ProtoSociology An International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research Volume 35, 2018 Vol. 34: Meaning and Publicity Vol. 33: The Borders of Global Theory – Reflections from Within and Without Vol. 32: Making and Unmaking Modern Japan Vol. 31: Language and Value ProtoSociology is an interdisciplinary journal which crosses the borders of philosophy, social sciences, and their corresponding disciplines for more than two decades. Each issue concentrates on a specific topic taken from the current discussion to which scientists from different fields contribute the results of their research. ProtoSociology is further a project that examines the nature of mind, language and social systems. In this context theoretical work has been done by investigating such theoretical concepts like interpretation and (social) action, globalization, the global world-system, social evolution, and the sociology of membership. Our purpose is to initiate and enforce basic research on relevant topics from different perspectives and traditions. Editor: Gerhard Preyer - www.protosociology.de - } Pr o to So ci o lo g y Vo l. 35 : Th e Jo in t C o m m it m en t A cc o u n t | The Joint Commitment Account: Critical Essays on the Philosophy of Sociality of Margaret Gilbert Edited by Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter © ProtoSociologyVolume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account © 2018 Gerhard Preyer Frankfurt am Main http://www.protosociology.de peter@protosociology.de Erste Auflage / first published 2018 ISSN 1611–1281 Bibliografische Information Der Deutschen Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Natio nal- bibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.ddb. de abrufbar. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk einschliesslich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Je de Ver- wertung ausserhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zu stimmung der Zeitschirft und seines Herausgebers unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Über setzungen, Mikroverfil mungen und die Einspeisung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbiblio grafie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or trans- mitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of ProtoSocio logy. © ProtoSociology Volume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account ProtoSociology An International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research Volume 35, 2018 The Joint Commitment Account: Critical Essays on the Philosophy of Sociality of Margaret Gilbert with Her Comments Edited by Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter Contents Introduction: Social Ontology Revisited ................................................. 7 Gerhard Preyer, Georg Peter Part I Joint Commitment, Obligations and Rights Steps to a Naturalistic Account of Human Deontology .......................... 21 Antonella Carassa and Marco Colombetti Joint Commitment ................................................................................. 38 Thomas H. Smith Part II Collective Belief, Conversation, and Telling Joint Commitment Model of Collective Beliefs: Empirical Relevance in Social Science ........................................................................................ 55 Alban Bouvier Remarks on Conversation and Negotiated Collective Belief ................... 74 Frederick F. Schmitt Telling and Mutual Obligations in Communicative Action .................... 99 Marija Jankovic Contents4 © ProtoSociologyVolume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account Part III Collective Emotions and Emotional Sharing How We Feel: Collective Emotions Without Joint Commitments .......... 117 Felipe León and Dan Zahavi Collective Emotions and Normativity .................................................... 137 Mikko Salmela Part IV Plural Subjects, "We", Coordination and Convention Social Complexes and Aspects ................................................................ 155 Donald L. M. Baxter We are no Plural Subject ........................................................................ 167 Ludger Jansen Coordination and Hyperrationality ........................................................ 197 Paul Weirich Part V Promising and Patriotism The Bounds of Morality: Gilbert on Promissory Obligation ................... 217 Jeffrey S. Helmreich Patriotism: Commitment, not Pride ....................................................... 235 Maura Priest Part VI Replies and Bibliography Further Reflections in the Social World ................................................. 257 Margaret Gilbert Margaret Gilbert: Bibliography of Works in the Philosophy of Social Phenomena and Related Fields .................................................................................. 285 5Contemts © ProtoSociology Volume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account On Contemporary Sociology and Philosophy From Multiple Modernities to Multiple Globalizations .......................... 295 Eliezer Ben-Rafael The Meaning(s) of Structural Rationality ................................................ 314 Rebecca Gutwald and Niina Zuber Building bridges within and across Husserlian phenomenology .............. 322 Joona Taipale Contributors .......................................................................................... 327 Impressum ............................................................................................. 329 On ProtoSociology ................................................................................. 330 Subscription – Single Article .................................................................. 331 eBooks and Books on Demand ............................................................. 332 Published Volumes ............................................................................... 333 Bookpublications of the Project ............................................................ 339 © ProtoSociology Volume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account Social Complexes and Aspects Donald L. M. Baxter Abstract Is a social complex identical to many united people or is it a group entity in addition to the people? For specificity, I will assume that a social complex is a plural subject in Margaret Gilbert's sense. By appeal to my theory of Aspects, according to which there can be qualitative difference without numerical difference, I give an answer that is a middle way between metaphysical individualism and metaphysical holism. This answer will enable answers to two additional metaphysical questions: (i) how can two social complexes have all the same members and (ii) how can there be a social complex of social complexes? Is a social complex identical to many united people or is it a group entity in addition to the people? I incline to the former because I assume with Ockham that it is ontologically preferable to avoid positing additional entities if possible. 