Groups as Agents

Q2 Arts and Humanities
K. Ritchie
{"title":"Groups as Agents","authors":"K. Ritchie","doi":"10.1515/jso-2015-0031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Deborah Tollefsen’s Groups as Agents provides a clear and concise summary and analysis of contemporary debates on group agency and develops a novel approach based on the ways we interpret groups. The first four chapters focus on group belief (Chapter 1), group intention (Chapter 2), group agency (Chapter 3), and group cognition (Chapter 4). Each Chapter starts with general questions to frame the discussion (e.g. Are groups agents? What is it about a phenomenon that makes it an intention or a belief?), then sets out the major views in the area and critically examines each. There are two ways Tollefsen frames the discussions that are particularly interesting and will prove illuminating to all readers, from the novice to the expert. First, Tollefsen considers the ways joint intention and agency relate to group intention and agency. The former cases usually involve two individuals in close communication. The latter involve particular sorts of groups. The sorts of groups focused on in the book are structured, have decision-making processes, and can persist through change in membership – groups like corporations, governments, educational institutions, and research teams. There are obvious differences between you and a friend deciding what to make for dinner and a corporation modifying their business plan. Do these differences mean distinct theories of intention and agency are required for interacting pairs and large organized groups? Tollefsen carefully examines views of joint intentional action to see whether they can be applied to the actions of corporate groups. On accounts developed by Bratman, Miller, and Searle, joint action involves the intentions of individuals.1 On these theories, groups themselves are not the subjects of belief or intention. So, the accounts cannot be carried over to groups while allowing for genuine group intentionality or agency. In contrast, the accounts given by Gilbert and Tuomela allow for groups to be the bearers of attitudes. So, such accounts could be applied to groups themselves. Tollefsen argues, however, that even if a theory cannot be directly applied to yield group intentions or action, “the performance","PeriodicalId":37042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Ontology","volume":"2 1","pages":"173 - 175"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jso-2015-0031","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Ontology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jso-2015-0031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Deborah Tollefsen’s Groups as Agents provides a clear and concise summary and analysis of contemporary debates on group agency and develops a novel approach based on the ways we interpret groups. The first four chapters focus on group belief (Chapter 1), group intention (Chapter 2), group agency (Chapter 3), and group cognition (Chapter 4). Each Chapter starts with general questions to frame the discussion (e.g. Are groups agents? What is it about a phenomenon that makes it an intention or a belief?), then sets out the major views in the area and critically examines each. There are two ways Tollefsen frames the discussions that are particularly interesting and will prove illuminating to all readers, from the novice to the expert. First, Tollefsen considers the ways joint intention and agency relate to group intention and agency. The former cases usually involve two individuals in close communication. The latter involve particular sorts of groups. The sorts of groups focused on in the book are structured, have decision-making processes, and can persist through change in membership – groups like corporations, governments, educational institutions, and research teams. There are obvious differences between you and a friend deciding what to make for dinner and a corporation modifying their business plan. Do these differences mean distinct theories of intention and agency are required for interacting pairs and large organized groups? Tollefsen carefully examines views of joint intentional action to see whether they can be applied to the actions of corporate groups. On accounts developed by Bratman, Miller, and Searle, joint action involves the intentions of individuals.1 On these theories, groups themselves are not the subjects of belief or intention. So, the accounts cannot be carried over to groups while allowing for genuine group intentionality or agency. In contrast, the accounts given by Gilbert and Tuomela allow for groups to be the bearers of attitudes. So, such accounts could be applied to groups themselves. Tollefsen argues, however, that even if a theory cannot be directly applied to yield group intentions or action, “the performance
组作为代理
黛博拉·托勒夫森的《群体作为代理人》一书对当代关于群体代理的争论进行了清晰而简洁的总结和分析,并在我们解释群体的方式的基础上发展了一种新的方法。前四章主要关注群体信念(第1章)、群体意图(第2章)、群体代理(第3章)和群体认知(第4章)。每章都以一般性问题开始,以框架讨论(例如,群体是代理人吗?是什么让一种现象成为一种意图或信念?),然后列出该领域的主要观点,并对每一种观点进行批判性审查。托勒森的讨论有两种特别有趣的方式,对所有读者,从新手到专家都有启发意义。首先,Tollefsen考虑了共同意向和代理与群体意向和代理的关系。前一种情况通常涉及两个人密切接触。后者涉及特定类型的群体。书中关注的群体类型是结构化的,有决策过程,并且可以通过成员的变化而持续存在——像公司、政府、教育机构和研究团队这样的群体。你和一个朋友决定晚餐做什么和一个公司修改他们的商业计划是有明显区别的。这些差异是否意味着相互作用的伴侣和大型组织群体需要不同的意图和代理理论?Tollefsen仔细研究了联合故意行为的观点,看看它们是否可以应用于公司集团的行为。根据布拉特曼、米勒和塞尔的说法,共同行动涉及个人的意图在这些理论中,群体本身不是信仰或意图的主体。因此,在允许真正的集团意图或代理的情况下,账户不能结转到集团。相反,Gilbert和Tuomela给出的描述允许群体成为态度的承担者。所以,这样的账户可以应用于群体本身。然而,Tollefsen认为,即使一种理论不能直接应用于产生群体意图或行动,“绩效”也会受到影响
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Social Ontology
Journal of Social Ontology Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信