Emergence within social systems

Abstract

Emergence is typically discussed in the context of mental properties or the properties of the natural sciences, and accounts of emergence within these contexts tend to look a certain way. The emergent property is taken to emerge instantaneously out of, or to be proximately caused by, complex interaction of colocated entities. Here, I focus on the properties instantiated by the elements of certain systems discussed in social ontology, such as being a five-dollar bill or a pawn-movement, and I suggest that these properties emerge in a distinctive way. They emerge in part because of a system that is far beyond and typically before the object that instantiates them. I characterize how emergence occurs in these cases, juxtaposing it with how emergence is typically discussed. I then consider whether their emergence is best framed as weak or strong as these notions are characterized in the literature, and I reveal what debates are central to answering this question. Though I will not resolve these debates, I do show a collection of views that would vindicate these properties as strongly emergent and downwardly causing.

Determination from Above

“…And while strong emergence is stipulated to require novelty typically cashed out in terms of efficacy,14 this is often thought to involve the possibility of downward causation 15. There are big questions about how downward causation could be possible given the closure of physics, but many emergentists argue that it is, myself included (Silver, 2021, pp. 7882–4).…”

There is No Mystery in Social System

“…The social attributes based on a system can at least lead to the instantiation of further attributes in that system. A serious ontological conclusion is that the social properties are strongly emergent [1] . Compared with language constructionism, which hides the creation of social reality in the secret of language, emergentism straightforwardly leads social reality to mystification.…”

“…Among them, the relationship between social reality and the material carrier that carries that social reality is a very meaningful theme. Assuming that the physical property of the paper used to make a five-dollar bill is X and the property of a five-dollar bill is Y, how is Y generated from X, or how is the property X of paper instantiated into banknote Y [1] ? Similarly, why a person's physical act X of walking across a road is considered an illegal red light-running act Y?…”

“…The foundation of social reality is collective intentionality (collective acceptance and recognition) [3] . Silver maintains that X emerges from Y and this emergence which including downward causality is strong emergence [1] . Language constructivism transfers the contradiction between mental reality and social reality to the operation of language, as if social reality is the power of language itself.…”

Backwards Causation in Social Institutions

“…) recognize, an acceptance of institutional facts is the standard view in social ontology. This has become taken for granted, and the debate has largely shifted to consider the extent to which social categories/properties/kinds are mind dependent (see, inter alia, Khalidi, 2015;Ásta, 2018;Burman, 2019), whether they should be thought of as emergent (e.g., Silver, 2021), and other questions about how to fit institutional reality into a naturalistic picture. Further, it is not obvious that the specter of backwards causation is likely to dissuade many social ontologists from accepting institutional reality.…”