Advertisement

How Where We Stand Constrains Where I Stand: Applying Bratman’s Account of Self-Governance to Collective Action

  • Joseph Kisolo-SsonkoEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in the Philosophy of Sociality book series (SIPS, volume 2)

Abstract

Certain theories of collective action claim that collective intentions can have a direct normative power over individuals. This chapter seeks to make sense of the relationship between this and the assumed autonomy of individual agents. It is argued that a modified version of Michael Bratman’s “self-governance” account of the normative force of individual intentions can be applied to collective intentions. Doing this gives a distinct way to understand the normative interplay between the individual and the collective. It changes the way we must see the universality of the normative force of collective intentions and it emphasises the importance of the individual’s agentive identity being entangled with the agentive identity of the collective.

Keywords

Action Theory Collectives Collective Action Collective Intentionality 

References

  1. Bratman, M. 1987. Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bratman, M. 1999. Faces of intention: Selected essays on intention and agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bratman, M. 2000. Reflection, planning and temporally extended agency. Philosophical Review 109(1): 35–61.Google Scholar
  4. Bratman, M. 2004. Shared valuing and frameworks for practical reasoning. In Reason and value, ed. R.G. Wallace, P. Pettit, S. Scheffler, and M. Smith, 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bratman, M. 2009. Intention, practical rationality and self-governance. Ethics 119: 411–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broome, J. 1999. Normative requirements. Ratio (new series) XII: 398–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davidson, D. 2001 [1963]. Actions, reasons and causes. In Essays on actions and events, 3–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ebert, P., and R. Roberson. 2010. Mountaineering and the value of self-sufficiency. In Climbing—Philosophy for everyone, ed. S.E. Schmid. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Frankfurt, H. 1971. Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. Journal of Philosophy 68(1): 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frankfurt, H. 1997. The problem of action. In The philosophy of action, ed. A. Mele, 42–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert, M. 1992. On social facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gilbert, M. 1996. Living together: Rationality, sociality and obligation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  13. Gilbert, M. 2000. Sociality and responsibility: New essays in plural subject theory. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  14. Graham, K. 2007. Practical reasoning in a social world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hollis, M. 1998. Trust within reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roth, A.S. 2004. Shared agency and contralateral commitments. Philosophical Review 113(3): 359–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schmid, H.B. 2009. Plural action: Essays in philosophy and social science. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Velleman, D. 2000. The possibility of practical reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySheffield UniversitySheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations