Sociality, Unity, Objectivity
The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 11:153-160 (2001)
| Abstract | Numerous social and political theorists have referred to social groups or societies as “unities.” What makes a unity of a social group? I address this question with special reference to the theory of social groups proposed in my books On Social Facts and Living Together: Rationality, Sociality and Obligation. I argue that social groups of a central kind require an underlying “joint commitment.” I explain what I mean by a “joint commitment” with care. If joint commitments in my sense underlie them, what kind of unity does this give social groups? In what sense or senses is it objective? | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesLinnda R. Caporael (2005). Psychology and Groups at the Junction of Genes and Culture. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):819-821.
Talbot M. Brewer (2003). Two Kinds of Commitments (and Two Kinds of Social Groups). Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (3):554–583.
Margaret Gilbert (1987). Modelling Collective Belief. Synthese 73 (1):185-204.
Raimo Tuomela (1995). The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of Basic Social Notions. Stanford University Press.
Margaret P. Gilbert (2009). Obligation and Joint Commitment. Utilitas 11 (02):143-.
Margaret P. Gilbert (1994). Sociality as a Philosophically Significant Category. Journal of Social Philosophy 25 (3):5-25.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads32 ( #38,009 of 550,917 )Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,807 of 550,917 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
