群体的合法性:从我们推理的角度看

Q2 Arts and Humanities Analyse und Kritik Pub Date : 2020-11-01 DOI:10.1515/auk-2020-0014
Agnes Tam
{"title":"群体的合法性:从我们推理的角度看","authors":"Agnes Tam","doi":"10.1515/auk-2020-0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In liberal political philosophy, a prevalent view holds that groups are typically voluntary associations. Members of voluntary associations can accept, revise or reject group practices as a matter of choice. In this article, I challenge this view. Appealing to the concept of joint commitment developed in philosophy of social science, I argue that individuals who jointly commit their wills to a goal or a belief form a ‘We’-group. Members of ‘We’-groups are under an obligation to defer to ‘Our’ will embodied in ‘Our’ norms as a matter of course. I further show the ubiquity of We-groups. This joint commitment account of group authority raises a much-overlooked question of group legitimacy: Do members have good reasons to obey norms of their group? I show that state-centric views of legitimacy are inapt to answer it. A group-centric view, revived from the old communitarian literature, is defended.","PeriodicalId":35240,"journal":{"name":"Analyse und Kritik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Legitimacy of Groups: Toward a We-Reasoning View\",\"authors\":\"Agnes Tam\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/auk-2020-0014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In liberal political philosophy, a prevalent view holds that groups are typically voluntary associations. Members of voluntary associations can accept, revise or reject group practices as a matter of choice. In this article, I challenge this view. Appealing to the concept of joint commitment developed in philosophy of social science, I argue that individuals who jointly commit their wills to a goal or a belief form a ‘We’-group. Members of ‘We’-groups are under an obligation to defer to ‘Our’ will embodied in ‘Our’ norms as a matter of course. I further show the ubiquity of We-groups. This joint commitment account of group authority raises a much-overlooked question of group legitimacy: Do members have good reasons to obey norms of their group? I show that state-centric views of legitimacy are inapt to answer it. A group-centric view, revived from the old communitarian literature, is defended.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analyse und Kritik\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analyse und Kritik\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2020-0014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analyse und Kritik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2020-0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在自由主义政治哲学中,一种流行的观点认为群体是典型的自愿结社。自愿协会的成员可以选择接受、修改或拒绝群体行为。在本文中,我将挑战这种观点。借助于社会科学哲学中发展起来的共同承诺的概念,我认为共同为一个目标或信仰承诺自己意志的个人形成了一个“我们”群体。作为理所当然的事情,“我们”群体的成员有义务遵从体现在“我们”规范中的“我们”的意志。我进一步展示了We-groups的普遍性。这种关于群体权威的共同承诺的解释提出了一个经常被忽视的关于群体合法性的问题:成员是否有充分的理由遵守群体的规范?我认为以国家为中心的合法性观点无法回答这个问题。一种从旧的社群主义文学中复活的群体中心观点得到了捍卫。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Legitimacy of Groups: Toward a We-Reasoning View
Abstract In liberal political philosophy, a prevalent view holds that groups are typically voluntary associations. Members of voluntary associations can accept, revise or reject group practices as a matter of choice. In this article, I challenge this view. Appealing to the concept of joint commitment developed in philosophy of social science, I argue that individuals who jointly commit their wills to a goal or a belief form a ‘We’-group. Members of ‘We’-groups are under an obligation to defer to ‘Our’ will embodied in ‘Our’ norms as a matter of course. I further show the ubiquity of We-groups. This joint commitment account of group authority raises a much-overlooked question of group legitimacy: Do members have good reasons to obey norms of their group? I show that state-centric views of legitimacy are inapt to answer it. A group-centric view, revived from the old communitarian literature, is defended.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Analyse und Kritik
Analyse und Kritik Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
From Prejudice to Polarization and Rejection of Democracy The Stopping Power of Sources Democracy, Civility, and Semantic Descent Ethics and Affect in Resistance to Democratic Regressions Practice Theory as a Tool for Critical Social Theory
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1