to
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/from-plural-to-institutional-agency-collective-action-ii1st-edition-kirk-ludwig/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
From Individual to Plural Agency: Collective Action I 1st Edition Kirk Ludwig
https://textbookfull.com/product/from-individual-to-pluralagency-collective-action-i-1st-edition-kirk-ludwig/
The Swan King Ludwig II of Bavaria Christopher Mcintosh
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-swan-king-ludwig-ii-ofbavaria-christopher-mcintosh/
Values Deliberation and Collective Action: Community Empowerment in Rural Senegal 1st Edition Beniamino Cislaghi
https://textbookfull.com/product/values-deliberation-andcollective-action-community-empowerment-in-rural-senegal-1stedition-beniamino-cislaghi/
Rational Powers in Action: Instrumental Rationality and Extended Agency Sergio Tenenbaum
https://textbookfull.com/product/rational-powers-in-actioninstrumental-rationality-and-extended-agency-sergio-tenenbaum/
Interactional Competences in Institutional Settings: From School to the Workplace 1st Edition Simona Pekarek Doehler
https://textbookfull.com/product/interactional-competences-ininstitutional-settings-from-school-to-the-workplace-1st-editionsimona-pekarek-doehler/
Children and Peace: From Research to Action Nikola
Balvin
https://textbookfull.com/product/children-and-peace-fromresearch-to-action-nikola-balvin/
Ludwig Wittgenstein Dictating Philosophy To Francis Skinner F3Thinker !
https://textbookfull.com/product/ludwig-wittgenstein-dictatingphilosophy-to-francis-skinner-f3thinker/
Antidepressants From Biogenic Amines to New Mechanisms of Action Matthew Macaluso
https://textbookfull.com/product/antidepressants-from-biogenicamines-to-new-mechanisms-of-action-matthew-macaluso/
From Ricoeur to action the socio political significance of Ricoeur s thinking 1st Edition Ricœur
https://textbookfull.com/product/from-ricoeur-to-action-thesocio-political-significance-of-ricoeur-s-thinking-1st-editionricoeur/
FromPluraltoInstitutionalAgency FromPluralto InstitutionalAgency CollectiveActionII KirkLudwig
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©KirkLudwig2017
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2017
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2017941629
ISBN978–0–19–878999–4
Printedandboundby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
For 林 世 娉 Preface Wearepre-eminentlysocialbeings.Butthisisnotwhatmakesusspecial:what makesusspecialisthatwemakeinstitutions.Therearenoothercreaturesweknow ofwhoarecapableofdoingthis.Othercreaturescanengageincooperativebehavior. Othercreaturesexhibitrolespecializationinadivisionoflaborgearedtowardthe collectivegood,e.g.,termites,beesandants.Butnootherscandesignandbuild institutionsaswedo.Institutionsorganizeouractivitiesbyprovidingadifferentiationoftransferablerolesdefinedintermsofhowtheoccupieristoactintentionally insocialcoordinationwithothersinlightoftheirinstitutionalroles.Akeydifference betweentheformsofsocialorganizationmadeavailablebyinstitutionsandthesocial organizationoflifeinthetermitemoundorthebeehiveisthatrolespecialization amongthesocialinsectsisbiologicallyprogrammed.Rolesininstitutionsincontrast areintentionallyadopted.Theirimplementationrequirestheexpressionofour agencyself-consciouslyasoccupiersofthoseroles.Institutionsaretoolsforcoordinatingjointactioninpursuitofcollectivegoalsovertime.Theyarenotphysical tools,butsocialtools.Wedesignandimplementthem.Thelimitsontypesofroles arethelimitsofouringenuity.Institutionsarebothcrucialfor,andthecruciblefor, civilization.Theydominatemodernlife.Theyarewhatgiveusthegreatpowerthat wehaveachievedoverthenaturalworld.Ourmostpowerfulinstitutions,especially thenationstatewithitssystemsoflaws andtheformsofgovernance,theinstrumentsofpower,theformsofbusinessorganization,includingthecorporation,which itmakespossible outlastthelivesoftheindividualswhosustainthem,andformthe worldintowhichwehavebeenandintowhichallfuturegenerationswillbeborn. Whatistheirnature?Fromwhencedoesthepowertomakeinstitutionsderive?To whatdegreedotheyhavealifeoftheirown?Howaretheysustained?Whatarethe conceptualresourcesthatgointotheirdesign?Whatarethepsychologicalresources neededtoimplementthem?Whatmakesusdifferent?Thisbookisconcernedto answerthesequestions.
Thisisthesecondvolumeinatwo-volumeprojectonthenatureandstructureof collectiveactionandintentionmoregenerally.Thefundamentaltenetoftheproject isthatallcollectiveintentionalaction,fromtwopeopletakingawalktogether,tothe ParisMobstormingtheBastilleonJuly14,1789,totheAlliedinvasionofNormandy onJune6,1944,whilenotmereaggregatesofindividualintentionalbehavior,can stillbeunderstoodultimatelyintermsofconceptsalreadyinplayinourunderstandingofindividualagency.
The firstvolume, FromIndividualtoPluralAgency,concernedtheanalysisof pluralactionandintention theanalysisofactionasexpressedinpluralaction sentences(‘Weliftedapiano’),theanalysisofsharedintentionasexpressedinplural sentencesaboutintention(‘Weintendedtoliftapiano’),andtheanalysisofthe collectiveintentionalactionasexpressedinpluralactionsentencesmodifiedbythe adverb ‘intentionally ’ (‘Weliftedapianointentionally ’).Thesecondvolumeconcernscollectiveactionexpressedingrammaticallysingularactionsentences.This
includesmostdiscourseaboutinstitutionalactionaswellastheactionsofinformal groupsthatcanchangetheirmembershipovertime.Examplesare:
TheFederalReserveBankisgraduallyendingtheexpansionofitsbondholdings. Detroit filedforbankruptcyonFriday.
TheEuropeanParliamentmeetsinStrasbourgfor12partsessionseachyear. Surveillancevideoshowsthemobtryingtoforceentry.
Largecrowdshavebeentippingovervehiclesandclashingwithlawenforcement inAmes.
Thesecondvolumemaybereadindependentlyofthe firstvolume.Sufficient backgroundfromthe firstisprovidedinthesecondchapter.Butthe firstvolume providestheconceptualfoundationforthesecond.Itisonlyby firstunderstanding thestructureofpluralintentionalactionandthenatureoftheintentionsofthose participatinginit we-intentionsvs.I-intentions thatwecanunderstandwhatis goingonininstitutionalactionorintheexpressionofgroupagencyinmobsand crowds.Forultimatelyinstitutionalaction,andmobactioninasimilarway,restson ourcapacitytoconceptualizewhatwedoascollectiveintentionalaction.Itisby employingconceptsoftypesofrolesincollectiveintentionalactionthatweareable todescribeinstitutionalstructures,whichwecanthenconceiveofaspersisting throughtheinterchangetheparticular fillersofthoseroles.
The fi rstvolumearguedforthemultipleagentsaccountofpluralagencyandthe sharedplanaccountofwe-intentions.Onthemultipleagentsaccountofplural agency,forustodosomethingtogetherisjustforeachofus(andnooneelse)to contributetobringingitabout(insomerelevantwayorways).Onthisaccount,the truthconditionsforordinarypluralstatementsaboutgroupactiondonotrequire groupagentsperse.Thesharedplanaccountofwe-intentionsholdsthatwhenone intendstoparticipateinjointintentionalaction,oneintendstodosomethingto contributetobringingitaboutthat,atthetimeofaction,wedosomethingtogether inaccordancewithasharedplan.Forustoshareanintention,onthisaccount,is forusalltowe-intendthatwedosomething.Forustodoittogetherintentionallyis forusalltocarryoutourwe-intentionssuccessfully.Thisreducessharedintention tosharedwe-intentions,andexplainswhatisspecialaboutwe-intentionsasrelating nottotheirmodebuttotheircontent,butindoingsoitappealstonoirreducible conceptsinvolvingintentionalgroupbehavior.
Thepresentvolumeextendsthisaccounttothecontextofinstitutionalandmob actionexpressedingrammaticallysingularactionsentences.Thecentralideaisthat institutionsaresystemsofstatusroles(citizen,senator,judge,professor,lawyer,and soon),wherestatusrolesarestatusfunctionsassignedtoagentsinsocialtransactions requiringtheintentionalexpressionoftheirownagency.Statusfunctionsarefunctionsthatthings(persons,objects,events,processes)haverelativetosocialtransactionsonlyinvirtueoftheparticipants(inacertainsense)assigningthemthose functions.Thiscomesaboutfromtherelevantsocialtransactionsbeinggovernedby constitutiverules(rulestheintentionalfollowingofwhichconstitutetheactivitythey govern)thatspecifyfunctionalrolesforobjects,whichrequirethosewhoparticipate inthemtocoordinateonthesamethingsas fillingthoserolesinordertocarrythem
out.Sharedpoliciesregardingwhichthingsortypesofthingstocoordinateongive risetoconventions.Theseconventionsaretheinfrastructureofsocialreality.Institutionalmembershipperseisalsoastatusrole,hence,sociallyconstructed,not natural,andistypicallytimeindexed.Inthisliesthesolutiontomostofthepuzzles abouthowtoextendtheaccountofpluralagencytothedomainofgrammatically singularactionsentences.Itisthecontentionofthisbookthatallofsocialrealityis madeofthesebasicingredients.
Theprefacetothe firstvolumereviewedtheintellectualhistoryoftheproject. Thereremainsherethetaskofthankingthemanypeoplewhohavecontributedto mythinkingaboutthetopicsofthisbookandhelpedmetoavoidmistakes,andof apologizingtothoseIforgettomention.MygreatestintellectualdebtsaretoDonald DavidsonandtoJohnSearlewhoseinfluenceonmythinkingwillbeapparenton almosteverypage.Ioweagreatdealtothepioneersofthetheoryofcollectiveaction andintention,MichaelBratman,MargaretGilbert,andRaimoTuomelainaddition toSearle.Ihavelearnedalotfromthem,andthoughIhaveinmanyplacestakena differentpath,whatevercontributionsIhavetomakerestontheirs.Amongthe manywhohavecontributedtomythinkingandhelpedmewiththeircriticismsand questionsareJohnBiro,DanielBuckley,SaraChant,DavidCopp,AaronEdidin, ZacharyErnst,LucaFerrero,HanaFilip,CharlesHermes,MarijaJanković,Michael Jubien,DanielLinsenbardt,PaulMcNamara,LarryMay,SeamusMiller,Anna Moltchanova,WadeMunroe,MarinaOshana,GregRay,AbeRoth,KevinSavage, AndrewSmith,ErnieSosa,andGeneWitmer.Iowethanksalsotothreeanonymous readersforOxfordUniversityPressforhelpfulcommentsonthepenultimatedraftof thebook.Thankstoallofthemfortryingtosetmestraight.Finally,Ithankmywife, Shih-PingLin 林 世 娉,forsupportandencouragement,forreadingthemanuscript andgivingmecharacteristicallybrutalfeedback,andforinnumerablymanyother graces.Idoclaimsolelyformyself,however,theauthorshipofalltheerrorsthat remain,andremainsofaroverlooked,inthebook.
15.3Non-CommittedandDisaffectedCitizens
ListofFiguresandTables Figures
2.1Taxonomyofantecedentconditions31
8.1Agentivefunctions108
8.2Exampleopeningsetupfornumberedtokensaschesspieces115
9.1Taxonomyofconventions129
10.1Cylindricalchessboard158 11.1Typesofgroups162
13.1Publicgroupannouncementthroughaspokesperson194
13.2Formsofroledeviation205
Tables 2.1Determinateformsofagency17
6.1Essentiallyintentionalactiontypes79
8.1Assignmentsofnumberedtokenstopieces115
14.1Discursivedilemma233
1 Introduction The22ndInfantryRegimentoftheUnitedStatesArmywasauthorizedbyCongress onJune26,1812,aspartoftherapidbuildupoftheUnitedStatesArmyinresponse totheWarof1812.TheregimentwasrecruitedinPennsylvaniaandfoughtineight battlesintheWarof1812.Its finalengagementwasthesiegeandassaultofFortErie inAugustandSeptember1814.ItwasdeactivatedbyanActofCongressonMarch3, 1815.Forty-sixyearslater,inMay1861,itwasreconstitutedandreorganized,and fought fivemajorcampaignsintheIndianWarsofthelatenineteenthcentury. ItfoughtatthebattleofSantiagoinCubaduringtheSpanishAmericanWar,andin sixcampaignsduringthe1899–1905PhilippineInsurrection.TheRegimentwas assignedtoFortJay,NewYork,toguardthePortofNewYorkintheFirstWorld War.DuringtheSecondWorldWar,the22ndInfantryRegimentlandedatUtah BeachonD-Dayandfoughtthrough fivecampaignsintoGermany.Itwasinactivated in1946,butreactivatedfortheVietnamWarinwhichitfoughtinthirteen campaignsoversixyears,from1966to1972.Thirty-oneyearslater,itfoughtin theWarinIraqoverthreedeployments,2003–4,2005–6,and2008–9.FromAugust 2010toJune2011,itservedinKandaharProvinceinAfghanistan.OnMarch17, 2014,itwasdeactivated.
The22ndInfantryRegiment,asaunitoftheUnitedStatesArmy,hasexisted intermittently forover200years.Itfoughtineightwars,throughmanycampaigns. Itsurvivedperiodsofdeactivation.NoneoftheoriginalrecruitsfromPennsylvania in1812weremembersoftheRegimentwhenitfoughtagainsttheSiouxatSpring CreekinOctober1876alongtheYellowstoneRiver.Noneofthemembersofthe Regimentin1876weremembersofitwhenitlandedonUtahBeachonJune6,1944. WhatistherelationoftheRegimenttoitsmembers?Whatdowemeanwhenwe saythat theRegiment foughtabattleagainsttheSiouxatSpringCreekin1876 andlandedonUtahBeachonJune6,1944?IstheRegimentanagentinitsown rightsuperveningontheactivitiesofitsmembersatvarioustimes,butdistinctfrom allofthem?
Aninfantryregimentisaparadigmofanorganizedinstitutionalgroupwitha differentiationofroles,gearedtowardjointaction,whichhasaplaceinalarger institutionalsetting.Itisdesignedforpersistencethroughchangeinmembers.Itcan bridgeperiodsinwhichithasnomembers.Itcanundergoreorganization.Subunits canbeassignedandreassigned.Itsidentitydoesnotseemtobetiedtotheidentities oftheindividualswhoatanytimeconstituteitsmembership.Itcancarryouttasks overperiodsoftimeinwhichitsmembershipchangesandthroughperiodsoftime inwhichitsmembershipchangescompletely.Inthisrespect,regiments,armies, governments,corporations,universities,clubs,associations,andorganizedgangsare
allalike.Anorganizeddifferentiationofrolesdirectedtowardjointaction,which maybeoccupiedsuccessivelybydistinctindividuals,isthehallmarkofaninstitutionalgroup.Themaingoalofthisbookistounderstandthenatureofinstitutional agencyandhowitisgroundedintheagencyoftheindividualswhosuccessively populateinstitutionalroles.
Thecentralproblemofinstitutionalactionistounderstandhowthestructureof institutionsisgroundedinmoreprimitiveformsofjointintentionalaction,andhow thosemoreprimitiveformsofjointintentionalactionareexpressedthroughthose institutionalstructures.Acentralquestiontowhichthisgivesriseiswhetherthiscan bedonewithoutadmittingontothescene,orintoourontology,institutionalagents perse,withtheirownintentions,beliefs,interests,andsoon,transcendingthoseof theindividualswhorealizethemduringanyperiod.Ifwemustdoso,thenwemust inturnexplainhowtheapplicationoftheseconceptstosuchgroupsisgroundedin theactivitiesoftheirmembers.Ifwedonotadmitinstitutionalagentsperse,thenwe muststillconsiderwhethertheconceptsweuseindescribinginstitutionalagencycan bereductivelyexplainedintermsofconceptsavailablealreadyintheunderstanding ofinformaljointintentionalaction.
Thepointofviewofthisbookisresolutelyindividualisticandreductive.It maintainsthatinstitutionalagencyrequiresnoinstitutionalagentsperse,thatthe structureofinstitutionsisgroundedinformsofjointintentionalactionthatdonot presupposeinstitutionalstructures,andthattheresourcesforthecreationand maintenanceofinstitutionsariseoutofthecapacityforreflectiononourabilityto acttogetherinformallyinjointintentionalactivity.Morespeci fically,sincethe methodofthebookistoexaminethesemanticstructureandcontentofdiscourse aboutinstitutionalagency,theclaimisthatordinarydiscourseaboutinstitutional agency socialrealityasweordinarilyunderstandit carriesnocommitmentto institutionalagentsassuch.Theprojectrestsontwoassumptions.First,ordinary discourseaboutinstitutionalactionandagencydefinesthesubjectofinquiry. Second,whatwesayaboutsocialrealityinordinarydiscourseistypicallytrue (withallowanceforordinaryempiricalerror).Forexample,whenwesaythatthe UnitedStatesdeclaredwaronJapanonDecember8,1941orthatin1998Chrysler mergedwithDaimler-BenzAGtoformDaimlerChrysler,wespeaktheliteraltruth. Acentralthesisofthisbookisthatsuchtruthsadvertultimatelyonlytotheagencyof individualsanddonotrequireanontologyofgrouporinstitutionalagentswiththeir ownintentions,beliefs,andsoon atleastinthesenseinwhichindividualshave intentions,beliefs,andsoon.(Wecanallow,perhaps,thattheyhavebeliefsinthe senseinwhichneedleshaveeyesandrivershavemouths seeChapter14§14.5.)
Toputitanotherway,theclaimofthisbookisthatthetruthconditionsofordinary discourseaboutinstitutionalaction,whichdefinesoursubjectmatter,commitus onlytoindividualagents.
Thisleavesitopenthatsomegroups,includinginstitutionalgroups, happentobe agentsintheirownright butiftheyare, itwillnotbeinvirtueofthetruthofthese ordinaryclaimsaboutthem.Itwillbebecause,e.g.,functionalism,theviewthatwhat itistohavemindissimplytohaveanappropriateinternalfunctionalorganization mediatinginputandoutput,isthetruetheoryofmind,andthoseorganizations have,asithappens,anappropriatefunctionalorganization.Oritwillbebecause
emergentism,theviewthattherearebrutenomicbridgelawsconnectinglower-level propertiesofsystemsandtheirorganizationwiththeirhavingirreduciblypsychologicalstates,istrue,andcertainsocialgroupsturnouttohaveanappropriatenomic superveniencebaseformentalstates.Claimsofthesesorts,thoughtheyaresometimesconfusedwiththequestionofthetruthconditionsofordinarydiscourseabout institutionalagency,arereallyorthogonaltotheprojectofunderstandingthe ordinarycontentofwhatwesaywhenwetalkaboutinstitutionalagency.Theyare notfocusedonthenatureofsocialrealityatallbecauseitisincidentalthatthe patternsorfeaturesthatarecitedasthebasisfortheclaimsarerealizedinanything involvingthesocial.Itmightaswellbeoceancurrentsorglobalweatherpatterns. Theseviewsconsequentlyhavenothingtosayaboutthenatureofinstitutionsorthe socialassuch.Theyhaveasmuchrelevancetothestudyofthesocialassuchasthe claimthatoceancurrentsrealizeamindhastooceanography.
Theremainderofthisintroductiondescribesthemethodologyoftheproject, placesitinthelargercontextofthetheoryofjointaction,sketchesthemainideas, andgivesanoverviewofthestructureofthebook.
Wedistinguishbetweenconceptualandempiricalstudies,thoughtheboundaries aretypicallynotprecise.Empiricalstudiesmakeuseofconceptualconnectionsin organizinginquiryandsometimesmustconfrontconceptualquestionsatthefoundationsoftheir fieldsofinquiry.Conceptualstudiesin fieldsthathaveempirical dimensionscannotaffordtoignorethecomplexityofthephenomenathattheyare interestedinasitactuallyoccurs.Thecurrentprojectliestowardtheconceptualend ofthespectrum.Iaminterestedinwhatcollectiveandinstitutionalactionisinthe senseinwhichSocrateswasinterestedinwhatjusticeis.Whatistheessentialnature ofcollectiveactionandinstitutionalagency?Wewillfocusonordinaryexamplesin pursuingthisquestion.Wewillbeconcernedtounderstandcollectiveactionand institutionalagencyasitactuallyoccurs.Butthegoalremainstounderstandits essentialnature.Themethodislinguisticanalysisandconceptualanalysisinapplicationtotheformsofdiscoursethatidentifyoursubjectmatter.Tocertainears,this maysoundanachronistic aprojectoutoftunewithitstime.Itiscertainlytruethat conceptualprojectsassociatedwithphilosophyhavebeenundersiegeinrecentyears, thoughforallofthattheyhaveproceeded,eveninthecampofthosewhoprotest againstthem,thoughnotunderthatname.Butconceptualclarityisanessential ingredientinunderstandingtheworld,ontheassumptionthatthoughtiscapableof representingit,andthatassumptionunderliesofallinquiry.Thoughgettingclear abouttheconceptualstructureofadomainthatweareinterestedinisnottheendof inquiry,ithasanimportantroletoplay.Thisisespeciallysoinrelationtoour understandingofthesocialworld,wherethatworldisinastraightforwardsense constructedoutofourintentionalapplicationofconceptstoobjects,people,and events.Ifwedon’tunderstandthestructureoftheseconceptsorthelogicalformsof thediscoursethatdefineoursubjectmatter,wedon’tunderstandthephenomenawe areinterestedin.Intheinvestigationofinstitutionalreality,wewillbeconcerned first withthelogicalstructureofourdiscourseaboutinstitutionalagency.Thisisan essential firststepingettingclear,amongotherthings,abouttheontologicalcommitmentsofourdiscourseandavoidingerrorsthatarisefrommisleadinganalogies generatedbythesurfaceformsofourspeech.Inconnectionwiththis,wewillbe
concernedtounderstandandexplaincompositionallythelinguisticdataassociated withtheformsofdiscourseweareinterestedin patternsofformalentailments,the sourcesofsystematicambiguities,whethertheyarestructureorlexical,howthe implicationsofmorecomplexformsofdiscoursecanbeexplainedonthebasisofan accountofthefunctionoftheirparts,andsoon.Wewillbeconcernedinaddition withthestructureoftheconceptsthatunderlieourtalkofinstitutionsandinstitutionalroles,andtheirrelationtomoreprimitiveformsofagency.Thiswillprovideus withaframeworkforthinkingaboutinstitutionsgenerally,fromthesimplest,tothe mostcomplex,andsowithtoolsforinstitutionalanalysisgenerally.
AsmentionedinthePreface,thisbookispartofalarger,two-volume,project.It extendstheaccountofcollectiveintentionalactiondevelopedin FromIndividualto PluralAgency. Forthepurposesofcross-reference,IwillrefertothisasVolume1. Thoughthisbookmaybereadindependently,the firstlaysoutitsconceptual foundations,whicharebrieflyreviewedinChapter2.Theearlierbookdealswith informalgroupaction,ourtakingawalk,shakinghands,rowingaboat,buildinga house,andsoon.Groupsinvolvedinsuchactivitiesarepickedoutusingplural referringterms. We tookawalk, theboxers shookhands, they rowedaboat, the carpenters builtahouse.Wecancallthesepluralgroupagents.Incontrast,institutionalgroups,aswellasmobsandcrowds,arepickedoutusinggrammatically singularterms,suchas ‘the1stBattalionofthe22ndInfantryRegiment’ , ‘Great Britain’ , ‘theLibraryofCongress’ , ‘theAristotelianSociety’ , ‘theParisMob’ ,or ‘the AmericanPhilologicalAssociation’.Icallthese singulargroupagents,butthiswill,in the finalanalysis,turnouttobeafaçondeparler,sincenotevenmobsorinstitutional groupswill,inmyaccount,standintheagencyrelationtoevents,butonlyindividuals.(Theprimaryfocuswillbeoninstitutions,butwewillgiveananalysisof membershipinmobsandcrowdsandthenatureoftheiragencyalongtheway.) Toputthisanotherway, ‘singulargroupagent’ istobeinterpretedas ‘singulargroup ofagents’,sothatitdoesnothavetheimplicationthatanygroupisanagentas opposedtoindividuals.Theadjective ‘singular’ in ‘singulargroupagent’ isratherto bethoughtofassignifyingsomethingaboutthetypeofgroupofagents(notgroup agent)withwhichweareconcerned,whichisgroundedinhowtheyarerelatedto oneanotherinthejointenterprisestheyundertake.
Pluralgroupagentsarepickedoutusingpluralterms,buttheyarenotrestrictedto individuals.Wesay: ThenationsalliedagainsttheAxis foughtagainstGermanyon threefrontsbytheendof1944.Likewise,singulargroupagentsmaycountnotjust individuals,butalsoothersingulargroupagentsasmembers,asinthecaseofthe CommitteeonInstitutionalCooperation,whichisaconsortiumofUniversitiesinthe USMidwest,ortheEuropeanAssociationofCommunicationsAgenciesbasedin Brussels,ortheUnitedNations.Membershipineithersortofgroupmaybemixed. Thestockholdersinacorporationmayincludebothindividualsandinstitutions. Nationsmaycountbothindividualsandcorporationsascitizens.
Theearlieraccount(puttingasidepluralgroupsthatincludeinstitutionalagents) firstexplainspluralgroupagency,inthebasiccaseinwhichtheirmembersareall individuals,intermsoftheagencyoftheirmembers,withoutanyappealtogroup agentsperse.Thenitexplainsthepsychologyofjointintentionalactionintermsof theparticularcontentofindividualintentionsdirectedtowardpursuingjointaction.
Whiletheaccountdrawsadistinctionbetweenindividualactionandintention,and jointactionandintention,itdrawsonlyonconceptsalreadyinplayinourunderstandingofindividualintentionandaction.Accordingtothataccount,forustodo somethingtogetherissimplyfortheretobesomeeventofwhichallandonlyweare agents.Forustointendtodosomethingtogetherisforeachofustointendto contributetoourdoingsomethingtogetherinaccordancewithasharedplan.Thisis thecharacteristiccontentofthesortofintentiononehasinparticipatinginjoint intentionalaction a we-intention,incontrasttoanI-intention,intheterminology duetoTuomela(Tuomela1984;TuomelaandMiller1988;Tuomela2005).Forusto dosomethingintentionallyissimplyforustodosomethingtogetherbywayof executingourwe-intentionstodosomethingtogether(eachexecutingourindividual we-intentions).Theaccountisindividualisticandreductive.Onthisview,wedonot countenancegroupagentsperse,1 nordoweintroduceany suigeneris modeof intendingwhenparticipatinginjointintentionalaction,2 oranyspecialirreducible conceptsdeployedinthecontentofsuchintentions. 3
Institutionalagencyismorecomplex.Thetwomoststrikingthingsaboutinstitutionsconceivedofascentersofagency,asillustratedinthecaseofthe22ndInfantry Regiment,isthattheysurvivechangesintheirmembershipandcanactthrough intervalsfarlongerthanthelifetimeofanyindividualagent.Iwillarguethatthekey tounderstandinginstitutionalactionistheconceptofaroleinaninstitution. Institutionsarenetworksofinterrelatedrolesthatareunderstoodintermsofthe functiontheiroccupiersaretoperforminvarioussortsofjointintentionalaction. Justbeingamemberofaninstitution,forexample,beinginthearmy,isitselfan institutionalrole.Inthiscase,itisadeterminable,foroneisassignedaswellamore determinateinstitutionalroleexpressedbyone’srank.Butonemayalsobeamember ofanorganizedgroup,suchasachessclub,withouthavingamoredeterminaterole intheorganization,liketreasurerorpresident.Institutionalmembership,inthe accountofthisbook,issociallyconstructed.Invirtueofthis,itcanbe,andalmost alwaysis,timeindexedandtransferable.Thepersistenceofinstitutionsthrough changesinmembershipisthepersistenceofnetworksofinstitutionalrolesbeing filledbyvariousoccupiersofthem.
Notallinstitutionalrolesaremembershiproles.Anarmyisdividedintocorps, whicharedividedintodivisions,whicharedividedintobrigades,thenbattalions, companies,platoons,andsquadsinturn.Membersofthesquadsaremembersofthe
1 Thisisbynomeansauniversalview.Theideathatgroupsassuchhaveminds,orareagentsintheir ownright,oraresubjectsofcognition,decision,intentionandaction,hasalonghistoryinsociology, psychology,andthephilosophyofmindandaction,andisarobustthemeincontemporarydebate.See,for example,Korsgaard2008;Copp1979,1980,2006,2007,2012;Tollefsen2002a,2002b,2006,2015;French 1979,1984;French1982;Theiner2008,2009,2013b,2013a,2014;Theiner,Allen,andGoldstone2010; TheinerandO’Connor2010;Wegner1986;Baier1997a;Gilbert2002;TheinerandRobert2013;Waytz andYoung2012;Wilson2005;Schmitt2003b,2003a;Stoutland1997;Pettit2002,2003;Pettitand Schweikard2006;Pettit2007,2009a,2009b;ListandPettit2011.
2 (Searle1990)inonesenseacceptsthis,and(Gilbert2009)inanother.SeeVolume1,Chapter16§16.2 and§16.5foradiscussionoftheirviewsinrelationtomine.
3 (Tuomela2005,2013)arguesforanaccountofwe-intentionswhosecontentspresupposegraspof jointintentionalactionandsorepresentstheseasunreduced.SeeVolume1,Chapter16§16.1fora comparisonofTuomela’sviewtomine.
platoons,companies,battalions,etc.,thatsubsumethem,butthesquads,platoons, andsoon,arenot members ofthehigher-levelorganizationalunits.Butthecorps, divisions,andsoon,areinstitutionalgroupssubsumedbythehigher-levelgroups thatthemselveshaveinstitutionalroles.Membership,however,isthefundamental institutionalrole,intermsofwhichalltherestareunderstood.Membershipmay, asnoted,beconferredonaninstitutionallyorganizedgroupasinthecaseofthe membershipoftheUnitedNations.
Whatareinstitutionalroles?Howandinwhatsensearetheysociallyconstructed? Howaretheytobeunderstoodasgroundedinourcapacitytoengageincollective intentionalaction?Theideaisthis.Institutionalrolesare statusroles .Statusrolesin turnare statusfunctions,ofaspecialsort,inthesenseofSearle(Searle1995).Astatus functionisafunctionthatanobject,event,stateofaffairs,orpersonhasinasocial transactioninpartinvirtueofitsbeingcollectivelyacceptedthatithasthatfunction. Examplesarebeingatwenty-dollarbill,beingapawninagameofchess,beinga royalseal,oranutteranceof ‘Inowpronounceyoumanandwife’ byanappropriate authorityattheconclusionofaweddingceremony.Forstatusroles:beingamember ofparliament,beingapresident,beingauniversityprofessor,beingapoliceofficer,a lieutenantcolonel,aCEO,anemployee,andsoon.
Objectswithstatusfunctionsplayrolesinsocialtransactions.Theycannotplay thoseroleswithouttheirbeingacceptedbytheparticipantsashavingtherelevant functions.Nothingcanservetheroleofasetofpiecesinagameofchessunlessthe playerscoordinateonthesameobjects.Conceptsofstatusfunctions,likethatofa pawninthegameofchess,orofaten-dollarbill,orofapropertyline,are functionallydefined.Theconceptofapawn,forexample,istheconceptofsomething thatplaysacertainrole,arolespecifiedbytherulesofchess,inacertainsocial transaction,theplayofagameofchess.Therole itsfunctioninthesocial transaction couldbeplayedbymanythings.Giventhis,iftwopeoplewantto playagameofchess,theyarefacedwithacoordinationproblem.Theyhavetouse thesamesetofobjectssortedthesamewayaspiecesiftheyaretoplay.Itisforthis reasonthattheircollectiveacceptanceoftheobjectsasthevariouspiecesisnecessary inorderforthoseobjectstoplaytherelevantroles,andsotohavetherelevantstatus functions.Thepointextendstoallobjects,events,etc.,thathavestatusfunctions.Itis inthissensethatstatusfunctionsaresociallyconstructed:whatobjectshavethem, andsofallinsalientsocialcategoriesorientedtowardjointaction,havethemby (atleasttacit)agreementinthecommunitywhichisorientedtowardusingthem,and nototherwise.
Whenstatusfunctionsareassignedtotypes,withaneyetorepeatedoccurrencesof thecoordinationproblemtheypresenttoagentsengagingintheactivityinwhichan itemconstitutivelyhasthatfunction,weadoptgeneralizedconditionalwe-intentions withrespecttotheiruseinthoseactioncontexts.Thisrealizescollectiveacceptance ofthesetypesofitemsservingtheserolesinsocialtransactionsandamountstoa conventionwithrespecttotheminthecommunity.
Statusfunctionspervadethesocialworld.Theyarethefundamentalbuilding blocksofinstitutionalreality.They figureintransactionsbetweenindividuals, betweeninstitutions,andbetweenindividualsandinstitutions.Peoplecanbe assignedstatusfunctionsaswell.Iftheseareimposedonthembyotherswithout
theirconsent,asiftheyweremereobjectsratherthanagents,thentheyareno differentthanthefunctionsimposedonpiecesofwoodorplasticthatserveaspawns inchess.However,animportantcategoryofstatusfunctionassignedtopeople presupposes their acceptanceofthemandcallson them toexercisetheirownagency intheexpressionofthefunctionthattheyaccept.Inthiscase,theagenthasastatus role.Whenthefunctionexpressedbysomeoneinastatusroleisdefinedinpartin relationtothestatusrolesofothers,wehavewhatisminimallyrequiredforan institutionalstructureofstatusroles.Inthissense,allinstitutionsaresocially constructed,dependentfortheirexistenceonacriticalmassoftheinterlocking commitmentsofagentswhooccupythoserolesandotherswhodealwiththemin thoseroles.
Thecapacitytoassignstatusrolesinturnrestsontwothings: first,ourcapacityto engageinjointintentionalaction;second,ourcapacitytoconceptualizeourselvesas doingso.Becausestatusfunctionsarefunctionsobjectshaveinjointintentional action,theypresupposethosewhousethemhavethecapacityforactingtogether intentionally.Becausetheyrequirecollectiveacceptanceofobjectsasservingthat role,theyrequirethatweconceiveofthemasplayingrolesinjointintentionalaction. Thetypesofjointactionthattheyplayrolesinareessentiallyintentionaljointaction types.Sincetheactiontypesinvolvethecoordinatedmanipulationofobjectsin accordancewithrulesthatareconstitutiveoftheactiontype,theyareactiontypes governedbyconstitutiverules,inthesenseofrulestheintentionalfollowingofwhich partiallyconstitutestheactivitytypetheygovern.Thus,theassignmentofstatus functionsrequiresjointactiontypesthatexpresspatternsofactivitythataregovernedbyconstitutiverules,wheretherulesspecifythatsomethingistoplayacertain role,butnotwhat.Itfollowsthatinstitutionsareunderlainbysystemsofconstitutive rulesinaccordancewithwhichtheagentswhosustainthemact(allowingforsome marginoferror).
Alloftheseconceptscanbeconstructedoutofthematerialsavailableinour understandingofinformalgroupagency.Jointactionperseconsistsintherebeing multipleagentsofasingleevent.Itisjointlyintentionalwhenitistheresult(inthe rightway)oftheparticipantshavingwe-intentionsdirectedtowardtheirbringing abouttherelevantevent.Whenwehavetheideaofthis,wecanintroducetheconcept ofaneventtypebroughtaboutbywayofasharedintention.Theeventtypemay involveacharacteristicpatternofjointactivity,likewaltzing,orplayingchess(where thepatternisadeterminablewhoseinstancesaresequencesofmovesthatsatisfythe rules).Thepatterninthesecasesisneutralwithrespecttowhetheritisinstantiatedas aresultofasharedintention.Wegetaninstanceofwaltzingorplayingchesswhen therulesspecifyingthemarefollowedjointlyintentionally.Therulesthenare constitutiverulesrelativetotheessentiallyintentionaljointactivitytype.Thisaffords thebasicmaterialsneededtocharacterizethemechanismbywhichstatusfunctions areassignedtoobjects,events,people,andsoon.
Weknowthattheactivitiesofinstitutionssuperveneonindividualagents’ activities.Knowinghowtheyareconstructedindetailhelpsustoseewhatthiscomesto. Butitmaystillseemthatthereisacompellingcasetobemadeforconceptualizing themas,tosomedegree,autonomousagents.Weareaggregatesofphysicalparticles, butagencyresidesatthesystemlevelforus.Institutionsareatanytimerealizedin
aggregatesofindividualagents,buttheiractivitiesseemtobe(tosomedegreeat least)autonomousfromthoseoftheagentswhoadmittedlysustaintheiractivities. Theydothingsindividualscan’t(corporationsmerge,individualscannot),their activitiescontinuethroughchangesintheirconstituentagents,aswedothrough changesinourmaterialparts,theypursuegoalsandprojectsthatmayseemtobe noneofthoseoftheagentswhoactivatethem,andoverlongerperiodsthananyof theirmembersexist.Whiletheseareformidablechallengestoanindividualisticand reductiveaccount,Iwillarguethatitislargelyourformsofspeechthatmisleadus here.Wewillseethatthefactthatinstitutionssurvivechangesintheirmembership, andcanactoverlongerperiodsthananyindividualagentcould,iscompatiblewith whatevertheydoatanytimebeingtheexpressionoftheagencyoftheindividuals whoatthattimeconstituteit,andtherebeingnosystemlevelgoals,interests, intentions,orothermentalstates.Itdoesnotrequireanerrortheoryofordinary discoursetocountenancethis.Forordinarydiscourseaboutinstitutionalaction, thoughitmayappeartocountenancesingleinstitutionalagentsactingoverlong periods,whenparsedcarefully,infactisonlycommittedtoinstitutionalmembersof thematthetimebeingagentsofwhattheinstitutiondoesinanytimeinterval. Appearancestothecontraryareexplainedbythewayinwhichsurfacesyntactic structure,designedfor fluencyineverydaycommunication,glossesthelogical complexityunderlyingit.
Thiscompletesabriefsketchofthemainlinesofthoughtdevelopedinthesequel. Theseideaswillbedevelopedinsomedetail.Theorganizationofthebookisas follows.
Chapter2reviewsessentialbackgroundfromVolume1:theaccountofthelogical formofpluralactionsentences,theaccountofwe-intentions,theconceptofconditionalintentionsandpolicies,andtheaccountofcollectiveintentionalactionoutside theinstitutionalcontext.Chapter3givesapreliminarysketchofthedistinction betweengroupspickedoutusingpluralreferringterms, ‘pluralgroups’,forshort, andsingulargroupagents,andlaysouttheprimafaciecaseagainstareductive accountoftheagencyofsuchgroups.Chapters4–5showhow,despitethedifferences notedthatmaysuggestthatsingulargroupagentsmustbetreateddifferentlythan pluralgroupagents,groupactionsentencesinwhichthegroupispickedoutusinga grammaticallysingularreferringtermshouldbeanalyzedonthepatternIhave developedforpluralactionsentences.Chapter4showsthatgrammaticallysingular actionsentences,whichmayseemtoresistadistributive/collectiveambiguity,arein factsubjecttothesameambiguities,andtheappearancethattheyarenotistheresult oftheverbsthesingulargrouptermsarecombinedwithexpressingessentially collectiveactiontypes.Chapter5showsthattheapparentautonomyofsingular groupagentsfromtheirmembers persistencethroughchangeinmembers,the capacitytoactatdifferenttimeswithnooverlapinmembership,thepossibilitythat thesameinstitutionmighthaveexistedwithcompletedifferentmembership results fromasingulargroupactionsentencesinvokingasociallyconstructedtimeindexed membershiprelation,andshowshowtoextendthemultipleagentsanalysisto singulargroupactionsentences.Chapter6thentakesupthefurtheranalysisofthe meaningofactionverbsthatexpressessentiallycollectiveactiontypes,identifyingin particularaclassofessentiallycollectiveactiontypesthatinvolvetwocomponents,a
requirementthatapatternofcollectiveactionbeinstantiatedandarequirementthat itbedonejointlyintentionallybythoseinstantiatingit.InChapter7,thisaccountis usedtogiveananalysisoftheconceptofaconstitutive,asopposedtoaregulative, rule,andthenofformsofconstitutiveagencythatrelyonconstitutiverules.These notionsplayacentralrolethenintheaccountofstatusfunctions thebasicbuilding blocksofsocialreality developedinChapters8–10.Asexplainedabove,status functionsarefunctionsthatevents,objects,oragents(orgroupsofagents)havein socialtransactionsinvirtueofthecollectiveacceptanceinarelevantgroupthatthey shouldhavethem.Statusfunctionsareaspeciesofagentivefunction afunctionthat somethinghasrelativetothepurposesofanagent.Chapter8explainswhatdistinguishesstatusfunctionsasaspecialsubclassoftheclassofjointagentivefunctions. Chapter9explainsinwhatwaystatusfunctionsinvolveconventions,andgivesan accountofthenotionofcollectiveacceptanceusedingivinganaccountofstatus functions(Iborrowtheterms ‘collectiveacceptance’ and ‘statusfunction’ fromSearle (Searle1995,2006,2010),butIgivenewanalysesofthem).Chapter10takesupa numberofissuesinvolvingstatusfunctions:thecategoryofstatusrole,astatus functionimposedonanagentwhichrequirestheexerciseofhisagency,theirtypes andpowersandassociatedrightsandobligations;whethertheygiverisetodesireindependentreasons;thecategoryandfunctionofstatusindicators;thedistinction betweendeterminableanddeterminatestatusfunctions;andtherelationof(what Icall)designstatusfunctionstostatusfunctionsinthecontextofeverydayterminology.Chapter11analyzesmembershipinaninstitutionasacertainkindofstatus role,andprovidesinadditionanaccountofmembershipinnon-institutionalgroups likemobsandcrowds,whichcanvarytheirmembershipovertimeaswell.Chapter12 usestheaccountofstatusfunctionsdevelopedtocriticizeSearle’sclaimthatallstatus functionsexceptingthoseinvolvedinthebasicinstitutionsoflanguagehavethe logicalformofdeclarativespeechacts(Searle2010).Chapter13thenmakesuseof theaccountofstatusfunctions,constitutiverules,andconstitutiveagencytoreturnto apuzzleraisedinChapter3,theresponsetowhichwaspostponed,namely,thatof proxyagencyinthecontextofsingulargroupaction,wherebyanagentorgroupin doingsomething(intherightcontext)makesitthecasethatanotherpersonorgroup (perhapssubsumingthem)doessomething.Anexampleisthatofaspokespersonfor agroupwhoseutteranceacts,performedinherofficialcapacity,inappropriate contexts,countasthegroup’sannouncingsomething.Chapter13showshowthe materialsdevelopedinChapters6–11canbeusedtogiveananalysisofproxyagency thatshowshowinactingthroughproxyagentstheagencyofallmembersofthegroup isexpressed,focusingonthecaseofthespokesperson,andthentakesupanumberof objectionstotheaccountdevelopedandtheprospectsforitsgeneralization.Chapters 14and15lookbrieflyattwoexamplesofcomplexlarge-scaleinstitutions,whichraise puzzlesabouttheaccountfromvarioussources,corporationsinChapter14,and nationstatesinChapter15,bothbywayofdefenseandbywayofillustrationofthe generalframework.ThisisfollowedbyasummaryandconclusioninChapter16.
Inanevenlongerbook,therewouldhavebeenachapteroncollectiveresponsibility(andthatwaspartoftheoriginalplan),bothtorespondtosomeargumentsfor genuinegroupagentsbasedonthethoughtthatourattributionsofresponsibilityand blametogroupscancomepartfromandnotbereducibletoattributionstotheir
members,andtoexploretheimplicationsoftheframeworkforissuesaboutdistributingresponsibilitytomembersofgroupsandinstitutionsonthebasisofwhatthe groupsdoandwhattheirindividualmembersdo,giventheirvariouscontributions androles(see(Ludwig2007a)forsomediscussionoftheseissuesandafactormodel ofresponsibility).Butthisisalargetopicinitsownright,thisbookislongenoughas itis,andthistaskmustwaitforanotheroccasion.
Thisisstillalongbook,andsomedirectionsforreadersmaybeuseful.Readersof Volume1mayskipdirectlytoChapter3.Readerslookingforaquickerroute throughChapter2mayreadquickly§§2.1–2.5,andthesummary§2.10,andskip §§2.6–2.9.AnevenquickerroutethroughChapter2isjusttoreadtheintroduction, §2.1,andthesummaryin§2.10.§§2.1–2.4ofChapter2mattermostfortheextension ofthemultipleagentsanalysisfrompluraltoinstitutionalactionsentencesin Chapter5,and§2.2and§2.6forunderstandingthegeneralstanceonsharedintentions.§§2.6–2.9ofChapter2concerndetailsofthetheoryofwe-intentionsandof conditionalintentions.Thesedetailsarenotessentialforunderstandingsubsequent discussion,thoughtheyareimportanttounderstandinghowtheprojectrests ultimatelyonconceptsalreadyavailableinourunderstandingofindividualaction andintention.Acertainamountofnotationfromlogicisusedtoformulateanalyses inChapter2,§2.2and§2.3,andin§§2.6–2.7.Thisisrequiredtostatethelogicalform ofthesentencesbeinganalyzedwithrigorandprecision.Howtotranslatethelogical notationisexplainedinChapter2§2.2.However,forreaderslessfamiliarwiththe logicalnotation,English-languageparaphrasesarealsoprovided.Thoughtheyare lessprecisethantheirformalcounterparts,andthereforeapttoraiseconcernsthe formalcounterpartswillnot,theyconveythegeneralideaoftheformalcounterparts. Inlaterchapters,logicalnotationisusedprimarilyinChapters4and5,with Chapter5§5.2makingheaviestuseofit.Subsequentchaptersrequirenofamiliarity withthelogicalnotation.Chapters3–5formaunitthatfocusesonthelogicalformof singulargroupactionsentences.Chaptersfrom6to15alsoformaunitthatfocuses onthefundamentalconceptualunitsintheanalysisofinstitutionalstructure.Much ofthismaterialwillbeaccessibleindependentlyofthe firstunit,forthoughultimately theaccountofinstitutionalagencypresupposesthemultipleagentsaccount,the detailsareleftinthebackground.Chapters6–7,whichfocusonessentiallyintentionalactiontypesandconstitutiverules,arefoundationalfortheaccountofstatus functionsandroles,whicharethecentralconceptsfortheanalysisofinstitutional structures,anaccountofwhichisgiveninChapters8–10.Thesematerialsthenare appliedinChapters11–13tomembershipininstitutionsandproxyagency.Thus, Chapters6–13formasubunitonthefundamentalconceptsoutofwhichinstitutionalrealityisbuilt.ThenChapters14and15applytheframeworktoverylarge institutionalgroups,incorporationsandnationstates.
PluralAgency Wedomanythingsbyourselves,ofnecessityorconvenience.Nooneelsecould,in principle,walkorstandorsitforme,andevenifIcould,inprinciple,shaveorbrush myteethjointlywithanother,doingitaloneismoreefficient.Manythingswedo withothers,alsoofnecessityorconvenience.Nosinglepersoncouldhavebuiltthe GreatWallofChina.AndevenifIcouldfencemybackyardalone,havingsomeone helpmakesitquicker,andbyadivisionoflabor,moreefficient.
Someofwhatwedowithotherswedounintentionallyandsomeintentionally. Wearepoisoningtheenvironmenttogether.Noneofuscouldaccomplishthisalone. Butwearenotdoingittogetherintentionally.Ifyouagreetohelpmefencemy backyard,incontrast,wefencetheyardtogetherintentionally.Weintendtobeing doingittogether.Wecansaythatweshareanintentiontofencethebackyard.Some ofwhatwedotogetherintentionallywe could havedonetogetherunintentionally. Wemighteachhavefencedhalfofthebackyard(ourbackstoeachother,listeningto musiconearbuds)withoutrealizingtheotherwasworkingonittoo.Inthiscase,we fencedtheyardtogether,butnotintentionally.Otherthingswedotogetherareby theirnaturejointintentionalactions,suchasplayingchess,havingaconversation, takingawalktogether,orgettingmarried.
Whatisthedifferencebetweendoingsomethingaloneandwithothers?What,if anything,isajointaction?Whenwedosomethingtogether,isthereajointagent overandaboveeachofus?Whatisitforagrouptointendtodosomething together,tohaveasharedintention?Howisthisrelatedtothedifferencebetween doingsomethingunintentionallywithothersanddoingitwithothersintentionally?Ifthisdifferenceliesintheintentionsoftheindividualswhotogetherbring somethingaboutintentionally,whatisspecialabouttheirintentions their we-intentions?
Thischapterprovidesafoundationfortheinvestigationofinstitutionalagencyby providingananswertothesequestionsinthecontextofinformaljointaction, intentionalandunintentional.Thematerialreviewedhereisdiscussedanddefended inmoredetailinVolume1(thereaderofVolume1mayskipthischapter).Hereis thesummaryversionoftheaccount.First,thedifferencebetweendoingsomething aloneandwithothersisthedifferencebetweenbeingthesoleagent(inacertain determinateway)ofsomeeventandtherebeingmultipleagentswhoare(theonly) agents(insomedeterminateway)ofsomeevent.Icallthisthemultipleagents accountofcollectiveaction.Second,thereisnothingstrictlyspeakingthatisajoint actioninthesenseinwhichthereareactionsinthecaseofindividuals.Actionsinthe caseofindividualsarethoseeventsofwhichtheyareprimitiveagents.Nogroup standsinpreciselythatrelationtoanyeventitsmembersbringaboutbywayoftheir
individualprimitiveactions.Third,asthereisnojointagentofwhatgroupsdo (inthecaseofinformalgroupaction),thereisnoneedtopostulategrouplevel cognitivestatestoexplainit.Fourth,thedifferencebetweenjointintentionalaction andjointunintentionalactionisthatinthe firstcasetheeventexpressedbythe relevantactionverbisbroughtabout(intherightway)bywayoftheindividualsin thegroupeachintendingthathebringitaboutthat thereisaplantheysharein accordancewithwhichtheytogetherbringaboutaneventoftherelevanttype.
2.1Individualvs.JointActionandIntention Wecanbeginbycontrasting[1]–[3]with[4]–[6].
[1]Iintendtosingthenational anthem
[4]Weintendtosingthenational anthem
[2]Isangthenationalanthem[5]Wesangthenationalanthem [3]Isangthenationalanthem intentionally [6]Wesangthenationalanthem intentionally
[1]–[3]areaboutindividualintentionandaction.[4]–[6]areaboutjointintention andaction,ontheircollectivereadings.Theproblemofcollectiveactionand intention(forpluralagency)istosayhowthetruthconditionsfor[1]–[3]differ fromthetruthconditionsfor[4]–[6],ontheircollectivereadings.In[1]–[3],the subjectoftheintentionandactionisthereferentofthe firstpersonpronoun(asused onaparticularoccasion).Itseems,byparityofreasoning,thesubjectoftheintention andactioninthecaseof[4]–[6]shouldbethereferentofthe firstpersonplural pronoun,and,hence,agroupofagentsratherthansingleagents.Wewillseeinthe sequelthatthisisamistake.
In§2.2,Ilayoutanaccountofthelogicalformofsingularactionsentences,andin §2.3Ishowthatinthelightoftheanalysisofsingularactionsentencesandthe distributive/collectiveambiguityinpluralactionsentences,theappearancethatthe truthof[5]and[6]requiresagroupagentismistaken.Jointactionrequiresnota singlegroupagentbutonlymultipleagentsofasingleevent.Ananalysisofthe logicalformof[5]and[6]showsthattheyinvolvedistributivequanti fiersover membersofthegroup,evenontheircollectivereadings.Thisshowsalsothatwe donotneedtocountenanceagroupintenderin[4].Thisisratherabouteach memberofthegrouphavinganintentionofacertainsort,awe-intention,directed attheirdoingsomethingtogether.§2.4takesabrieflookatthequestionofhowto understandtalkofgroupactionsinlightofthedistributiveunderstandingof collectiveactionsentences.Then§2.5relatessharedintentionstowe-intentionsin thelightofthediscussionin§2.3.§2.6reviewsanaccountofthecontentofintentions directedatindividualratherthanjointactionasin[1].With§§2.2–2.6asbackground,§2.7givesanaccountofthecontentofwe-intentionsintermsoftheir contentaimingatthegroupdoingsomethingtogetherinaccordancewithashared plan.In§2.8,weusetheseresultstogivethetruthconditionsforstatementsabout jointintentionalaction.§2.9reviewsanaccountofconditionalintentionsbothfor individualandforsharedintention.§2.10summarizesthechapter.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
5. Stamina a Pistillo diducta; antherâ unâ lente auctâ.
6. Stylus et Stigma lente aucta.
SPECIFIC CHARACTER.
H , with tips two-horned at their base, within the blossom; the leaves grow by fours, and are rolled back; the flowers are clammy, grow in bunches, are flask-shaped, striped, and nearly an inch and a half long.
DESCRIPTION. S shrubby, grows about a foot high, and branching; the branches are crooked, and thread-shaped.
L grow by fours, are three-sided, fringed, rolled back, sharppointed, smooth on the upper, and furrowed on the under surface; with short footstalks, pressed to the branches.
F grow in bunches, mostly of four, are clammy, and terminate the branches; the fruit-stalks are long, having three spathula-shaped floral leaves.
E . Cup four-leaved, which are spathula-shaped, fringed at the edges, clammy, and pressed to the blossom.
B swelled at the base, and tapering to the top, striped longitudinally, nearly an inch and a half long, straightened at the mouth, which is of a deep purple; the segments egg-shaped, and spreading.
C . Eight hair-like threads; tips within the blossom, are cleft in two, and two-horned at their base.
P . Seed-vessel club-shaped, and furrowed. Shaft without the blossom, and thread-shaped. Summit four-cornered, and green.
Native of the Cape of Good Hope.
Flowers from the month of July till October.
REFERENCE.
1. A Leaf magnified.
2. The Empalement and Blossom.
3. The Empalement magnified.
4. The Chives and Pointal.
5. The Chives detached from the Pointal; one tip magnified.
6. The Shaft and its Summit magnified.
ERICA baccans. CHARACTER SPECIFICUS. E , antheris cristatis, inclusis; folia quaterna, rigida, glauca; corollis globosis, umbellatis calycibusque purpureis,
DESCRIPTIO C fruticosus, erectus, sesquipedalis, ramosissimus; rami rigidi, erecti, torti.
F quaterna, glauca, incurvata, subtus sulcata, rigida, serrulata.
F terminales, plerumque quatuor, umbellati, nutantes; pedunculi longi, purpurei, bracteis tribus instructi.
C . Perianthium tetraphyllum, foliolis ovatis, carinatis, adpressis.
C globosa purpurea, ima quadrata; limbo quadrilobo, laciniis æqualibus, erectis.
S . Filamenta octo capillaria, receptaculo inserta. Antheraæ cristatæ, inclusæ.
P . Germen globosum, magnum, sulcatum; stylus subexsertus, pyramidatus; stigma tetragonum.
Habitat ad Caput Bonæ Spei.
Floret a mense Aprilis, in Julium.
REFERENTIA.
1. Calyx, et Corolla,
2. Calyx lente auctus.
3. Stamina, et Pistillum.
4. Stamina a Pistillo diducta, anthera una lente aucta.
5. Pistillum et Germen lente auctum.
SPECIFIC CHARACTER. H , with crested tips, within the blossom; the leaves grow by fours, are harsh, and of a whitish green; the flowers are globular, in bunches, and are, as well as their cups, purple.
DESCRIPTION. S shrubby, upright, a foot and a half high, and very branching; the branches are harsh, upright, and twisted.
L grow by fours, are of a whitish green, and bent inwards, furrowed beneath, harsh, and slightly sawed at the edge.
F grow at the ends of the branches, mostly by fours, in bunches, and nodding; the foot-stalks are long and purple, having three floral leaves.
E . Cup four-leaved, leaflets egg-shaped, keeled, and pressed to the blossom.
B globular, purple, and squared at the base; the border four-lobed, the segments of which are upright, and equal.
C . Eight hair-like threads fixed into the receptacle. The tips crested, and within the blossom.
P . Seed-vessel globular, large, and furrowed; the shaft nearly without the blossom, tapering from the base; the summit four-cornered.
Native of the Cape of Good Hope.
Flowers from April, till July.
REFERENCE. 1. The Empalement, and Blossom.
2. The Empalement magnified.
3. The Chives and Pointal.
4. The Chives detached from the Pointal; one tip magnified.
5. The Pointal and Seed-vessel magnified.
ERICA Banksia.
CHARACTER SPECIFICUS. E , antheræ muticæ, exsertæ, attenuata in filamenta plana; corolla cylindrica, viridi-lutea; caulis decumbens, sub-spithamæus; folia terna.
DESCRIPTIO C decumbens, rigidus, scaber, sub-spithamæus, ramosissimus; ramulis brevibus.
F terna, subulata, trigona, acuminata, subtus tenuissime sulcata, supra plana, glabra, profundé viridia; petiolis brevissimis, adpressis.
F in ultimis ramulis, bini vel terni, cernui; pedunculi brevissimi, bracteis nullis.
C . Perianthium duplex, exterius triphyllum, foliolis lato-ovatis, rigidis, carinatis, acuminatis; interius tetraphyllum, foliolis flaccidis, linearibus, longioribus.
C cylindrica, ad basin parum inflata, viridi-lutea, oris laciniis revolutis.
S . Filamenta octo linearia, plana, corolla multoties longiora, receptaculo inserta. Antheræ muticæ, exsertæ, nec filamentis distinguendis.
P . Germen sub-ovatum. Stylus filiformis, exsertus. Stigma tetragonum.
Habitat ad Caput Bonæ Spei.
Floret a mensi Februarii, in Julium.
REFERENTIA.
1. Calyx, et Corolla, 2. Calyx lente auctus.
3. Stamina, et Pistillum.
4. Stamina a Pistillo diducta; anthera una lente aucta.
5. Stylus, et Stigma, lente aucta.
SPECIFIC CHARACTER H , whose tips are beardless, without the blossom, and tapering into threads, which are flat; the blossom is cylindrical, of a greenish yellow; the stem droops, is scarce a span high; the leaves grow by threes.
DESCRIPTION S drooping, harsh, rough, less than a span in height, and very much branched; the smaller branches are short.
The L grow by threes, are awl-shaped, three-sided, and sharppointed, slightly channelled on the under part, smooth on the upper, and flat, of a deep green colour, having short foot-stalks pressed to the stem.
F grow by twos or threes at the end of the smaller branches, hanging down; the foot-stalks are very short, without any floral leaves.
E . Cup double, the outer three-leaved, which are of a broad egg-shape, harsh, keeled, and sharp pointed; the inner is four-leaved, longer than the former, linear, and limber.
The B is cylindrical, slightly swelled at the base, of a greenishyellow; the segments of the mouth are rolled back.
C . Eight linear, flat threads, much longer than the blossom, fixed into the receptacle. Tips beardless, without the blossom, and not to be distinguished from the threads.
P . Seed-vessel nearly oval. Shaft thread-shaped, and without the blossom. Summit four-cornered.
Native of the Cape of Good Hope.
Flowers from February, till July.
REFERENCE 1. The Empalement, and Blossom.
2. The Empalement magnified.
3. The Chives, and Pointal.
4. The Chives detached from the Pointal; one tip magnified.
5. The Shaft, and its Summit, magnified.
ERICA Bruniades.
CHARACTER SPECIFICUS. E , antheris muticis, exsertis, floribus terminalibus, sessilibus, subternis; corollis albidis, urceolatis, tectis calyce lanato; calycis foliolis ovatis, carneis; foliis ternis, linearibus, obtusis, margine revolutis, pilosis.
DESCRIPTIO. C filiformis, sub-erectus, glaber, flexuosus; rami filiformes, villosi, ramuli capillares, frequentes, tomentosi.
F terna, linearia, obtusa; seniora, reflexa, juniora patentia, margine pilis longis hirta.
F in extremis ramulis terminales, sessiles, sub-terni; bracteis tribus, minutis, adpressis.
C . Perianthium tetraphyllum, foliolis ovatis, concavis, exterioribus totis densissime albo-lanatis, interioribus carneis.
C urceolata, pubescens, alba, tota tecta calyce lanato; oris laciniis patentibus, obtusis.
S . Filamenta octo capillaria. Antheris muticis, exsertis, atris.
P . Germen turbinatum, pubescentem, ad basin glandulosum. Stylus filiformis, staminibus paulo longior. Stigma tetragonum.
Habitat ad Caput Bonæ Spei.
Floret a mensi Februarii in Junium.
REFERENTIA 1. Folium unum, lente auctum.
2. Calyx.
3. Calyx, auctus.
4. Corolla.
5. Corolla, aucta.
6. Stamina, et Pistillum.
7. Stamina a Pistillo diducta.
8. Stamen unum, auctum.
9. Pistillum, auctum.
SPECIFIC CHARACTER. H , with beardless tips, without the blossom, flowers terminating the smaller branches, nearly without foot-stalks, mostly by threes; blossoms white, pitcher-shaped, and covered by a woolly cup; the leaflets of the cup are egg-shaped, and flesh-coloured; the leaves grow by threes, are linear, blunt, rolled back at the edge, and hairy.
DESCRIPTION. S thread-shaped, nearly upright, smooth, and growing zig-zag; the branches are thread-shaped, and hairy; the smaller branches are hair-like, numerous, and downy.
L grow by threes, are linear, and blunt, the older ones are bent back, the younger ones spreading out, the edge covered with long hairs.
F grow at the extremity of the younger branches, sitting close, and mostly by threes; three small floral leaves, pressed to the cup.
E . Cup of four leaves, which are egg-shaped, concave, on their outsides covered with a thick white wool, and on their insides flesh coloured.
B pitcher-shaped, downy, white, and covered totally by a woolly cup; the segments of the mouth are spread out, and blunt.
C . Eight hair-like threads. Tips beardless, without the blossom, and black.
P . Seed-bud turban-shape, downy, and glandular at the base. Shaft thread-shaped, a little longer than the chives. Summit four-cornered.
Native of the Cape of Good Hope.
Flowers from February, till June.
REFERENCE. 1. A Leaf, magnified.
2. The Empalement.
3. The Empalement, magnified.
4. The Blossom.
5. The Blossom, magnified.
6. The Chives, and Pointal.
7. The Chives, detached from the Pointal.
8. A Chive, magnified.
9. The Pointal, magnified.
ERICA caffra.
CHARACTER SPECIFICUS. E , antheris aristatis, inclusis, stylo exserto; corollis campanulatis, albidis; floribus umbellatis, secundis, cernuis, odoratissimis; foliis quaternis, linearibus, scabridis.
DESCRIPTIO. C fructicosus, pedalis, rami et ramuli erecti, cinereo-tomentosi, rigidi.
F quaterna, linearia, obtusa, subciliata, scabrida, patentia; petiolis brevissimis, adpressis.
F in ramis supremis racemosi, secundi, cernui, umbellati; pedunculi brevissimi, bracteis tribus minutis instructi.
C . Perianthium tetraphyllum, foliolis acuminatis, brevissimis, glabris, adpressis,
C campanulata, minuta, odoratissima, alba; laciniis erectis, apicibus parum reflexis.
S . Filamenta octo capillaria, apice curvata. Antheræ aristatæ, inclusæ.
P . Germen sub-globosum, sulcatum. Stylus exsertus. Stigma tetragonum.
Habitat ad Caput Bonæ Spei.
Floret a mensi Octobris, in Februarium.
REFERENTIA. 1. Folium unum, lente auctum.
2. Calyx, et Corolla.
3. Calyx, lente auctus.
4. Stamina, lente aucta.
5. Pistillum, lente auctum.
SPECIFIC CHARACTER H , with bearded tips, within the blossom; the shaft without; the blossoms bell-shaped and white; flowers grow in bunches, pointing all one way, nodding and very sweet; leaves grow by fours, linear and rough.
DESCRIPTION S shrubby, growing a foot high, the larger and smaller branches grow upright, of an ash colour, downy and harsh.
L grow by fours, linear, obtuse, a little hairy, roughish and spreading; with very short foot-stalks, pressed to the branches.
F grow on the upper branches in loose spikes, pointing one way, nodding and in bunches; the foot-stalks very short, having three small floral leaves.
E . Cup of four leaves, which are tapered, very short, smooth and pressed to the blossom.
B , bell-shaped, small, sweet-scented, and white; the segments upright, with the points a little bent outwards.
C . Eight hair-like threads, curved at the end. Tips bearded, and within the blossom.
P . Seed-bud nearly globular and furrowed. Shaft without the blossom. Summit four-cornered.
Native of the Cape of Good Hope.
Flowers from October, till February.
REFERENCE.
1. A Leaf, magnified.
2. The Empalement, and Blossom.
3. The Empalement, magnified.
4. The Chives, magnified.
5. The Pointal, magnified.
ERICA calycina. CHARACTER SPECIFICUS. E , antheris cristatis, inclusis; foliis ternis; rami filiformes; corollis minutis, urceoli-formes; calycis foliola corolla longiora; pedunculis longissimis.
DESCRIPTIO. C filiformis, spithameus, erectus, ramosissimus.
F terna, lanceolata, supra concava, adpressa, glabra; petiolis brevissimis.
F plures, in ultimis ramulis terminales, umbellati; pedunculis carneis, longissimis, bracteis tribus coloratis instructis.
C . Perianthium tetraphyllum, foliolis lato-ovatis, carneis, corolla longiora.
C minuta, urceoli-formis, apice dilute carnea, ad basi virescens; oris laciniis reflexis, saturate carneis.
S . Filamenta octo capillaria; antheræ cristatæ, inclusæ.
P . Germen sub-globosum. Stylus sub-exsertus filiformis. Stigma tetragonum.
Habitat ad Caput Bonæ Spei.
Floret a mensi Septembri, in Decembrem.
REFERENTIA. 1. Calyx, et Corolla.
2. Corolla.
3. Calyx, lente auctus.
4. Stamina, et Pistillum.
