Cartesianism and Intersubjectivity in Paranormal Activity and the Philosophy of Mind...

 Over the last century within the philosophy of mind, the intersubjective model of self has gained traction as a viable alternative to the oft-criticised Cartesian solipsistic paradigm. These two models are presented as incompatible inasmuch as Cartesians perceive other minds as “a problem” for the self, while intersubjectivists insist that sociality is foundational to selfhood. This essay uses the Paranormal Activity series (2007–2015) to explore this philosophical debate. It is argued that these films simultaneously evoke Cartesian premises (via found-footage camerawork), and intersubjectivity (via an ongoing narrative structure that emphasises connections between the characters, and between each film). The philosophical debates illuminate premises on which the series’ story and horror depends. Moreover, Paranormal Activity also sheds light on the theoretical debate: the series brings those two paradigms together into a coherent whole, thereby suggesting that the two models are potentially compatible. By developing a combined model, scholars working in the philosophy of mind might better account for the different aspects of self-experience these paradigms focus on.

As numerous scholars have observed, the Cartesian tradition is so “central to Western philosophy” (Rozemond, 1998, p. xi) that “it is hard to think of any subsequent [Western] philosophical system…that does not prominently engage with some version of ‘Cartesian’ dualism” (Nelson, 2014, p. 277; see also Grosz, 1994, p. 9). The foundational nature of Rene Descartes’ work is evident within the philosophy of mind; major textbooks on the subject routinely devote initial chapters to Cartesianism, for instance, foregrounding Descartes’ influence on subsequent thought (see Carruthers, 2004; Cockburn, 2001; Crane, 2001; Lowe, 2004; Maslin, 2001; McGinn, 1999).1 It seems that “the Cartesian perspective is unavoidable” in the philosophy of mind (Robinson, 2014), both in the sense of its historical importance, and also insofar as “philosophy today continues to be controlled by Cartesian scepticism” or attempts to usurp the Cartesian model (Bauer, 2005, p. 50).

Cartesianism and Intersubjectivity in Paranormal Activity

As is characteristic of the subgenre's form, the found-footage that constitutes Paranormal Activity is shot by the characters or is documented via cameras that the characters set up. As such, the narrative universe is constituted by the characters’ highly limited perspectives. This overarching ethos is Cartesian in character. Frequently, shots are directly aligned with a character's first-person viewpoint (the camera captures what is in her or his field of vision). Even when this is not the case, the camera's inability to record from more than one position is redolent of the Cartesian frame-problem; the notion that the world can only be perceived from one (first-person) perspective, because humans are limited by their bodies. Using an alternative viewing apparatus (a camera) may extend one's perspectival range, but the camera's perspective is also limited since it more or less replicates the eye's restricted field of vision.

Moreover, the films replicate anxieties that are denoted by the term “frame problem” because the series’ scares frequently arise out of that perspectival limitation (the restricted frame is a “problem”). For example, in Paranormal Activity 3, Lisa (the protagonists’ babysitter) uses the camera's limited field to play a prank. Dennis (step-father to the central family) sets-up a surveillance camcorder that pans across their kitchen and living room. Lisa hides off-screen and jumps into frame shouting “Boo! Hi, Dennis,” so as to scare him when he reviews the footage.8 From the audience's perspective (aligned with Dennis’, reviewing the tapes after-the-fact), the scare arises from Lisa's sudden appearance, which is unexpected because she hides just beyond the frame's periphery. This incident establishes that Dennis’ surveillance is of limited efficacy, inasmuch as the camera can only record the area immediately in front of it. Although the camera is set up to monitor the room, emphasis is placed on what cannot be seen at any given moment. On the third pan, Lisa is depicted sitting at the dining table. Moments later, the fifth pan reveals that an anthropomorphic figure under a sheet has appeared behind Lisa. The sheet then drops to the ground (the figure-shape vanishes). Lisa does not see the event (even though the audience, and later Dennis, do) because it happens behind her. In this instance, Lisa's limited viewpoint is a source of terror: her body prevents her from perceiving the demon's presence. These limitations are fundamental to Paranormal Activity's horror, both because the audience access the events in the same way the characters mainly do (via the footage), and also because of dramatic irony; the cameras reveal threats of which the characters are not immediately cognisant. In Paranormal Activity, audio-visual information correlates with knowledge: the characters (and audience) come to understand and evidence what is happening by apprehending incidents on film.

