understood as
carrying an interpretation, presenting some object as having some property. At
least typically, thick experience is understood to fall short of judgement. Thus,
I can experience a stick in water as being bent or broken, while judging that it is
straight. Nevertheless, my (thick) perceptual experience is thought to represent,
in some sense, the stick as broken. And whatever sense this is, it goes beyond a
merely phenomenal presentation. Thus, a perceiver who lacks the concepts of
stick and of being broken could not enjoy the same thick experience, although she
could enjoy the same thin experience, that is, the same purely phenomenal
presentation.
With this distinction in hand, we may now see that the present objection dis
solves. For either the charge is (a) that religious experience considered as purely
phenomenal, thin experience is cognitively penetrated, or (b) that religious experi
ence considered as interpreted, thick experience is cognitively penetrated. The first
version of the objection is clearly without force. On the one hand, it is controver
sial whether any perceptual experience considered as thin is subject to top-down
effects, and so it is not clear that there is a difference here between religious
experience and sensory experience in physical object perception, even if religious
experience is subject to top-down effects. On the other hand, it is not clear
whether religious experience considered as thin really is subject to top-down
effects. That is, it is not clear that the purely qualitative or phenomenal character
of religious experience is so affected. Indeed, this would be a hard thing to
12 The language of ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ perceptual experience probably originates with philosophers
influenced by Immanuel Kant’s distinction between ‘intuition’ and ‘concepts’ in his Critique of Pure
Reason. For example, see C. I. Lewis, Mind and The World Order: An Outline of a Theory of Knowledge
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1929, reprinted in paperback by Dover Publications, Inc., New
York, 1956).
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/21, SPi
establish, for reasons similar to why the same issue remains controversial in the
case of physical object perception.
The second version of the objection is also without force. This is now the charge
that religious experience considered as thick is subject to cognitive penetration.
But as we have already seen, perceptual experience in physical object perception
is clearly subject to cognitive penetration when considered as thick. Remember,
thick experience is experience carrying representational content, as when one
perceives a bird as a bird. In other words, thick experience involves the same
kinds of high-level representational capacities as does perceptual belief. But we
have already seen that this kind of representation is penetrated by higher-level
cognition, and uncontroversially so.
A third issue in the philosophy and science of perception concerns the proper
objects of perception. The issue here can be framed partly in terms of a distinc
tion that we have already seen—that between (a) the low-level properties of per
ceptual objects, such as size, shape, and motion, and (b) higher-level properties
involving causation, agency, dispositions, etc. As Siegel points out, the issue is
over which properties are represented in perceptual experience.
13 Susanna Siegel, ‘The Contents of Perception’, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy (Winter 2016), <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/perception-
contents/>, 39–40. Siegel notes that defenders of the view that only low-level properties are repre
sented in experience include Michael Tye, Ten Problems of Consciousness: A Representational Theory of
the Phenomenal Mind (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995); Fred Dretske, Naturalizing the Mind
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995); Austen Clark, A Theory of Sentience (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2000); Richard Price, ‘Aspect- switching and Visual Phenomenal Character’, Philosophical
Quarterly 59/236 (2009): 508–18; Berit Brogaard, ‘Do we Perceive Natural Kind Properties?’,
Philosophical Studies 162/1 (2013): 35–42; defenders of the view that high-level properties are repre
sented in experience include Christopher Peacocke, A Study of Concepts (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
1992); Charles Siewert, The Significance of Consciousness (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1998); Susanna Siegel, ‘Which Properties are Represented in Perception?’, in T. Gendler Szabo and
J. Hawthorne (eds), Perceptual Experience (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 481–503; Susanna
Siegel, The Rationality of Perception (Oxford University Press, 2017); T. Bayne, ‘Perception and the
reach of phenomenal content’, Philosophical Quarterly 59/236 (2009): 385–404; Farid Masrour, ‘Is
Perceptual Phenomenology Thin?’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83/2 (2011): 366–97;
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/21, SPi
John Greco 13
Once again, however, it is essential to note that the current controversy is over
which properties and objects are represented in perceptual experience. There is no
analogous controversy over the proper objects of perceptual belief or judgement.
That is, all parties agree that perceptual beliefs (judgements) are about ordinary
objects in the environment, including people, furniture, and the like. For example,
my perceptual beliefs include the beliefs that there is a waiter walking toward the
table, that there is a firetruck parked on the street, and that my dog is lying down
quietly. The only controversy in the area is how such perceptual beliefs are related
to perceptual experience—whether they reflect the same or similar content, or
whether they go beyond the content of experience in significant ways. It can be
no objection to spiritual perception, then, that religious beliefs have higher-level
objects and properties as their content. This is entirely consistent with perceptual
beliefs about physical objects, which also can have higher-level objects and prop
erties as their content.
Bence Nanay, ‘Do we see apples as edible?’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92/3 (2011): 305–22; Ned
Block, ‘Seeing-As in the Light of Vision Science’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89/1
(2014): 560–72.
14 Siegel, ‘The Contents of Perception’, 47–8, cites Clark, A Theory of Sentience, ch. 5 as a defender
of this kind of view.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/21, SPi
subject to the norms of good reasoning. Nevertheless, we have also seen that
perceptual belief is influenced by various higher-level mental states and resources,
including presumed theories, prior beliefs and background knowledge. We have
also seen that the objects of perceptual belief can be, and in fact usually are,
ordinary objects with high-level properties. How are these various features of per
ception consistent with each other? How is it that perception can be both non-
inferential but conceptually and theoretically loaded? A very general answer is
that background knowledge can influence perception in ways other than by act
ing as premises in an inference. Put differently, higher-level mental states can
‘shape’ perceptual dispositions in various ways, by shaping expectations, influen
cing attention, distributing salience, and the like.
In this part of the chapter, I present a psychologically realistic model for how
this might work. My claim is not that perception does work this way. Neither is
the claim that this is the only way that perception can incorporate top-down pro
cessing. Rather, the point is to describe one model for explaining how perception
can be both non-inferential and yet subject to various top-down effects of higher-
order cognition. The same model also demonstrates the possibility of moral and
spiritual perception. That is, it shows how there could be, quite literally, a percep
tion or moral and spiritual reality.
A central idea of the proposed model is that perception operates by employing
various kinds of cognitive heuristics. In general, a heuristic is a ‘mental short-cut’
employed in cognitive processing. Heuristics are ‘short-cuts’ in the sense that they
forgo more costly information processing for the sake of efficiency and speed.
Thus, Shah and Oppenheimer write that ‘heuristics primarily serve the purpose
of reducing the effort associated with a task’,15 and do so by (1) examining fewer
cues, (2) reducing the difficulty associated with retrieving and storing cue values,
(3) simplifying the weighting principles for cues, (4) integrating less information,
and/or (5) examining fewer alternatives.16
Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier adopt the following general definition: ‘A heuristic
is a strategy that ignores part of the information, with the goal of making deci
sions more quickly, frugally, and/or accurately than more complex methods’.17
Early work on heuristics typically claimed that heuristics trade speed and effi
ciency for accuracy.18 But as their definition suggests, Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier
dispute this, arguing that cost-saving heuristics can sometimes increase accuracy.
John Greco 15
To understand the social world, the layperson makes heavy use of a variety of
knowledge structures normally not expressed in propositional terms and pos
sibly not stored in a form even analogous to propositional statements.19
A script is a type of schema in which the related elements are social objects and
events involving the individual as actor and observer . . . A script can be com
pared to a cartoon strip with two or more captioned ‘scenes’, each of which sum
marizes some basic actions that can be executed in a range of possible manners
and contexts (for instance, the ‘restaurant script’ with its ‘entering’, ‘ordering’,
‘eating’, and ‘exiting’ scenes).20
Social judgements and expectations often are mediated by a class of schemas
which we shall term ‘personae’, that is, cognitive structures representing the per
sonal characteristics and typical behaviors of particular ‘stock characters’. Some
personae are the unique products of one’s own personal experience (good old
Aunt Mary, Coach Whiplash). Others are shared within the culture or sub-culture
(the sexpot, the earth-mother, the girl-next-door, the redneck, the schlemiel, the
rebel-without-a-cause) . . . Once the principal features or behaviors of a given indi
vidual suggest a particular persona, subsequent expectations of and responses to
that individual are apt to be dictated in part by the characteristics of the persona.21
19 Richard Nisbett and Lee Ross, ‘Judgmental Heuristics and Knowledge Structures’, in Hilary
Kornblith (ed.), Naturalizing Epistemology, 2nd edn (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994), 278.
20 Nisbett and Ross, ‘Judgmental Heuristics and Knowledge Structures’, 280.
21 Nisbett and Ross, ‘Judgmental Heuristics and Knowledge Structures’, 281–2.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 22/11/21, SPi