1 For specificity, I will assume that a social complex is a plural subject in Margaret Gilbert's sense (1996, 348).2 Two or more people form a plural subject when they are jointly committed to acting, believing, feeling, or such, as a body. Thus, I incline to the view that a social complex is identical to the many people united by a joint commitment.3 Gilbert herself inclines the same way, I think. She writes, In some places I have written that a joint commitment is the commitment of 'two or more individuals considered as a unit or whole'. I do not mean to introduce the idea of a new kind of entity, a 'unit' or 'whole'. I could as well have 1 Wikipedia gives this citation for Ockham: 'Sentences of Peter Lombard' (Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi (ed. Lugd., 1495), i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K), and suggests that the classic formulation of Okham's Razor is found in Johannes Poncius's commentary on John Duns Scotus's Opus Oxoniense, book III, dist. 34, q. 1. in John Duns Scotus Opera Omnia, vol.15, Ed. Luke Wadding, Louvain (1639), reprinted Paris: Vives, (1894) p.483a. My guess is that a violation of Ockham's principle is what Sheehy has in mind when he attributes "metaphysical spookiness" to views that "[s]ocial groups are entities over which we quantify in the set of our best descriptions and explanations of the social world" (2006, 74). 2 I leave for future work extending the account to the kind of groups emphasized by Epstein "that are grounded by facts unrelated to group members" (2015, 257). 3 Even if they are now "we*" in the special sense Gilbert elucidates (1989, 152, 167–203), "we*" is still plural. Donald L. M. Baxter156 © ProtoSociologyVolume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account written 'a joint commitment is the commitment of two or more individuals considered together' which would not carry any such suggestion. (1997, 18) However, a metaphysical problem pushes in the other direction. Two individuals united can believe something that neither individual believes, while yet the two individuals united are nothing in addition to the two individuals. How can that be? At first blush it seems that the two individuals united both do and do not believe the same thing, which is contradictory. To resolve the apparent contradiction, there is pressure to take there to be a group entity that has the belief in addition to the two individuals that lack it-an entity numerically distinct from each of them.4 To resolve the apparent contradiction without the group entity requires distinguishing the people insofar as they are jointly committed, from themselves insofar as they are individuals. That in turn requires distinguishing each person insofar as she is jointly committed along with the others, from herself insofar as she is an individual. I present and motivate my Theory of Aspects to argue that these differences do not require any additional numerically distinct entities.5 I argue that there can be qualitative complexity without quantitative complexity-that is, qualitative self-differing. Some things have numerically identical but qualitatively differing "aspects." This view may seem to violate Leibniz's Law, but I argue that it does not. Leibniz's Law only concerns individuals, and perhaps pluralities, but is silent about their aspects. They are not in its domain of quantification. Thus the two people insofar as they are jointly committed have the belief that the two people insofar as they are individuals lack, even though the two insofar as they are jointly committed are identical with the two insofar as they are individuals. With the metaphysical problem resolved in this way, I conclude that a social complex is many people insofar as they united by a joint commitment, rather than an additional group entity. The many people insofar as they are united is just many aspects, each of one of the people. So the social complex is identical to the many united people. Thus my view is a middle way between metaphysical holism and metaphysical individualism in the philosophy of social sciences (see Ruben 1982, 295). It 4 As another example of the phenomenon leading to the apparent contradiction, a social complex can be responsible for something that none of the people are responsible for (Gilbert 2006, 110; see also Björnsson 2011). 5 I'm grateful to Michael Lynch for suggesting that I apply my theory of aspects to discussions of social complexes. Note that this theory has nothing to do with aspect in the lexical sense in which, for instance, stative and non-stative verbs are distinguished. 157Social Complexes and Aspects © ProtoSociology Volume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account enables the several people insofar as they are the social complex to genuinely differ from the several people insofar as they are individuals, as in holism. But it posits no entities numerically distinct from the individual people, as in individualism. This solution will enable answers to two additional metaphysical questions: First, how can two social complexes have all the same members?6 Second, how can there be a social complex of social complexes?7 I treat these questions in an addendum. Different social complexes with the same members will be several people insofar as they are united by one joint commitment, and those same people insofar as they are united by another. A social complex of social complexes will be several people insofar as they are united by a joint commitment and several other people insofar as they are united by another joint commitment, insofar as those first and those second are united by yet another joint commitment. I. This solution to the metaphysical problem requires careful attention to what Gilbert should be interpreted as meaning by the phrase "as a body" when she talks of plural subjects being jointly committed to believing, etc. as a body. I will not pretend to try to capture what she actually intends. 8 I will propose that (1) Two persons are jointly committed to believing some proposition as a body. should be interpreted as (2) Two persons insofar as they are a body are jointly committed to believing that proposition. Sentence (2) contrasts with (though does not conflict with) 6 See Gilbert 1989, 220–21, and Gilbert 1996, 199, and Epstein 2015, 139. 7 I'm grateful to Kit Fine for asking whether the theory can account for groups of groups at the Boston Social Ontology Conference, 2018. 8 I'm grateful to Margaret Gilbert for comments on this section. To explicate acting as a body, she sometimes talks of emulating a single body that acts (2011, 16) or constituting a single body that acts (2006, 100) and I think the best way to understand these explanations is the way I suggest in the text. Donald L. M. Baxter158 © ProtoSociologyVolume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account (3) Two persons insofar as they are individual persons are not jointly committed to believing that proposition. I will propose secondly that to be a body in Gilbert's sense is to be two or more persons relevantly united, which is to be two or more persons jointly committed. Thus, we get (2') Two persons insofar as they are jointly committed are jointly committed to believing the proposition. in contrast to (but not in conflict with) (3') Two persons insofar as they are individual persons are not jointly committed to believing the proposition. The root of this contrast between the persons and themselves is a contrast in each person. We can distinguish each person insofar as she is party to the joint commitment from herself insofar as she is not party to it. Two persons insofar as they are jointly committed are the one insofar as she is party to a joint commitment with the other, plus the other insofar as she is party to a joint commitment with the first. That the relevant sort of unitedness is joint commitment, and that there is a distinction to be made between an individual insofar as he is jointly committed with others, on the one hand, and himself insofar as he is an individual, on the other, are both found in Gilbert. Given Gilbert's characterization of a plural subject, the root concept is being committed jointly: i.e., being committed jointly to act, believe, etc. Gilbert's explanation distinguishes what people are jointly committed to from what they are individually committed to (1996, 349). These joint commitments involve obligations and entitlements that one has qua jointly committed person that one does not have qua individual (1996, 186).9 That is, there are obligations one has qua among those jointly committed that one does not have qua individual. For instance, one can be obligated, qua among those jointly committed, not to express a view in variance with the jointly held view. One who does not keep to this obligation may well offend against the others qua jointly committed, even any others who might agree with the offending view (1996, 343). Such person would be offended against 9 See Gilbert 2011, 11. See also Raimo Tuomela 2012, 405: "A mental state had as a private person (thus individualistically) is in the I-mode, while a mental state had qua member of a social we-group is in the we-mode." 159Social Complexes and Aspects © ProtoSociology Volume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account qua jointly committed, even if he is not offended against qua individual and even is secretly glad qua individual. So for example, when two people begin dancing a waltz together, each "intentionally acts in his/her capacity as a constituent of a plural subject with a certain goal, a subject whose other constituent is the other person in question" (1989, 167). The goal is to dance a waltz. Their common knowledge of their mutual, open, and express readiness to act on this goal makes them a plural subject and creates rights and obligations (2006, 100–101). Each person is obligated not simply to walk away, for instance, and the other has a right against such behavior. Each intentionally acts qua jointly committed to dancing together, and likewise has the obligations and rights qua jointly committed. Further, these (directed) obligations are obligations to the other qua jointly committed, and the rights are held against each qua jointly committed. Speaking out against a war that the group is deciding to wage makes clear the contrast between what is true of a person qua individual and what is true of a person qua jointly committed. As Gilbert writes, We have at our disposal avowals of the following form: "Personally, I disapprove of our going to war" or "In my personal opinion, our going to war is a bad thing." Avowals of this sort, in particular, can be argued not to run counter to the joint commitment I am party to. The qualifiers "Personally," "In my personal opinion," and the like appear to put the avowal in a space not covered by that commitment: my personal space, so to speak. I am expressly not speaking qua group member here, but in my own voice. (1996, 380) Further, the contrast in the individual can be reflected in the group. So for example if an assembly protests a war that their country is embarking on, then that would indicate that "in their capacity as members of this assembly, as opposed to their capacity as members of the society as a whole, or, indeed, their personal capacity, these people oppose the war" (1996, 381). So, someone qua jointly committed can differ from himself qua individual in his obligations, reactions, etc. This raises the metaphysical question, what manner of entity is someone qua jointly committed? One way to answer the question would be to posit numerically distinct "qua-objects," as Kit Fine (1982) has called them. However, that move would be against the spirit of this inquiry, which is trying to introduce no entities numerically distinct from the people involved in the joint commitments. The question, then, is how can something insofar as it is one way differ from itself insofar as it is another way without there being more than one entity? How can something differ from itself (or some things differ from themselves)? A way to make sense of this "self-differing" is my theory of aspects. I propose to introduce and deDonald L. M. Baxter160 © ProtoSociologyVolume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account fend that theory. After that, I will apply it to solve the problem with social complexes. II. I will argue that some things have numerically identical but qualitatively differing "aspects." This section will summarize the extended argument in my "Self-Differing, Aspects, and Leibniz's Law" (Baxter 2018). To begin, let me stipulate that self-differing, if such there be, is best expressed with phrases involving what I will call "Qualifiers," such as 'insofar as' and 'in some respect.' 10 In such cases these phrases are what I will call "Nominal Qualifiers," that is, are parts of noun phrases, such as 'Hume as philosopher.' I will assume that they are semantically significant. This construction will allow contradictories to be predicated of the same thing in a way that Leibniz's Law is silent about. For instance 'Hume as an agent is satisfied on this point, but Hume as a philosopher is not.'11 The negation in 'Hume as a philosopher is not satisfied', with its restricted scope, can be thought of as an internal negation, as opposed to an external negation such as 'It is not the case that Hume as philosopher is satisfied.' In the former the nominal qualifier is not in the scope of the negation, and in the latter it is. I will not argue that in ordinary language these phrases work this way, though I think they often do. I am just stipulating how I am going to use vocabulary. Consider cases in which someone is torn about what to do or how to feel. A dramatic case is that of Euridepes' Medea who struggles with herself whether to kill her children to punish their father Jason who has abandoned her. Ah, Ah! Why do you gaze at me with your eyes, children? Why do you smile your last smile? Oh, what shall I do? My courage has gone, women now that I've seen the shining eyes of the children. I couldn't do it. Goodbye to my former plans! I'll take my children from this land. Why should I, in harming them to give their father pain, make myself suffer twice as much? I cannot. Goodbye plans! But what is happening to me? Do I want to make myself ridiculous, letting my enemies go unpunished? I must go through with this. What a coward I am-even to admit soft words into my mind! ... I shall not weaken my hand. Ah, Ah! Don't, my heart, don't you do this! Leave them alone, wretched heart, spare the children! Living there with me they will give you joy. 10 I originally got the term from Bäck 1982. 11 See Hume 2000, section 4, paragraph 21. 