Although the films include an iteration of the frame-problem, the series does not straightforwardly adhere to a Cartesian conception of independent, isolated subjectivities. The found-footage aesthetic might appear to mimic the first-person perspective, but the form does not offer direct experiential access, even when a single protagonist holds a camera to their eye-line. Only audio-visual data are presented. The footage cannot convey other sensory data, the protagonists’ inner-thoughts or phenomenological experiences directly; the audience must infer emotion via verbal and physical cues, for instance. Moreover, individual cameras are not exclusively aligned with a single character's first-person perspective. For example, early in Paranormal Activity 2, Ali films her family by the pool, then hands the camera to her boyfriend Brad, who subsequently films Ali. Any one camera can stand-in for multiple perspectives. This kind of perspective-switching is commonplace in the series, so although the perspectives are limited, the frame does not exclude others (in a Cartesian sense). This is particularly apparent where characters review surveillance footage in pairs, for example; in such cases, the footage constitutes a shared perspective on the events. As the series progresses, more individuals and more cameras are involved: altogether, at least twenty one cameras (including security cameras and webcams) are used to film the series’ footage, and these are operated (in various combinations) by at least twenty four individuals.9 The series is undergirded by a plural, intersubjective ethos, the scale of which sets the Paranormal Activity series apart from other found-footage films. The number of perspectives multiplies with each sequel, and each new perspective contributes to the formation of ongoing narrative meaning.

Contra Goodenough (2005, pp. 23–24), who argues that “in the philosophical film [… w]e inhabit solipsism. Each member of the audience finds themselves located in the inexplicable space of the narrator X,” Paranormal Activity offers no omniscient “narrator” viewpoint; it is never revealed who is editing the footage (or for what purpose). Instead the series merges solipsism with intersubjectivity. The technology is solipsistic in that it is exclusionary. The cameras can only record footage, the monitors can only exude information. Neither technology can interact with the characters. However, the footage is a conduit for intersubjectivity inasmuch as the characters use their recordings to come to terms with their shared experiences. Moreover, the audience is invited to join in that interpretive activity in order to work out what is happening to the characters.

While each individual film seems to focus on a single family and the demon mainly directs its attention towards one particular protagonist, the series as a whole emphasises the connections between those families. For instance, in Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension, which is set in 2013, Ryan views tapes of Kristi (one of Paranormal Activity 2's protagonists) filmed when she was a child (around 1988). When Ryan's daughter Leila sneezes, Kristi responds “Bless you,” even though the tape was filmed over 20 years earlier. The footage is bounded by the edges of Ryan's monitor, which implies that the incidents should be mutually exclusive; in practice however, the separation is illusory.

The individual episodes and their respective characters are enmeshed in fundamental ways, even if those interconnections are not always obvious to the protagonists. This is most evident in Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones, which initially appears to be unrelated to the series’ overarching storyline. However, as the film progresses, the connections become apparent; most notably, lead protagonist Jesse finds pictures of his pregnant mother stood with Lois, the leader of the “midwives” cult who are responsible for the series’ running plot (the attempt to incarnate a demon via ritual sacrifice). Jesse thus discovers that he was involved with the cult prior to his birth. This connection is not incidental; it is a key plot-point that enables the protagonists to comprehend what is happening to Jesse. Moreover, the film's climax explicitly intersects with the conclusion of the first Paranormal Activity: the last surviving protagonist Hector is supernaturally transported to the house in which the first movie is set, and witnesses the murder of Micah (which occurs off-screen in the first film). From an audience perspective, The Marked Ones’ ending would be bewildering without knowledge of the first film. This sequence also retroactively shapes the audience's understanding of the first film's climax. In Paranormal Activity, Katie screams for Micah, but those cries emanate from off-screen: she is downstairs, while the camera is fixed on a tripod in the upstairs bedroom. In The Marked Ones it is revealed that Katie screams at Hector, who has mysteriously appeared in her house. Thus, despite being referred to as a “spin-off” rather than a canonical part of the series (see Barker, 2014; O'Sullivan, 2014), The Marked Ones shares an intersubjective, mutually constitutive connection with its antecedent.

