On the Nature of Social Kinds

16Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

According to the so-called difference thesis, unlike natural kinds, some social kinds depend ontologically on our attitudes toward them. The difference thesis puts realism into question. It implies that these kinds can only be invented, not discovered, and that we cannot be wrong about them. In this chapter, I will challenge the difference thesis, arguing that dependence on collective propositional attitudes directed toward the kind itself is neither necessary nor sufficient for an institutional kind to exist. I will argue that it is unnecessary and insufficient even for the core cases – like money – that are usually cited in support of the thesis. If I am right, then realism holds across the board. Institutional kinds are not radically different from natural kinds: their properties ought to be discovered, and people can be massively wrong about them. Folk concepts and institutional kinds may diverge considerably, and social science is the best source of knowledge we have concerning the structure of social reality.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Guala, F. (2014). On the Nature of Social Kinds. In Studies in the Philosophy of Sociality (Vol. 4, pp. 57–68). Springer Science and Business Media B.V. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9147-2_5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free