Anna Michalska
Polish Academy of Sciences
It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that the notion of ecological and social embeddedness is one of the most exploited philosophical ideas these days, both in the academia and beyond. The most troublesome about the overall trend is that many proponents of the idea of social embeddedness simplistically consider selfhood as a form of aberration which merely provides vindication for inequality and violence. In this paper, instead of attacking the problem of the individual versus the collective head-on, I approach it by way of a critique of Stephen Turner’s repudiation of transcendental collectivism. According to Turner, transcendental entities, such as tacit knowledge, presuppositions, or traditions, should be altogether removed from explanatory schemata in the social sciences. I believe that Turner’s razor cuts too deep and the rejection of implicit framing is at best premature. Against the background of the identified shortcomings of Turner’s model of interactive learning, I track the interrelations between social development and the development of the self with an eye to showing that the relationship between individual selves and social reality is an extremely complex and multifactorial matter which we cannot hope to navigate without a proper transcendental frame. The frame is what mediates the relationship between the individual and the collective.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.24917/20841043.11.2.7
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,163
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas S. Kuhn - 1962 - University of Chicago Press.

View all 38 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Biological Individuality and Scientific Practice.Karen Kovaka - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1092-1103.
Two Types of Transcendentalism in America.Woodbridge Riley - 1918 - Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 15 (11):281-292.
Individuality in a Social Insect Assemblage.Scott Turner - 2013 - In Philippe Huneman & Frédéric Bouchard (eds.), From Groups to Individuals. Evolution and Emerging Individuality. MIT Press. pp. 219.
Transcendentalism and its Discontents.Stephen L. White - 1989 - Philosophical Topics 17 (1):231-61.
The Biological Basis of Individuality.Julian S. Huxley - 1926 - Journal of Philosophical Studies 1 (3):305-319.
Individuals as Instances.Jorge J. E. Gracia - 1983 - Review of Metaphysics 37 (1):37 - 59.


Added to PP index

Total views
1 ( #1,545,954 of 2,507,017 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #417,155 of 2,507,017 )

How can I increase my downloads?


Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes