Some recent studies on Optical illusions They show us that, far from being just a perceptual game, they are the result of our perception of realitya complex perception, which involves brain and culture, body and society. While neuroscience reveals Mental architectures who shape our visual experience, sociology and anthropology remind us that Each gaze is historically and socially oriented. In particular, some studies based on the illusions of Coffer (which you see in the head image of this article) and Müller-Loer show how visual perception is influenced both by cultural factors (such as the urban environment) and by innate mechanisms shared by everyone.
The rectangles and circles in the illusion of Coffer
A recent article published on The Guardian From Anil Seth he reflects on cultural and neuroscientific meaning of optical illusionsstarting from two emblematic studies. The first study was conducted by Ivan Kroupin (London School of Economics) and analyzes the so -called “Illusion of Coffer“.
This optical illusion presented to people from urban contexts of the United Kingdom and the United States tended to be perceived as a figure made up of rectangles. On the contrary, the participants of the rural community of Namibia recognized in the figure of the circles.
Scholars interpreted this result in the light of the so -called “Carpentered World Hypothesis“:
“The idea – reports the article – is that people in industrialized western countries see things in a specific way because they are generally exposed to highly” carpentorized “environments, with many straight lines and straight angles – common visual characteristics in western architecture. On the contrary, people from society (…) – like those of the rural areas of Namibia – live in environments with less clear lines and geometric shapes and geometric shapes Spigular, therefore their visual skills will be calibrated differently “.
Said in simple words, it’s a bit like if the eyes “trained” to recognize Better what they see most often.
The illusion of Müller-Lyer
The second studyapparently in contrast with this just mentioned, is signed by the AMIR and Chaz Firestone darse and underlines, on the contrary, that The visual mechanisms are innate: always leading a study on visual illusions, in particular on the famous “Illusion of Müller-Lyer “show that these are also perceived by animals and blind people who have reached the sight, and therefore had not previously done “visual experience” of the “Carpentered” effect.
The contribution of social sciences in optical illusions: culture, body, sense
These reflections lend themselves to a fruitful confrontation with sociological and anthropological approaches, which have long questioned the idea of a “natural” and universal perception. The anthropology of perception-from Maurice Merleau-Ponty to Tim Ingold-underlines that the actions of see, touch, hear are never purely biological processes, But they are “ways of being in the world” that We learn growing up, observing and living with others. In short, it is not only a matter of eyes or ears, but also of how we are used to using the senses in the place and culture in which we live.
The research of David Howes and Constance Classen on “cultural sense” show that thehierarchical order of the senses changes from culture to culture: If the modern West favors sight, other companies give more important to the smell, hearing or touch. This influence not only what is perceived, but how it is perceived. In this perspective, optical illusions are not only “tricks” that deceive the eye, but give us the opportunity to show that there are many different ways of feeling and understanding the world.
The sociology of knowledge – from Durkheim to Berger & Luckmann – also contributes to the debate, highlighting how Each society creates its own way of giving meaning to things (in jargon “symbolic order”), a kind of “map” that helps people understand reality and to orient themselves in it. What seems to us “normal” or “obvious” in our daily reality, in reality actually the result of learning (the so -called “socialization”) that teaches us what to see, how to interpret it, and what to believe “true”.
Criticality and meeting points: beyond the dichotomy between nature and culture
The studies mentioned in The Guardian article oscillate between two poles: on the one hand the idea that perception is culturally influenced, on the other the thesis of a universal biological basis. The social sciences invite to overcome this dichotomy, suggesting that nature and culture are not separate spheres, but yes constantly co-produce.
For example, to say that “rectangles” are recognized by those who live in urbanized environments do not necessarily imply that the environment determines perception. Rather, it highlights how the sensory experience is shaped by habits, practices and expectations learned. Also what appears as “innate”-like the reaction to certain illusions-can be the result of a long co-built evolution between body and environment, as suggested by the evolutionary anthropology and the sociology of science.
