Social Ontology and the Objection from Reification

Machery, Édouard

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9147-2_7

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this is changed to "mechanistic social construction" to prevent the confusion regarding the different meaning of "natural" in "naturalistic social construction" (compatible with different levels of explanation) versus "natural kinds" (mind independent categories which reflect 'actual' structures of the world) (Searle, 2010;Barrett, 2006Barrett, , 2012Barrett, , 2017aSperber, 2011;Gallotti & Michael, 2014;Millikan. 2014;Epstein, 2014;Guala, 2014;Machery, 2014;Fiebich, 2014;Hohwy, & Palmer, 2014. See also Maul, 2013;Yanchar & Hill, 2013;Hacking, 1999).…”

Section: Appendix B: Philosophical Grounding -Mechanistic Social Construction and Further Considerations In Ontologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Dynamics of Charismatic Attribution: How and Why Do People Think of Other Individuals as Charismatic?

Silan¹

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Charisma is a popular and enthralling concept both in its academic and lay usage; with some alluding to the role of charisma as important to various historical events including the 2016 Philippine presidential elections (Curato, 2016; Francisco, 2017; Pedrosa, 2015). However, the dynamics of charismatic attribution – how and why people think of, label, perceive or categorize other individuals as charismatic – has had a disproportionately fewer share of discussion in the literature. This is despite the fact that charismatic attribution has played a central, if implicit, role in the development of the construct of charisma. This study sought to explore the dynamics of charismatic attribution, and pagtatanong-tanong (indigenous participatory interview; Pe-Pua, 2006) was done with N=17 participants (523 minutes of audio recorded data) of diverse occupations, ages, and SES. The participants' conceptualization of charisma varies, but the role of effects is primary. These effects include 1.) capturing attention, 2.) behavioral influence, 3.) making people believe the figure's message, 4.) effects on emotion and 5.) having devoted followers. Results indicate that charismatic attribution is mainly an effects-based appraisal - an evaluation of whether figures are able to achieve the participants’ notion of what a charismatic effect is. Various attributes and various behaviors are used to describe charismatic figures in so far as these help produce the previously stated effects but are not in themselves primary considerations for charismatic attribution. Only for a proportion of the participants do moral judgements factor in whether they would think of another individual as charismatic. It is argued that the process of charismatic attribution facilitates attending to internal characteristics of figures to describe and explain why effects occur. Charismatic attribution allows to make sense and simplify complex social phenomenon. Other theoretical considerations are then discussed, including a comparison with the signaling framework of charisma (Antonakis et al., 2016; Antonakis, 2017) and an alternative model of charisma is developed: The Constructed Charisma Framework.

show abstract

Section: Appendix B: Philosophical Grounding -Mechanistic Social Construction and Further Considerations In Ontologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Dynamics of Charismatic Attribution: How and Why Do People Think of Other Individuals as Charismatic?

Silan¹

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We can note first, the epistemic disanalogies. As Edouard Machery () has recently noted, on Searle's account of institutions, institutions emerge from collective acceptance of status functions. But on the constructionist account, differential treatment emerges from a population of individuals accepting that a category of human is natural.…”

Section: The Missing Referent and The Wrong Kind Of Referentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Construction and Achieving Reference1

Mallon

2015

Nous

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One influential view is that at least some putatively natural human kinds are actually social constructions, understood as some real kind of thing that is produced or sustained by our social and conceptual practices. Category constructionists share two commitments: they hold that human category terms like "race" (and racial terms) and "sex" (and sexual terms) and "homosexuality" and "perversion" actually refer to constructed categories, and they hold that these categories are widely but mistakenly taken to be natural kinds. But it is far from clear that these two commitments are consistent. The sort of mismatch between belief and underlying nature constructionists' suppose is often taken to indicate a failure of reference. Reliance on a causal-historical account of reference allows the preservation of reference, but unfortunately, constructionists' appropriation of causal historical accounts of reference is beset by difficulties that do not attend natural kind theorists' appeals to such accounts. Here, I set out these difficulties, but argue that they can be answered, allowing terms for apparently natural human kinds refer to some sort of social construction about which there is massive error.

show abstract

“…Une partie de la littérature sur le domaine considère en effet que naturalisation et réification constituent deux formes d'essentialisation des catégories sociales (Haslam et Rothschild, 2000), qui se renforcent mutuellement (Yzerbyt et al, 2001). Pour une argumentation en faveur de l'incompatibilité entre la thèse searlienne et l'idée de réification au sens large des entités institutionnelles, voir toutefois Machery (2014).…”

unclassified

Entités institutionnelles et attitudes mentales

Ouzilou

2021

Dialogue

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Résumé La thèse affirmant la dépendance mentale des entités institutionnelles est particulièrement débattue en ontologie sociale. L'une de ses implications est la position infaillibiliste selon laquelle l'existence des entités institutionnelles nécessite que certaines de leurs propriétés soient connues. Quelles sont ces propriétés ? Après avoir présenté la conception searlienne des entités institutionnelles et le type de dépendance mentale qu'elles manifestent, je circonscris le contenu de la position infaillibiliste. Je montre ensuite que ces propriétés sont les pouvoirs déontiques associés à ces entités et que l'attitude mentale vis-à-vis des pouvoirs déontiques doit prendre la forme d'un savoir pratique. Je montre enfin que cette interprétation est compatible avec l'existence d'au moins certaines entités institutionnelles naturalisées.

show abstract

Social Ontology and the Objection from Reification

Cited by 5 publications

References 20 publications

Exploring the Dynamics of Charismatic Attribution: How and Why Do People Think of Other Individuals as Charismatic?

Exploring the Dynamics of Charismatic Attribution: How and Why Do People Think of Other Individuals as Charismatic?

Social Construction and Achieving Reference1

Entités institutionnelles et attitudes mentales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About