Social Entities and the Basis of Their Powers

  • Dave Elder-Vass
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 372)


This paper offers an emergentist justification for the claim that social structure is causally significant when it takes the form of social entities with relationally emergent causal powers. Such powers are generated by processes of interaction between the characteristic set of parts, given the characteristic relations between them, that occur in entities of the type concerned. The paper offers a justification of this argument in the face of criticisms that it is too weak to ground causal claims, arguing on the contrary that debates in the philosophy of mind have raised expectations of emergence theory beyond what it can plausibly deliver. The relational form of emergence theory provides a viable refutation of eliminative reductionism as a generalised strategy, and can also be employed to refute the form of eliminative reductionism known as methodological individualism. This kind of emergence theory delivers just what we need from the concept: it justifies the need for higher level sciences to study higher level mechanisms and powers, mechanisms whose explanation will never be made redundant by some lower level theory of everything. It also supports a specific way of thinking about social structure that is arguably rather different from the ways that have tended to dominate sociological discourse. My project includes developing such theory, and the final part of the paper illustrates how this way of thinking about emergence in the social sphere leads to useful and interesting ways of reconceptualising social structure.


Social emergence Methodological individualism Relational emergence Causal powers Norm circles 


  1. Allen, C., Todd, P. M., & Weinberg, J. M. (2012). Reasoning and rationality. In E. Margolis, R. Samuels, & S. P. Stich (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of cognitive science (pp. 41–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedau, M. A. (1997). Weak emergence. Philosophical Perspectives, 11, 375–399.Google Scholar
  4. Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds: Leeds Books.Google Scholar
  5. Block, N. (2003). Do causal powers drain away? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LXVII, 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chernilo, D. (2007). A social theory of the nation-state. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Elder-Vass, D. (2005). Emergence and the realist account of cause. Journal of Critical Realism, 4, 315–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elder-Vass, D. (2010). The causal power of social structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elder-Vass, D. (2011). The causal power of discourse. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 41, 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elder-Vass, D. (2012a). The reality of social construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elder-Vass, D. (2012b). Top-down causation and social structures. Interface Focus, 2, 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gell-Mann, M. (1995). The quark and the jaguar. London: Abacus.Google Scholar
  13. Harré, R., & Bhaskar, R. (2001). How to change reality: Story v. structure – A debate. In J. López & G. Potter (Eds.), After postmodernism: An introduction to critical realism (pp. 22–39). London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kim, J. (1993). The non-reductivist’s troubles with mental causation. In J. Heil & A. R. Mele (Eds.), Mental causation (pp. 189–210). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  15. Kim, J. (1998). Mind in a physical world. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kim, J. (1999). Making sense of emergence. Philosophical Studies, 95, 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim, J. (2006). Emergence: Core ideas and issues. Synthese, 151, 547–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Searle, J. R. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Searle, J. R. (2002). Why I am not a property dualist. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9, 57–64.Google Scholar
  20. Stephan, A. (2002). Emergentism, irreducibility, and downward causation. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 65, 77–94.Google Scholar
  21. Stones, R. (2005). Structuration theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Varela, C. R., & Harre, R. (1996). Conflicting varieties of realism. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 26, 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wimsatt, W. C. (2000). Emergence as non-aggregativity and the biases of reductionisms. Foundations of Science, 5, 269–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social SciencesLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations