Three sources of social indeterminacy

Bibliographic Data

ID21370474
AuthorsJohan Brännmark (0000-0001-6123-479X, Stockholm University, corresponding author)
Year2024
Volume181
Issue1
Pages65-82
Publication date2024-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePhilosophical Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0031-8116 • E-ISSN: 1573-0883
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1007/s11098-023-02079-2
OpenAlexW4388999308
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited52

Social ontologists commonly think that our ideas about social entities, and about other people also inhabiting the social realm, play an important role in making those entities into what they are. At the same time, we know that our ideas are often indeterminate in character, which presumably would mean that this indeterminacy should carry over to the social realm. And yet social indeterminacy is a neglected topic in social ontology. It is argued that this neglect can be traced to how a particular approach that favors ahistorical reconstructions in making sense of social entities has come to dominate social ontology. If we think beyond the parameters set by this approach, however, we can see that recognizing indeterminacy as a pervasive phenomenon in the social realm might open up new interpretative possibilities in relation to different social categories. This argument is at least partly in line with recent calls for a move towards nonideal social ontology

Argument (complex analysis) · Epistemology · Indeterminacy (philosophy) · Ontology · Political science · Realm · Sociology · Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science · Pragmatism in Philosophy and Education · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access