This trait of requiring the audience to reconsider events in light of subsequent iterations is repeated across the series. In Paranormal Activity 2, for example, the family's household is trashed in what looks like a burglary, yet, as Ali notes, “They didn't take anything.” The audience is led to believe that the mess is caused by the demon rather than thieves, and that the family have not yet understood that they are being stalked by a paranormal entity. However, in Paranormal Activity 3, the footage is expanded to reveal that “the only thing […] really missing” is a “box of [video]tapes that Katie brought” into their house. Thus, a different set of motives and implications are raised: the mess was caused by burglars rather than the demon, and so emphasis is placed on the thieves’ motives (why they might want the tapes). When the same box of videos is found in both The Marked Ones and The Ghost Dimension, the tapes seem even more significant and the mystery of their relocation deepens. After establishing that the tapes exist, Paranormal Activity 3 is comprised of footage from some of those tapes. Furthermore, Paranormal Activity 2 and 3 flesh out the events leading up to the first film, and as such, the first film's proceedings are re-characterised as being not just unfortunate but inevitable. Taken as separate, independent entities, selves appear to be significant in a particular way. When viewed as part of a larger whole – as with the relationship between each film and the series – the entity signifies in different ways, and must be reconceived accordingly.

The series’ overarching plotline foregrounds interconnection, characterising it in two ways. First, Paranormal Activity suggests that intersubjectivity is fundamental to selfhood. With the exception of The Marked Ones (which is based around an apartment complex), each film mainly takes place in and around a family home. The initial stages of each film exhibit the characters engaging in family and friendship-oriented social activities. For instance, Paranormal Activity 2 opens with Katie welcoming her sister (Kristi), brother-in-law (Daniel) and new-born nephew (Hunter) home from hospital. The series’ overarching plot is fixated on Hunter's bloodline: Hunter is the first-born male in several generations, and as such he is required as a sacrifice for Lois’ (his great-grandmother's) “bargain with a demon.” The latter is indicative of the second way the series characterises interconnection: as terrifying. The tone of Paranormal Activity is shaped by its genre, and the connections that bring the series’ protagonists together also doom them. The vast majority of characters are killed by the demon or by individuals who are under its influence. The characters are endangered by their involvement with Hunter, his blood-relatives, or the cult of “midwives” who are led by Lois. However, this is not a criticism of intersubjectivity per se. As a horror film series, Paranormal Activity's raison d’être is to engender fear. By using interconnection to generate horror, the series embeds intersubjectivity into its very fabric.

Although intersubjectivity is inevitable for the series’ characters, Cartesian premises are also deeply ingrained into the series’ modus operandi. As I have already outlined, found-footage films typically draw on restricted framing in order to generate fear, either by pivoting the camera to reveal an unexpected presence in the camera-operator's vicinity, or by having an entity (human or otherwise) suddenly enter the frame from off-screen. Both techniques are employed in order to startle the audience, and both rely on the idea that humans are vulnerable to threats because our perspective is limited. Form is used to generate jump-scares that are impactful because they draw on what philosophers of mind would refer to as Cartesian premises. Simultaneously, the unfolding narrative is infused with a sense of dread that is rooted in what philosophers of mind would call intersubjective concerns.

A Combined Paradigm

Although some scholars within the philosophy of mind have hailed the intersubjective paradigm as a viable alternative to Cartesianism, there is reason to be sceptical that it will render the Cartesian model entirely redundant. As my analysis of Paranormal Activity demonstrates, the Cartesian concept elucidates aspects of selfhood that the intersubjective model alone does not. Using the found-footage mode, Paranormal Activity depicts the world as audio-visual data, which stand in for “reality.” As Wartenberg (2007, p. 60) observes, one of the continuing appeals of Descartes’ work is that he raises doubts over the legitimacy of using senses (rather than reason) as “accurate guides for determining the structure of reality.” This is especially pertinent to the found-footage horror film, which riffs upon the notion of distilling reality on film and discerning what is real; the subgenre intentionally plays with conventions of documentary realism in order to portray fictional (in this case, supernatural) events as if they are plausible. As the Paranormal Activity series progresses – as the budget increases, and as the films seek to offer novel thrills to entice theatre-goers back into the cinema – the films place greater emphasis on spectacle at the expense of realism. The series thus tests the audience's willingness to suspend disbelief.

Despite the apparent unreality of these films, they nevertheless attracted an audience who were willing to pay for and be scared by contrived supernatural incidents. The continuing appeal of the series and other such found-footage films attests to how reliant we are on sensory – particularly audio-visual – information as a source of knowledge, and how deeply entrenched that reliance is. Indeed, as Descartes realised during his meditations, negating “one's customary ideas […] is not as easy […] as it might seem” (Wartenberg, 2007, p. 60).

There is a parallel to draw between Descartes’ realisation and the Paranormal Activity films here. Just as Descartes’ project in the Meditations is to uncover the nature of reality using reason rather than sensory data, the story of each film is that the characters eventually come to realise that their former understanding of reality (derived from what they “see” and “know”) is insufficient; it cannot account for the demon's presence and influence. Most of the characters fall back on their preconceptions, even when those notions are challenged. In Paranormal Activity, for instance, the demon blows Katie's hair while Micah looks directly at her. It is apparent that the demon is invisible (Micha cannot see the demon), yet Micah nevertheless searches for it in adjoining rooms, as if the demon would need to hide from him. Micah relies on his ontological preconceptions in spite of contrary evidence, because he cannot comprehend the alternative; his incomprehension is signalled by his repeated use of “what” questions during the sequence (“What the fuck is that? […] What the hell? […] What are you talking about?”). Such incomprehension is evident throughout the series; for example, in Paranormal Activity 3, Dennis’ assertion “there's something there” and his question “what does it want?” are also indicative of the characters’ struggle to understand what the demon is because it challenges their presumptions about existence and the forms beings can take.

Although the series’ characters stubbornly cling to their preconceptions when challenged, they eventually come to realise their folly. In Paranormal Activity 2, for example, it takes the majority of the film's run-time for Ali to persuade her sceptical father (Daniel) that they are subject to a demonic visitation. It is not simply the videos that sway him; Daniel is persuaded by Ali, who uses the footage as a means to an end. Daniel reacts to his revelation by turning to others for advice, enlisting his spiritually-minded ex-housekeeper Martine to help banish the demon. For Descartes, “self-deception is a very productive tool in the struggle against false certainties, since it expands our ability to free ourselves from our own convictions” (Frogel, 2016, p. 94), but in Paranormal Activity, false certainties are not only defeated by rumination: they are overturned via communion and consensus with others. By relinquishing his preconceptions about the fundamental nature of existence, Daniel attains an understanding of what is happening to him, yet that also entails realising that he is reliant on others (here, Ali and Martine). The same is true of the audience's understanding of the series, which is facilitated by taking in the series as a whole – adapting one's understanding based on subsequent facts as they are revealed – rather than contemplating each film in isolation. The latter is akin to a Cartesian view (ruminating on the individual self in isolation), and the former is an intersubjective ethos (comprehending the individual via its relations with others).

This is not to suggest that one view should be abandoned by adopting a seemingly antithetical position. Indeed, the story Paranormal Activity weaves over the course of six films is that no single definitive interpretation is available: rather, the audience is required to continually negotiate and reinterpret events as the series progresses. Even the final film (The Ghost Dimension) raises further unanswered questions about the demon and the cult, despite its tagline promising that “every secret will be revealed.” This lack of finality illuminates a crucial aspect of the philosophical debate at hand: no model of self is final. Ongoing debate will continue to be shaped by future contributions within the discipline. This proclamation might seem to signal a victory for the intersubjective model insofar as intersubjectivity a) envisions the self as complex and context-mutable; b) looks outwards towards the world and others (rather than inwards towards oneself); and c) invites further debate, implying that the theory will have to adapt according to future contributions from a network of scholars. It might appear that the opposite is true of Cartesian introspection inasmuch as the Cartesian model presents the self as discrete, finite and locatable. However, the Cartesian model is imbued with a spirit of scepticism – arising out of Descartes’ original project – that also eschews finality. As a thought-experiment, Descartes imagines that his perceptions might be produced by a demon intent on deceiving him, meaning that his most fundamental presumptions about existence and sensory perception might be false. Descartes’ demon is the haunting presence of inquiry that cannot be sated because it is sceptical inquiry personified. Paranormal Activity's demon embodies a similar ethos, not only because it causes the characters to reconsider their preconceptions, but also because the appearance of the demon in the final Paranormal Activity instalment inspires a similar level of incredulity, leaving viewers uncertain as to the character's fates, the cult's goals, and the demon's desires. It also leaves the series open for another possible sequel, since the demon is not eradicated.

The possibility that the demon (and the series) may return again elucidates another parallel between Paranormal Activity and Descartes’ proclamation about entrenched beliefs. The reason “long-standing opinions” are so hard to forsake is because they “keep returning again and again, almost against [one's] will” (Descartes 1998, p. 62); indefatigability implies that persistent ideas endure because they contain some truth that refuses to be supressed. It is revealing that Descartes struggled to escape the grip of seemingly irresistible ideas. This is precisely the struggle that characterises contemporary anti-Cartesian thinkers’ attempts to exorcise Cartesianism from its dominant position in the philosophy of mind. No matter how frequently Cartesianism is challenged or rejected, it returns “again and again.”

One might argue that the resilience of Cartesian premises is the product of habit, indicating how deeply entrenched those notions are, rather than how accurate the model is. However, I contend that the reason Cartesianism continues to maintain a prominent position in the field is not only due to its historical significance. Rather, Cartesianism persists because it articulates certain key aspects of selfhood. To reject Cartesianism is to deny the impact that perspectival limitation has on self-conception and to neglect the fundamentally private, internal nature that characterises so much of our self-experience. Admitting those premises does not invalidate intersubjectivity. As the textual analysis illustrates, the intersubjective model underlines how crucial the social aspects of selfhood are. The Cartesian model, as I have established, fails to account for sociality's significant role in self-conception. Thus, neither paradigm seems to offer a picture of selfhood complete enough to encompass the ways in which selfhood is conceived and represented outside of the philosophy of mind. Anti-Cartesian thinkers do themselves a disservice by presenting intersubjectivity and Cartesianism as incompatible. Indeed, the project of separating the two models is somewhat at odds with the spirit of intersubjectivity: by bringing the models together, by finding consensus, the philosophy of mind might be enriched.

The “problem” of self is that it appears to be “paradoxically, both autonomous and interdependent” (Tsekeris, 2015, p. 1). However, this supposed “paradox” stems from stripping away some aspects of self while overemphasising others. Some degree of independence is necessary in order to maintain that humans are capable of autonomy, of making self-directed intentional choices, and of taking moral responsibility for those choices, for instance. Functional sociality is based on these presuppositions, which balance independence (responsibility for one's actions) with other-oriented considerations (responsibility to not harm others via one's actions, for example). Sociality is a normal aspect of human existence: social relations are often complex, but the idea that sociality causes ontological paradoxes is peculiar to a philosophical mode of interpreting human existence. As Turner et al. have it, “group relationships exist socially and psychologically and therefore it is necessary […] to define oneself in [those] terms” (1994, p. 460).

Furthermore, entities and objects are routinely conceived of as occupying two seemingly distinct roles simultaneously without contradiction. A hand can be perceived as a meaningfully distinct object, but it is also usually part of a larger whole (a body), and the two are not mutually exclusive. So it is with intersubjectivity; a person can be identified as an individual and as part of a grouping such as a family concurrently. This involves accounting for the relations between an individual and the larger structures involved: there is no paradox. The way one perceives, interprets, and engages with the individual might alter in various relational contexts (since a particular context reveals specific characteristics or traits), but that perspectival shift does not change the individual themselves. In fact, one's understanding of the individual is augmented by recognising the relational contexts the individual belongs to, and acknowledging the multitude of characteristics that are highlighted as being significant in differing relational contexts.

Although Paranormal Activity does not offer a theory of selfhood per se, it does present an inductive analogical argument in support of consensus between the two paradigms. The films capture core elements of both the Cartesian and intersubjective models of self. The series also provides a further feature: via the films’ formal and narrative structures, the series brings those two paradigms together within a coherent whole. The two models emphasise different aspects of the texts and selfhood, but they are not incompatible; they co-exist. Paranormal Activity thus demonstrates that it is plausible to bring these two models together in a cohesive way. Rather than presenting intersubjectivity as incompatible with Cartesian thinking, it would be productive to find ways to retain the pertinent aspects of both views, and to unify them. Such theories may already exist in embryo. Recall that some thinkers accidentally incorporate Cartesian premises into their supposedly anti-Cartesian models. The flaw here arises only from the quest to design an anti-Cartesian model; if the aim were to generate an integrated paradigm, these extant theoretical arguments might instead be considered successes.