161Social Complexes and Aspects © ProtoSociology Volume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account By the avenging furies down in Hades, I swear I'll never leave these children for my enemies to insult and torture! They must certainly die; and since they must, then I who gave birth to them shall kill them.12 Insofar as Medea is enraged at the father, she wants to kill the children. Insofar as she loves them, she has no desire to kill them. She is torn. She is in conflict with herself. She differs from herself. Medea's struggle is between two aspects of her: Medea insofar as she is enraged at Jason versus Medea insofar as she loves her children. The alternating speeches should not mislead us into thinking that Medea is whole-heartedly one way then whole-heartedly the other. When we are torn, one side may predominate temporarily but the other side does not vanish. Such struggles with ourselves are all too common, even if less fevered than Medea's. Who has not been moved opposite ways by love and anger in a custody dispute, or in child-rearing, or in a close relationship? Self-differing is something we all experience. But is this literal self-differing? Many will say that we merely have opposing desires-ones that cannot both be satisfied. The conflict is between them, not between one and oneself. However, this way to make theoretical sense of the self-differing is not true to the phenomenon. Desires are not like quarrelsome children in being opponents one is merely related to. To have internal conflict like Medea's is like trying to move in opposite directions. Or it is "to take something to oneself and to cast it off" as Plato puts it. This internal opposition indicates a complexity in oneself, as argued in the Republic.13 Plato's view has been justly influential in pointing out this complexity downplayed by the objection. Nonetheless, it seems to me to be going too far to conclude, as Plato seems to, that internal opposition shows the soul to have numerically distinct parts. That conclusion neglects the unitariness of the soul. It is one oneself who tries to move in opposite directions. Further, the relevant conflict here is not just desiring to do incompatible things. The conflict is that one has a desire and lacks it. Though Medea insofar as she is enraged at Jason has a desire to kill her children, Medea insofar as she loves her children lacks all desire to do so. It is not that Medea insofar as she loves her children is moved to oppose another desire she has. Insofar as she loves her children she is not moved by the murderous desire at all. Saying that there is self-differing sounds contradictory. But the use of nominal qualifiers such as 'insofar as' removes explicit contradiction. I am not saying that Medea does and does not want to spare her children. Nor am I saying that 12 Excerpted and translated in Annas 2001, 111–12. 13 Plato 1974, 435c–441c, especially 437b. Donald L. M. Baxter162 © ProtoSociologyVolume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account Medea in one respect wants to spare her children and in no respect wants to spare her children. Either of those would be contradictory. I am saying that Medea insofar as she loves her children wants to spare them, but Medea insofar as she is enraged at their father does not want to spare them. The negation is internal, that is, has short-scope relative to the nominal qualifier and so there is no contradiction. But aren't I violating Leibniz's Law-the principle that for any x and y, if they are numerically identical then all the same things are true of them? After all, I am suggesting that the nominally qualified phrases refer to aspects, where aspects qualitatively differ but are numerically identical. However, consider the domain of quantification for Leibniz's Law. It is a principle concerning single things. The quantifier is a singular quantifier. Does it hold of pluralities, that is, what you would quantify over with a plural quantifier? Maybe, but the original principle is silent about that. I suggest that the original principle is silent about aspects as well. And the non-contradictory internal negation in claims about self-differing suggests that Leibniz's Law does not apply to aspects. I have been calling this discernibility of identicals, "self-differing." But it is more accurately the qualitative differing of something in one respect from itself in another, i.e. the qualitative differing of numerically identical aspects. III. I've argued that something in one respect can differ qualitatively from itself in another respect, that is, something can have differing aspects. Given this result, there is no need to posit that a plural subject is an additional thing. To see why, let me review the reason why a plural subject appears to be an additional thing, then why that appearance can be rejected. It is possible that a plural subject believe something that none of its members believe. Gilbert gives the example of a poetry group discussing the last line of Philip Larkin's "Churchgoing." Suppose everyone in the group has acceded for various reasons to one forceful person's insistence that the last line is moving, even though personally each regards it as bathetic or jarring. Suppose that forceful person changes her mind or was not sincere. Nonetheless, the opinion that the last line is moving carried the day and is the belief of the poetry group. The result would be that the plural subject believes something that none of its members believes (1996, 201–202). 163Social Complexes and Aspects © ProtoSociology Volume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account Apparently, then, there is a believer that the last line of the poem is moving, even though none of the people believe that. So there is something in addition to the people. The additional being is a social complex. So apparently a social complex is something in addition to the people that make it up. However, with the theory of Aspects, this reason can be removed. Take the example of the poem. There is a believer that the last line of the poem is moving, even though none of the people believe that. The believer is a social complex. It does not follow, however, that there is something in addition to the people. The believer is the people insofar as they are jointly committed to enjoy and evaluate poems. That is to say, the people insofar as they are jointly committed to enjoy and evaluate poems believe that the last line of the Larkin poem is moving. However, the people insofar as they are individuals do not so believe. With an appeal to aspects, there can be a difference without more entities. For there to be this difference between the people in one respect and themselves in another, there has to be a difference in each between the person insofar as s/he is jointly committed with the rest and him or herself insofar as s/he is an individual. Such difference between an individual in one respect and him or herself in another, without any multiplication of entities, is precisely what the theory of Aspects is designed to capture. So given that theory, a social complex is many united individual persons insofar as they are united and not an additional entity. One might protest that the theory certainly posits additional entities. There is the aspect of the many individuals-them insofar as they are in a joint commitment. Further an aspect of many individuals is many aspects one of each individual. Aren't all these aspects additional entities? Strictly speaking, no, they are not additional entities. Each aspect is identical with one of the individuals. There are no additional entities numerically distinct from the several individuals. IV. The main point has been made. This addendum will be more complicated and can easily be passed over. On the account here a social complex is the individuals that are its members insofar as they are in a joint commitment. An aspect of many individuals is many aspects, each of one of the individuals and each from a different individual. That is, the social complex is member 1 insofar as he is jointly commitDonald L. M. Baxter164 © ProtoSociologyVolume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account ted with the others and member 2 insofar as she is jointly committed with the others, and so on.14 In other words, the social complex is these many