Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Collective intentionality and the social status of artifactual kinds

  • David Pearce
Abstract

There is a well-developed view of artifacts according to which their nature depends on the intentions of their authors or creators. However, in the modern world of artifact design and creation, typically not one but many agents are involved in the process of making an artifact. In this paper, I show how the intentional view can be maintained even for ‘collective’ artifacts having multiple authors. My approach is to combine some basic concepts that have been proposed in the study of collective intentionality with a suitable model of artifact creation that takes account of the multiple agents and processes that arise in design, engineering and manufacturing a new or existing product. In this way, we can explain how an artifactual kind can be understood via a form of collective intentionality. For the design sciences, notions such as we-intentionality and group agency can help to model different types of cooperation and, in particular, to reconcile individualism with strong forms of collectivity at a group level.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Collective intentionality and the social status of artifactual kinds
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Collective intentionality and the social status of artifactual kinds
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Collective intentionality and the social status of artifactual kinds
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Distributed as Open Access under a CC-BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Corresponding author
Email address for correspondence: david.pearce@upm.es
References
Hide All
Bacharach, M. 2006 Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory (ed. Gold, N. & Sugden, R.). Princeton University Press.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. & Pinch, T. J.(Eds) 1987 The Social Construction of Technological Systems. MIT Press.
Bratman, M. 1999 Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency. Cambridge University Press.
Bratman, M. 2014 Shared Agency. A Planning Theory of Acting Together. Oxford University Press.
Brentano, F. 1874 Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Duncker & Humblot.
Collins, H. & Kusch, M. 1998 The Shape of Actions. MIT Press.
Colman, A., Pulford, B. & Lawrence, C. 2014 Explaining strategic coordination: cognitive hierarchy theory, strong Stackelberg reasoning, and team reasoning. Decision 1 (1), 3558.
Franssen, M., Kroes, P., Reydon, T. A. C. & Vermaas, P. E.(Eds) 2014 Artefact Kinds. Ontology and the Human-Made World, Synthese Library, vol. 365. Springer.
Gaudou, B., Herzig, A., Longin, D. & Lorini, E. 2015 On modal logics of group belief. The Cognitive Foundations of Group Attitudes and Social Interaction (ed. Herzig & Lorini), Springer.
von Gierke, O.1950 Natural Law and the Theory of Society 1500–1800, Engl. trans. by Ernest Barker, CUP.
Gilbert, M. 1989 On Social Facts. Princeton University Press.
Gilbert, M. 2013 Joint Commitment. Oxford University Press.
Gold, N. & Sugden, R. 2007 Collective Intentions and Team Agency. Journal of Philosophy 104, 109137.
Hansson, S. O. 2006 Defining technical function. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37, 1922.
Hilpinen, R. 1993 Authors and Artifacts. Proc. Aristotelian Soc. New Series 93, 155178.
Hilpinen, R.2011 ‘Artifact’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition) (ed. E. N. Zalta), URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/artifact/.
von Hippel, E. 2005 Democtratizing Innovation. MIT Press.
von Hippel, E., Ogawa, S. & de Jong, J. 2011 The age of the consumer-innovator. MIT Sloan Management Review 53 (1), 2735.
Houkes, W. & Vermaas, P. 2004 Actions versus functions: a Plea for an alternative metaphysics of artefacts. The Monist 87, 5271.
Houkes, W. & Vermaas, P. 2009 Contemporary engineering and the metaphysics of artefacts: beyond the artisan model. The Monist 92, 403419.
Houkes, W., Vermaas, P., Dorst, K. & de Vries, M. 2002 Design and use as plans: an action-theoretical account. Design Studies 23 (3), 303320.
Ingarden, R. 1961 Untersuchungen zur Ontologie der Kunst. Max Niemeyer Verlag.
International Organization for Standardization2010 ISO 9241-210: Ergonomics of human-centred System Interaction - part 210: human-centred Design for interactive Systems, International Organization for Standardization.
