like Proust (intrapersonal).
Problems in developmentalism
Gardner's theory faces an objection besetting all forms of developmentalism. This
theory is based on the assumption that the unfolding familiar in the biological realm is
also found in the mental. There are two problems about this, one for each of the two
poles.
i) First the seed, or initial state. Biological seeds, plant or animal, have within them the
power to unfold into more complex stages, given appropriate environmental
conditions. To locate a parallel initial state in the mental case it is not enough to pick
out innately given capacities. There is no doubt that such capacities exist. We are all
born with the power to see and hear things, to desire food etc. But these do not have
within them the power to unfold into more complex forms. They do change into more
sophisticated versions: the desire for food, for instance, becomes differentiated into
desires for hamburgers and ice-cream. But it does not unfold into these. The changes
are cultural products: people are socialized into them.
ii) Secondly, the mature state - Gardner’s „end-state’. We understand this notion well
enough in physical contexts. A fully-grown human body or delphinium is one which
can grow no further. It can certainly go on changing, but the changes are to do with
maintenance and deterioration, not further growth. If we apply these ideas to the mind,
do we want to say that all human beings have mental ceilings - e.g. in each of
Gardner's intelligences - beyond which they cannot progress? Psychologists like Cyril
Burt have believed this, but the notion is deeply questionable.
There is also a problem about what counts as maturity - the end-state - in the case of
the intelligences. With the human body, we know through the use of our senses when
maturity has occurred: we can see that a person is fully grown. What equivalent is
there in the mental realm?
We do not just use our senses. We cannot see a person's intellectual maturity as we
can see that he or she is physically fully grown. Significantly, ideas about maturity are
likely to be controversial. Some people would understand intellectual maturity in quiz
show terms, as being able to marshal and remember heaps of facts; others would
emphasize depth of understanding, etc. The judgments lack the consensus found in
judgments about fully grown pine trees. This is because we are in the realm of value
judgments rather than of observable facts.