aspects. An individual is a member of the social complex just in case it has one of these aspects. Since each aspect is numerically identical with a member, the social complex is nothing numerically distinct from the members. This account explains how two differing social complexes can be made up of all the same individuals. One social complex is the individuals insofar as they are in one joint commitment, and the other social complex is the individuals insofar as they are in another joint commitment. Thus the social complexes, though they differ qualitatively, are two only speaking loosely. Each of the social complexes is numerically identical with all the same individuals. That the numerically identical can qualitatively differ is the essence of the theory of Aspects. This account also allows an account of a social complex of social complexes by appeal to sub-aspects, that is, by appeal to aspects of aspects. A social complex of social complexes would be many social complexes insofar as they are in a joint commitment. Thus, a social complex of social complexes would be many aspects, one of each of the groups. An aspect of a social complex is many aspects, each of one of the individuals. So a social complex of social complexes would be many aspects, each of which is of an aspect of one of the individuals. That is, a social complex of social complexes is many sub-aspects of the individuals. Take for example a league of sports teams. Let's say that a team is some players insofar as they are jointly committed to winning games, and a league is several teams insofar as they are jointly committed to participate in a championship game. To make it easy, let's suppose there are two teams of two players each: the Letters and Numerals. The Letters are A insofar as he is jointly committed with B to winning games and B insofar as he is jointly committed with A to winning games. The Numerals are 1 insofar as she is jointly committed with 2 to winning games and 2 insofar as she is jointly committed with 1 to winning games. The League is the Letters insofar as they are jointly committed with the Numerals to participating in a championship game and the Numerals insofar as they are jointly committed to participating in a championship game. Thus the League is A insofar as he is jointly committed with B to winning 14 Note that the 'and's here are being used as nominal conjunctions to compose a plural term and are not being used as sentence connectives. When I say that a social complex is an aspect of member 1 and an aspect of member 2, and so on, I mean the 'is' literally as a plural identity. 'Social complex' is grammatically singular but refers to several aspects taken together, each of a distinct individual. 165Social Complexes and Aspects © ProtoSociology Volume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account games, insofar as he in his joint commitment with B is jointly committed with the Numerals to participate in a championship game; and B insofar as he is jointly committed with A to winning games, insofar as he in his joint commitment with A is jointly committed with the Numerals to participate in a championship game; and 1 insofar as she is jointly committed with 2 to winning games, insofar as she in her joint commitment with 2 is jointly committed with the Letters to participate in a championship game; and 2 insofar as she is jointly committed with 1 to winning games, insofar as she in her joint commitment with 1 is jointly committed with the Letters to participate in a championship game. To avoid further taxing the patience of the reader, I will not replace all occurrences of team names in the above paragraph with references to aspects of individuals but will only do so for the first occurrence. The League is A insofar as he is jointly committed with B to winning games, insofar as he in his joint commitment with B is jointly committed with 1 insofar as she is jointly committed with 2 to winning games and 2 insofar as she is jointly committed with 1 to winning games, to participate in a championship game; etc. Thus, in addition to helping explain how a social complex can have a belief that none of its members have, the theory of Aspects can help explain how it could be that differing social complexes have all the same members and how it could be that there are social complexes of social complexes. No numerically additional group entities are required. 15 References Annas, Julia, ed. 2001. Voices of Ancient Philosophy: An Introductory Reader (New York: Oxford University Press. Bäck, Allan. 1982. "Syllogisms with Reduplication in Aristotle," Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 23: 453–58. Baxter, Donald L. M. 2018. "Self‐Differing, Aspects, and Leibniz's Law." Noûs 52: 900920. Björnsson, Gunnar. 2011. "Joint Responsibility Without Individual Control: Applying the Explanation Hypothesis. In Vincent, N. A. et al, eds. Moral Responsibility. 181–199. Epstein, Brian. 2015. The Ant Trap. New York: Oxford University Press. Fine, Kit. 1982. "Acts, Events, and Things." In Lenfellner et al. Language and Ontology. Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, pp. 97–105. Gilbert, M. 2011. "Foundations and Consequences of Collective Moral Responsibility." 15 I am grateful for comments from Margaret Gilbert and from Toby Napoletano. Donald L. M. Baxter166 © ProtoSociologyVolume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account Teoria e Critica della Regolazione Sociale 5. Gilbert, M. 2006. "Who's to blame? Collective moral responsibility and its implications for group members." Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 30(1), 94–114. Gilbert, M. 2002. "Considerations on joint commitment: Responses to various comments." In Social Facts & Collective Intentionality, ed. G. Meggle. Frankfurt: HanselHohenhausen, pp. 73–101. Gilbert, M. 1997. "What Is It for Us to Intend?" In Contemporary Action Theory vol. 2: Social Action, ed. G. Holmstrom-Hintikka and R. Tuomela. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 65-85". Gilbert, Margaret. 1996. Living Together. London: Rowman and Littlefield. Gilbert, Margaret. 1989. On Social Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hume, David. 2000. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, ed. Tom L. Beauchamp. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Plato. 1974. Republic, trans. G.M.A. Grube. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Ruben, D. H. 1982. "The Existence of Social Entities." The Philosophical Quarterly 32: 295–310. Sheehy, P. 2006. "Holding Them Responsible." Midwest Studies in Philosophy 30: 74–93. Sheehy, P. 2002. "On Plural Subject Theory." Journal of Social Philosophy 33: 377–394. Tuomela, Raimo. 2012. "Group Reasons." Philosophical Issues: A Supplement to Noûs 22, Action Theory: 402–418. © ProtoSociology Volume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account Contributors Donald L. M. Baxter, Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States of America. Eliezer Ben-Rafael, Professor Emeritus, Department of Sociology. Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. Alban Bouvier, Institute Jean Nicod, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris cedex, France. Antonella Carassa, Professor, Faculty of Communication Science, University Lugano, Lugano, Switzerland. Marco Colombetti, Professor, Department of Electronics, Information, and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy. Margaret Gilbert, Melden Chair in Moral Philosophy and Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, University of California, Irvine, United States of America. Rebecca Gutwald, Dr., Promotionskolleg, Hochschule für Philosophie, München, Germany. Jeffrey Helmreich, Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Law Director, Center for Legal Philosophy, University of California, Irvine, CA, United States of America. Marija Jankovic, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Davidson College, Davidson, North Carolina, United States of America. Felipe León, Dr. (Postdoc), Centre for Subjectivity Research – Department of Media, Cognition and Communication, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Ludger Jansen, PD Dr., Institute of Philosophy, Rostock University, Rostock, Germany. Contributors328 © ProtoSociologyVolume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account Georg Peter Dr., ProtoSociology, Institute of Sociology, Goethe University – Campus West, Theodor W. Adorno Platz 6, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Gerhard Preyer, Professor of Sociology, Institute of Sociology, Goethe University – Campus West, Theodor W. Adorno Platz 6, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Maura Priest, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Arizona State University, Tempe, United States of America. Mikko Salmela, Senior Researcher, Adjunct Professor, Center for Philosophy of Social Sciences (TINT), Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. Frederick F. Schmitt, Department of Philosophy, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, United States of America. Thomas Smith Dr., Lecturer in Philosophy and Director of Postgraduate Taught Programmes in Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, School of Social Sciences, Humanities Bridgeford Street, Room 2.41, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, Great Britain. Joona Taipale, Senior Lecture, Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. Dan Zahavi, Professor of Philosophy, Dr. phil. PhD, Director of Center for Subjectivity Research (CFS), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. Niina Zuber, Lehrstuhl für Philosophie und politische Theorie, Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität München, Germany. 329 © ProtoSociology Volume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account Impressum ProtoSociology: An International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research issn 1611–1281 Editor: Gerhard Preyer Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Institute of Sociology, Dep. of Social Sciences Editorial staff: Georg Peter Project Multiple Modernities: Reuss-Markus Krausse (East-Asia Representative) Layout and digital publication: Georg Peter Editorial office: ProtoSociology, Stephan-Heise-Str. 56, 60488 Frankfurt am Main, Germany, phone: (049)069–769461, Email: preyer@em.uni-frankfurt.de, peter@protosociology.de --------------- Die Zeitschrift soll 1/2jährlich erscheinen. Die Anzahl der jährlich erschei nen den Hefte und Sonderhefte bleibt jedoch vorbehalten. Copyright: Die in dieser Zeitschrift veröffentlichten Beiträge sind urheber rechtlich ge schützt. Alle Rechte sind vorbehalten. Übersetzungen, Nach druck, Verviel fältigung auf foto mecha nischem oder ähn lichem Weg oder im Mag net ton verfahren, Wieder ga be durch Vortrag, Funkund Fernsehsen dungen sowie Speicherung in Daten verarbei tungs anlagen, auch auszugs weise, sind nur mit Geneh mi gung des Herausgebers mög lich. Für einge reich te Beiträge wird keine Haftung über nommen. Weitere Publikati ons rechte von Artikeln blei ben vorbehalten. Für unaufgefordert eingesandte Manus kripte wird keine Haftung über nom men. Gerichtsstand ist Frankfurt am Main. Copyright: All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, stored or trans mitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing of the publisher. Additional publications of the articles are reserved. Authorization to photocopy items for inter nal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients is garanted by PROTO SOCIOLOGY, provided that the base fee is paid directly to VG Wort, Goethestr. 49, 80336 München RFA.The publisher accepts no responsibility for submitted manuscripts. On ProtoSociology Protosociology plays an important role among philosophy journals with connected contributions on important and breaking topic – such the nature and special features of collective cognitive state – that do not receive such generous attention in other journals. It isworth serious consideration for inclusion in a library's philosophy collection. Margaret Gilbert, Storrs (USA) The journal Protosociology has become an important forum for discussion in the philosophy of social science and of sociality and, more broadly, for theoretical discussion in social science. It is especially interesting and important that such new fields as social metaphysics and social epistemology as well as research related to collective intentionality and its applications have acquired a prominent place in the agenda of Protosociology. Raimo Tuomela, Finland Protosociology occupies an important position in the European intellectual scene, bridging philosophy, economics, sociology and related disciplines. Its volumes on rationality bring together concerns in all these topics, and present an important challenge to the cognitive sciences. Donald Davidson, Berkeley (USA) Protosociology publishes original papers of great interest that deal with fun da mental issues in the human and social science. No academic library is com plete without it. Nicholas Rescher, Pittsburgh (USA) Protosociology has been remarkably successful in publishing interesting work from different tradition and different disciplines and, as the title signals, in giving that work a new, eye-catching slant. Philipp Pettit, Canberra, Australia Protosociology is a truly premier interdisciplinary journal that publishes articles and reviews on timely topics written by and for a wide range of inter national scholars. The recent volumes on rationality are remarkable for their breadth and depth. Protosociology would be a great addition to any library. Roger Gibson, St. Louis (USA 330 © ProtoSociologyVolume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account 331 © ProtoSociology Volume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account Subscription – Single Article ProtoSociology cooperates with the Philosophy Documentation Center. The PDC provides worldwide access to our collective edition, especially for institutional subscribers but also for individuals. Single access and subscription is possible. Also every article – starting with vol. 1 (1991) – can be ordered separately: https://www.pdcnet.org/protosociology eBooks and Books on Demand In principle ProtoSociology is an electronic journal. But with our new Books on Demand service we are starting to offer volumes worldwide as books: High quality printing and binding on special paper with a professional layout. The ebooks and books can be ordered directly through around 1000 shops worldwide. Vol 34, 2017 Borders of Global Theory – Reflections from Within and Without, ISBN 9783744838924, 49,50.–€ Vol 33, 2016 Borders of Global Theory – Reflections from Within and Without, ISBN 9783744838924, 49,50.–€ Vol 32, 2015 Making and Unmaking Modern Japan, ISBN 9783837077780, 32.–€ Vol. 31, 2014 Language and Value, ISBN 9783739258904, 32.-€ Vol. 30, 2013 Concepts – Contemporary and Historical Perspectives, ISBN 9783738641653, 32.-€ Vol. 29, 2012 China's Modernization II, ISBN 9783739258966, 32.-€, Vol. 28, 2011 China's Modernization I, ISBN 9783734761270, 32.-€, ProtoSociology An International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research Volume 34, 2016 The Borders of Global Theory – Reflections from Within and Without Edited by Barrie Axford Contents Meaning and Publicity: Two Traditions Richard Manning Part I Historical Background Speaking Your Mind: Expression in Locke's Theory of Language Lewis Powell Meaning, Communication, and the Mental Patrick Rysiew Intentionality and Publicity Madeleine Arseneault Part II Meaning and Interpretation Quine, Publicity, and Pre-Established Harmony Gary Kemp Reflections on Davidsonian Semantic Publicity Richard Manning Meaning, Publicity and Knowledge Marija Jankovic and Greg Ray Part III Contemporary Criticisms and Developments A Puzzle about Context and Communicative Acts Daniel Harris The Publicity of Meaning and the Perceptual Approach to Speech Comprehension Berit Brogaard Local Meaning, Public Offense Robert Shanklin On Contemporary Linguistics and Sociology Analyses on Arbitrariness of Chinese Characters from the Perspective of Morphology Feng Li Formal Semantics of English Sentences with Tense and Aspect. Wenyan Zhang The Axial Age and Modernity: From Max Weber to Karl Jaspers and Shmuel Eisenstadt Vittorio Cotesta Published Volumes332 © ProtoSociologyVolume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account ProtoSociology An International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research Volume 33, 2016 The Borders of Global Theory – Reflections from Within and Without Edited by Barrie Axford Contents eBook, ISBN-13: 9783744860666, 17,99 € Book on Demand, ISBN-13: 9783744838924, 49,50 € Introduction: Global Scholarship from Within and Without Barrie Axford Thinking Globally – What Does it Mean Today? Reflections on "Critical Thinking" in Global Studies Manfred B. Steger Globality and the Moral Ecology of the World: A Theoretical Exploration Habibul Haque Khondker Real Leaps in the Times of the Anthropocene: Failure and Denial and 'Global' Thought Anna M. Agathangelou On the Possibility of a Global Political Community: The Enigma of 'Small Local Differences' within Humanity Heikki Patomäki Insights from the Galaxy of Scholarship Geohistory of Globalizations Peter J. Taylor Autonomy, Self-determination and Agency in a Global Context Didem Buhari Gulmez The Neglect of Beauty: What's In and What's Out of Global Theorising and Why? Heather Widdows Mastery Without Remainder? Connection, Digital Mediatization and the Constitution of Emergent Globalities Barrie Axford Global Theory – To be Continued Whither Global Theory? Jan Aart Scholte 333Published Volumes © ProtoSociology Volume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account ProtoSociology An International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research Volume 32, 2015 Making and Un-Making Modern Japan Edited by Ritu Vij Contents eBook, ISBN-13: 9783741218866, 17,99 € Book on Demand, ISBN-13: 9783738622478, 32,– € Making and Un-Making Japanese Modernity: An Introduction Ritu Vij Part I The Vicissitudes of Japanese Modernity Naturalized Modernity and the Resistance it Evokes: Sociological Theory Meets Murakami Haruki Carl Cassegard Ethno-politics in Contemporary Japan: The Mutual-Occlusion of Orientalism and Occidentalism Kinhide Mushakoji Part II Citizenship, Migrants and Welfare in Modern Japan A Dilemma in Modern Japan? Migrant Workers and the (Self-)Illusion of Homogeneity Hironori Onuki Pretended Citizenship: Rewriting the Meaning of Il-/Legality Reiko Shindo What Japan Has Left Behind in the Course of Establishing a Welfare State Reiko Gotoh Part III Risk, Reciprocity, and Ethnonationalism : Reflections on the Fukushima Disaster The Failed Nuclear Risk Governance: Reflections on the Boundary between Misfortune and Injustice in the case of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster Hiroyuki Tosa Ganbarō Nippon: Tabunka Kyōsei and Human (In)Security Post 3–11 Giorgio Shani Reciprocity: Nuclear Risk and Responsibility Paul Dumouchel On Contemporary Philosophy and Sociology Civil Religion in Greece: A Study in the Theory of Multiple Modernities Manussos Marangudakis Underdetermination and Theory-Ladenness Against Impartiality. Nicla Vassallo and M. Cristina Amoretti The Challenge of Creativity: a Diagnosis of our Times Celso Sánchez Capdequí Published Volumes334 © ProtoSociologyVolume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account ProtoSociology An International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research Volume 31, 2014 Language and Value Edited by Yi Jiang and Ernie Lepore Contents eBook, ISBN-13: 9783739258904, 17,99 € Book on Demand, ISBN-13: 9783738622478, 32,– € Introduction Ernest Lepore and Yi Jiang I. Semantics and Ontology The Relation of Language to Value Jiang Yi Refutation of the Semantic Argument against Descriptivism Chen Bo Semantics for Nominalists Samuel Cumming Semantic Minimalism and Presupposition Adam Sennet Compositionality and Understanding Fei YuGuo Values Reduced to Facts: Naturalism without Fallacy Zhu Zhifang II. Word Meaning, Metapher, and Truth Philosophical Investigations into Figurative Speech Metaphor and Irony Ernie Lepore and Matthew Stone Norms of Word Meaning Litigation Peter Ludlow The Inconsistency of the Identity Thesis Christopher Hom and Robert May Describing I-junction Paul M. Pietroski Predicates of Taste and Relativism about Truth Barry C. Smith Mood, Force and Truth William B. Starr A Semiotic Understanding of Thick Term Aihua Wang III. Features of China's Analytical Philosophy An Echo of the Classical Analytic Philosophy of Language from China: the Postanalytic Philosophy of Language Guanlian Qian The Chinese Language and the Value of Truth-seeking: Universality of Metaphysical Thought and Pre-Qin Mingjia's Philosophy of Language Limin Liu Mthat and Metaphor of Love in Classical Chinese Poetry Ying Zhang 335Published Volumes © ProtoSociology Volume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account ProtoSociology An International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research Volume 30, 2013 Concept – Contemporary and Historical Perspectives Contents Concepts in the Brain: Neuroscience, Embodiment, and Categorization Joseph B. McCaffrey Recalling History: Descartes, Hume, Reid, Kant, Ockham Conceptual Distinctions and the Concept of Substance in Descartes Alan Nelson The Concept of Body in Hume's Treatise Miren Boehm Conceiving without Concepts: Reid vs. The Way of Ideas Lewis Powell Why the "Concept" of Spaces is not a Concept for Kant Thomas Vinci Ockham on Concepts of Beings Sonja Schierbaum On Contemporary Philosophy Paradoxes in Philosophy and Sociology Note on Zeno's Dichotomy I. M. R. Pinheiro The Epigenic Paradox within Social Development Robert Kowalski Concepts, Sense, and Ontology What Happened to the Sense of a Concept-Word? Carlo Penco Sense, Mentalese, and Ontology Jacob Beck Concepts Within the Model of Triangulation Maria Cristina Amoretti A Critique of David Chalmers' and Frank Jackson's Account of Concepts Ingo Brigandt The Influence of Language on Conceptualization: Three Views Agustin Vicente, Fernando MartinezManrique Representations, Contents, and Brain Views of Concepts and of Philosophy of Mind-from Representationalism to Contextualism Sofia Miguens Changes in View: Concepts in Experience Richard Manning Concepts and Fat Plants: Non-Classical Categories, Typicality Effects, Ecological Constraints Marcello Frixione eBook, ISBN-13: 9783739258973, 17,99 € Book on Demand, ISBN-13: 9783738641653, 32,– € Published Volumes336 © ProtoSociologyVolume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account ProtoSociology An International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research Volume 29, 2012 China's Modernization II – Edited by Georg Peter and Reuss-Markus Krausse Contents Neoliberalism and the Changes in East Asian Welfare and Education Business Opportunities and Philanthropic Initiatives: Private Entrepreneurs, Welfare Provision and the Prospects for Social Change in China Beatriz Carrillo Garcia Time, Politics and Homelessness in Contemporary Japan Ritu Vij Educational Modernisation Across the Taiwan Straits: Pedagogical Transformation in Primary School Moral Education Textbooks in the PRC and Taiwan David C. Schak Is China Saving Global Capitalism from the Global Crisis? Ho-fung Hung On Contemporary Philosophy International Development, Paradox and Phronesis Robert Kowalski Précis of "The World in the Head" Robert Cummins Communication, Cooperation and Conflict Steffen Borge On Contempary Theory of Modernisation Multiple Modernities and the Theory of Indeterminacy-On the Development and Theoretical Foundations of the Historical Sociology of Shmuel N. Eisenstadt Manussos Marangudakis Changing China: Dealing with Diversity Dissent of China's Public Intellectuals in the Post-Mao Era Merle Goldman Modernization of Law in China-its Meaning, Achievements, Obstacles and Prospect Qingbo Zhang China's State in the Trenches: A Gramscian Analysis of Civil Society and Rights-Based Litigation Scott Wilson Manufacturing Dissent: Domestic and International Ramifications of China's Summer of Labor Unrest Francis Schortgen and Shalendra Sharma eBook, ISBN-13: 9783739258966, 17,99 € Book on Demand, ISBN-13: 9783738641646, 32,– € 337Published Volumes © ProtoSociology Volume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account ProtoSociology An International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research Volume 28, 2011 China's Modernization I Contents Changing China: Dealing with Diversity Class, Citizenship and Individualization in China's Modernization Björn Alpermann Chinese Nation-Building as, Instead of, and Before Globalization Andrew Kipnis Principles for Cosmopolitan Societies: Values for Cosmopolitan Places John R. Gibbins On Modernization: Law, Business, and Economy in China Modernizing Chinese Law: The Protection of Private Property in China Sanzhu Zhu Chinese Organizations as Groups of People-Towards a Chinese Business Administration Peter J. Peverelli Income Gaps in Economic Development: Differences among Regions, Occupational Groups and Ethnic Groups Ma Rong Thinking Differentiations: Chinese Origin and the Western Culture Signs and Wonders: Christianity and Hybrid Modernity in China Richard Madsen Confucianism, Puritanism, and the Transcendental: China and America Thorsten Botz-Bornstein China and the Town Square Test Jeffrey N. Wasserstrom Metaphor, Poetry and Cultural Implicature .. Ying Zhang On Contemporary Philosophy Can Science Change our Notion of Existence? Jody Azzouni The Epistemological Significance of Practices Alan Millar On Cappelen and Hawthrone's "Relativism and Monadic Truth" J. Adam Carter eBook, ISBN-13: 9783739258928, 17,99 € Book on Demand, ISBN-13: 9783734761270, 32,– € Published Volumes338 © ProtoSociologyVolume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account Social Ontology and Collective Intentionality Critical Essays on the Philosophy of Raimo Tuomela with His Responses Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter (Eds.) Introduction: Raimo Tuomela's Philosophy of Sociality, Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter I Collective Intentionality, Membership, and Reasoning, Kirk Ludwig Methodological Individualism, the Wemode, and Team reasoning Response by Raimo Tuomela Michael Schmitz What is a Mode Account of Collective Intentionality? Response by Raimo Tuomela Hans Bernhard Schmid What Kind of Mode is the We-Mode? On Raimo Tuomela's Account of Collective Intentionality Response by Raimo Tuomela David Schweikard Voluntary Groups, Noncompliance, and Conflicts of Reasons: Tuomela on Acting as a Group-Member. Response by Raimo Tuomela Raul Hakli, Pekka Mäkelä Planning in the We-mode Response by Raimo Tuomela II Social Ontology and Social Institutions Arto Laitinen We-mode Collective Intentionality and its Place in Social Reality Response by Raimo Tuomela Martin Rechenauer Tuomela meets Burge. Another Argument for Anti-Individualism Response by Raimo Tuomela Springer International Publishing AG, 2017 339Bookpublications Sociology Ohnmächtige Weltmacht China: Modernisierung ohne Harmonie, Gerhard Preyer, Reuss-Markus Krausse, Springer VS Verlag Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2017. Struktur und Semantic Map Zur soziologischen Theorie Shmuel N. Eisenstadts, Gerhard Preyer, Springer VS Verlag, Wiesbaden 2016 . Varieties of Multiple Modernities: New Research Design, Gerhard Preyer and Michael Sussman (eds.). Brill Publisher, 2015. Hybridisierung China – Modernisierung und Mitgliedschaftsordnung der chinesischen Gesellschaft. Reuss-Markus Krausse. Spinger/ VS Verlag, 2015. Chinas Power-Tuning: Modernisierung des Reichs der Mitte, Gerhard Preyer, ReussMarkus Krausse, Spinger/VS Verlag 2013. Rolle, Status, Erwartungen und soziale Gruppe. Gerhard Preyer. Spinger/VS Verlag. 2012. Selbstbeobachtung der modernen Gesellschaft und die neuen Grenzen des Sozialen. Georg Peter und Reuss Markus Krausse (Hrsg.). Spinger/VS Verlag. 2012 Zur Aktualität von Shmuel N. Eisenstadt- Eine Einleitung in sein Werk. Gerhard Preyer. VS Verlag 2011. In China erfolgreich sein-Kulturunterschiede erkennen und überbrücken. Gerhard Preyer, Reuss-Markus Krausse. Gabler Verlag 2009. Borderlines in a Globalized World. New Perspectives in a Sociology of the World System. Gerhard Preyer, Mathias Bös (eds.). Kluwer 2002. Philosophy Beyond Semantics and Pragmatics, Gerhard Preyer (ed.), Oxord University Express 2018. Social Ontology and Collective Intentionality Critical Essays on the Philosophy of Raimo Tuomela with His Responses, Gerhard Preyer, Georg Peter (eds.). Springer Academic Publishers 2017. Prereflective Consciousnes – Sartre and Contemporary Philosophy of Mind, Sofia Miguens, Clara Morando, Gerhard Preyer (eds.). Routledge 2015. From Individual to Collective Intentionality-New Essays, edited by Sara Rachel Chant, Frank Hindriks, and Gerhard Preyer. Oxford University Press 2013. Consciousness and Subjectivity. Sofia Miguens, Gerhard Preyer (eds.). Ontos Publishers 2012. Triangulation-From an Epistemological Point of View. Maria Cristina Amoretti, Gerhard Preyer (eds.). Ontos Publishers 2011. Intention and Practical Thought. Gerhard Preyer. Humanities Online 2011. Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism-New Essays on Semantics and Pragmatics. Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter (eds.). Oxford University Press 2007. Contextualism in Philosophy. Knowledge, Meaning an Truth. Gerhard Preyer, Georg Peter (eds.). Oxford University Press 2005. Concepts of Meaning. Framing an Integrated Theory of Linguistic Behavior. Gerhard Preyer, Georg Peter, Maria Ulkan (eds.). Kluwer 2003. Rep. Springer Verlag, Wien. Logical Form and Language. Gerhard Preyer, Georg Peter (eds.). Oxford University Press 2002. Bookpublications of the Project (extract) 340Bookpublications © ProtoSociology Volume 35/2018: The Joint Commitment Account