Kroes, P. 2010a Theories of technical functions: function ascriptions versus function assignments, Part 1. Design Issues 26 (3), 8593.
Kroes, P. 2010b Theories of technical functions: function ascriptions versus function assignments, Part 2. Design Issues 26 (4), 6269.
Lane, D.2010 Complexity and Innovation Dynamics, INSITE Project Papers, http://www.insiteproject.org/paper/complexity-and-innovation-dynamics/.
Lane, D. & Maxfield, R. 2005 Ontological uncertainty and innovation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 15, 350.
List, C. & Pettit, P. 2011 Group Agency. The Possibility, Design and Status of Corporate Agents. Oxford University Press.
Margolis, E. & Laurence, S.(Eds) 2007 Creations of the Mind. Theories of Artifacts and their Representation. Oxford University Press.
McLaughlin, P. 2001 What Functions Explain: Functional Explanation and Self-Reproducing Systems. Cambridge University Press.
Millikan, R. 1999 Wings, spoons, pills and quills: a pluralist theory of function. The Journal of Philosophy 96 (4), 191206.
Miłkowski, M.(Ed.) 2013 Relevance of wide cognition for social intelligence. Key trends. Whitepaper available at http://www.sintelnet.eu.
Kroes, P. & Meijers, A.2002 The Dual Nature of Technical Artifacts - presentation of a new research programme, Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 6, http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v6n2/kroes.html.
Pinch, T. J. & Bijker, W. E.1987 The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other (ed. Bijker et al. ), pp. 17–50.
Rothfeder, J. 2014 Driving Honda. Inside the World’s Most Innovative Car Company. Portfolio Penguin.
Sanders, E. B.-N. & Stappers, P. J. 2008 Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4, 518.
Schyfter, C. P. 2009 The bootstrapped artifact. A collectivist account of technological ontology, functions and normativity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40, 102111.
Searle, J. 1995 The Construction of Social Reality. Allen Lane, The Penguin Press.
Searle, J. 2010 Making the Social World. The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford University Press.
Sellars, W. 1968 Science and Metaphysics. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Smith, T. H. 2015 Shared agency on Gilbert and deep continuity. Journal of Social Ontology 1, 4957.
Sugden, R. 2015 Team reasoning and intentional cooperation for mutual benefit. Journal of Social Ontology 1, 143166.
Thomasson, A. 2003 Realism and human kinds. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67, 580609.
Thomasson, A. 2007 Artifacts and human concepts. In Creations of the Mind. Theories of Artifacts and their Representation (ed. Margolis, E. & Laurence, S.), pp. 5273. Oxford University Press.
Thomasson, A. 2014 Public artifacts, intentions, and norms. In Artefact Kinds: Ontology and the Human-Made World (ed. Franssen, M., Kroes, P., Reydon, T. A. C. & Vermaas, P. E.), Synthese Library, vol. 365, pp. 4562. Springer.
Tomasello, M. 2009 Why We Cooperate. MIT Press.
Tuomela, R. A. 1984 A Theory of Social Action, Synthese Library, vol. 171. Springer.
Tuomela, R. 1992 Group beliefs. Synthese 91, 285318.
Tuomela, R. 2007 The Philosophy of Sociality. Oxford University Press.
Tuomela, R. 2013 Social Ontology. Collective Intentionality and Group Agents. Oxford University Press.
Tuomela, R. & Miller, K. 1985 We-intentions and social action. Analyse & Kritik 7, 2643.
Ullman, D. G. 2010 The Mechanical Design Process, 4th edn. McGraw–Hill.
Vega-Encabo, J. & Lawler, D. 2014 Creating artifactual kinds. In Artefact Kinds: Ontology and the Human-Made World (ed. Franssen, M., Kroes, P., Reydon, T. A. C. & Vermaas, P. E.), Synthese Library, vol. 365, pp. 105124. Springer.
Vermaas, P. & Houkes, W. 2006 Technical functions: a drawbridge between the intentional and structural natures of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37, 518.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Design Science
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 2053-4701
  • URL: /core/journals/design-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed