Brian Epstein has attempted to milk shiver upwards roughly of our key assumptions close the social the world inwards the past times sever...
Brian Epstein has attempted to milk shiver upwards roughly of our key assumptions close the social the world inwards the past times several years past times challenging the thought of "ontological individualism" -- the thought that social things consist of facts close individuals inwards action, thought, together with interaction, together with nix else. Here is how he puts the thought inwards "Ontological Individualism Reconsidered": "Ontological individualism is the thesis that facts close individuals exhaustively determine social facts” (link).
Epstein's primary argue for doubting ontological individualism is a notion he shares alongside John Searle: that social activity oft involves a setting of law, convention, interpretation, presupposition, implicature, or dominion that cannot travel "reduced" to facts interior to the individuals involved inwards an activity. Searle's concept of a "status fact" is an illustration (link): the fact that John is an Imam is non a purely individual-level fact close John. Instead, it presupposes a construction of religious institutions, rules, procedures, together with beliefs, inwards calorie-free of which John's history of interactions alongside other individuals together with settings qualifies him equally "Imam".
There is roughly other form of individualism that Epstein considers equally a to a greater extent than adequate version -- what he refers to equally "anchor individualism." The diagram below represents his graphical explanation of the human relationship betwixt anchor individualism together with ontological individualism. What does he hateful past times this idea?
Here is 1 of his efforts to explicate the point:
What I volition telephone phone "anchor individualism" is a claim close how frame principles tin sack travel anchored. Ontological individualism, inwards contrast, is best understood equally a claim close how social facts tin sack travel grounded. (101)Frames, evidently, are institutional contexts, or contexts of meaning, inwards the price of which private actions are situated. They constitute the divergence betwixt a bare gear upwards of behaviors together with a full-blooded social action. Alfred lifts his correct mitt to his cap; this is a bodily motion. Alfred salutes his superior officer; this is an institutionally defined activity that depends upon a frame of military machine say-so together with obligation, inwards the context of which the behaviour constitutes a for certain form of social action. (This sounds rather similar, incidentally, to Ryle together with Geertz on the "wink" together with the distinction betwixt sparse together with thick description; Geertz, "Thick Description" in The Interpretation Of Cultures.) H5N1 frame regulation is a stipulation of how an action, performance, or symbolic artifact is constituted, what makes it the socially meaningful matter that it is -- a hundred dollar bill, a first-degree murder, or an Orthodox rabbi. Plainly a frame regulation looks a lot similar a dominion or a constitutive declaration: "any someone who received the score of Bachelors of Science inwards Accounting, completed 150 credit hours of study, together with passed the CPA examine is counted equally a "certified populace accountant".)
But a mere stipulation of condition is non sufficient. If 1 someone individually decides that a academy president shall travel henceforward travel understood to lead hold the say-so to perform spousal human relationship ceremonies, this private announcement does non alter the condition Definition of "university president." Rather, the stipulation must itself lead hold roughly sort of social validity. It must travel "anchored". We tin sack say specifically what would travel required to anchor the condition Definition of academy president considered here; it would require a valid human activity of legislation that creates this power, together with at that spot would quest to travel widespread recognition of the political legitimacy together with bindingness of the novel legislation.
Epstein observes that Searle believes that anchoring of a frame regulation e'er comes downward to "collective acceptance" (103). But Epstein notes that other theorists lead hold a broader invention of anchoring: attitudes, conforming behaviors, conventions, shared values close political legitimacy, acts of legislatures, together with so on. What anchor individualism asserts is that each of these forms of anchoring tin sack travel related to the attitudes, beliefs, together with performances of individuals together with groups of individuals.
So on Epstein's view, at that spot are ii complementary versions of individualism. Ontological individualism is a thesis close what is required for grounding a social fact. Ontological individualism maintains that social facts are grounded inwards the behaviors together with thoughts of individuals. But Epstein thinks at that spot is even so something else to stand upwards for inwards our moving painting of social ontology. We quest to travel able to specify what circumstances anchor the frame principles themselves. That is the circumstances that brand an activity or functioning the form of activity that it is. To telephone phone a functioning a "marriage" brings alongside it a long gear upwards of presuppositions close history, status, together with validity. These presuppositions constitute a for certain form of frame principle. But nosotros tin sack together with so inquire the question, what makes the frame regulation binding inwards the circumstances? This is where anchoring comes in; anchoring is the gear upwards of facts that create or document the "bindingness" of the frame principles inwards question.
In my reading what makes this a distinctive persuasion from traditional thinking close the human relationship betwixt individuals together with social facts is the drive it represents to formalize the logical standing of circumstances that are intuitively crucial inwards social interactions: the significance, rule-abiding-ness, legitimacy, together with conventionality of a given individual-level behavior. And these circumstances are necessarily distributed across a large grouping of people, involving the kinds of socially reflexive ideas that Searle thinks are constitutive of the social world: presuppositions, implicatures, rules, rituals, conventions, meanings, together with practices. There is no private language, together with at that spot is no private practice. (There are things nosotros do purely individually together with privately; simply together with so these do non constitute "practices" inwards the socially meaningful sense.) So the kinds of things that an anchor analysis calls out are social things.
But it also seems fair to notice that the facts that anchor a practice, convention, or dominion are indeed facts that depend upon states of take away heed together with activity of private actors. So anchor individualism remains a coherent form of individualism. These anchoring facts lead hold microfoundations inwards the thoughts, behavior, habits, together with practices of socially situated individuals.
COMMENTS