In Defense of Cognitivism

In their introduction to a recent special issue of Projections titled “What Can Cognitive Media Studies Bring to Social Justice?”, the issue's editors, Wyatt Moss-Wellington, Margrethe Bruun Vaage, and Catalin Brylla make many assertions about cognitive media studies. There is much in their introduction to agree with, especially their contention that disciplines in the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities should collaborate in studying social justice (broadly construed) in relation to moving images. However, it seems to me that Moss-Wellington, Vaage, and Brylla unnecessarily perpetuate, by partially endorsing, some of the “straw men” arguments that culturalist film scholars like Robert Stam and others have leveled against cognitive media studies since its inception. By a “straw man” argument, to be clear, I mean an argument that misrepresents an opposing point of view to make it easier to attack. And by culturalism, I mean an explanatory paradigm that appeals primarily if not exclusively to culture to explain moving image works and our responses to them. What I say here may seem like nit-picking. But given that these “straw men” arguments are widely used to discredit cognitive media studies in mainstream media studies in the humanities, at least here in the United States, it seems important to counter at least some of them in Projections , the flagship journal of cognitive media studies, which I try to do in the following. Now that many of the founders of the Society for the Cognitive Study of the Moving Image (SCSMI) have retired or are no longer with us, this seems like an opportune moment to take stock of the values and goals of our organization as we chart a path forward. I suspect it would be healthy for us to have a robust debate about Moss-Wellington, Vaage, and Brylla's intervention, which is the primary reason I have written this response.