Mapping higher-level causal efficacy

Horia Tarnovanu

doi:10.1007/s11229-021-03174-9

Abstract

A central argument for non-reductive accounts of group agency is that complex social entities (states, companies, churches, political parties) are capable of exerting causal influence independently of and superseding the causal efficacy of the individuals constituting them. A prominent counter is that non-reductionists run into an insuperable dilemma between identity and redundancy – with identity undermining independent higher-level efficacy and redundancy leading to overdetermination or exclusion. This paper argues that critics of non-reductionism can manage with a simpler and more persuasive reductio strategy called mapping: allow that group agents are causally efficacious in their own right and chart (a) how their causal efficacy is carried out; (b) how it relates to the causal efficacy of individual determiners; (c) how it connects to the causal relevance of background structural factors. The focus exclusively on whether groups are or are not causally efficacious black-boxes implementation, while close attention to how causation is wired increases the visibility of individualist arguments and countenances structure-oriented explanations.

Highlights

A central argument for non-reductive accounts of group agency1 is that complex social entities are capable of exerting causal influence independently of and superseding the causal efficacy of the1 3 Vol.:(0123456789)Synthese individuals constituting them (Elder-Vass, 2010; Menzies & List, 2010; Sawyer, 2003)
I argue that critics of non-reductionism may appeal to a simpler and more persuasive reductio strategy called mapping: allow that group agents are causally efficacious and chart (a) how their causal efficacy is carried out; (b) how it relates to the causal efficacy of individual determiners; (c) how it connects to the causal relevance of background structural factors
This new approach grants social entities independent causal efficacy and charts its implementation by appealing to analytic14 how-questions: (a) how is causal efficacy carried out, (b) how it relates to the causal efficacy of individual determiners, and (c) how it connects to the causal relevance of background structural factors

Summary

Introduction

A central argument for non-reductive accounts of group agency is that complex social entities (states, companies, churches, political parties) are capable of exerting causal influence independently of and superseding the causal efficacy of the. I argue that critics of non-reductionism may appeal to a simpler and more persuasive reductio strategy called mapping: allow that group agents are causally efficacious and chart (a) how their causal efficacy is carried out; (b) how it relates to the causal efficacy of individual determiners; (c) how it connects to the causal relevance of background structural factors. Mapping has several advantages: (i) it is straightforward; (ii) it exposes the way efficacy is implemented independently of standard overdetermination- and Eleatic Principle-related arguments; (iii) it shows that nonreductive accounts lack a well-defined causal story about how group agents impact the world; (iv) it shifts attention from the agential capacities of social entities (and agency-building relations) to the way collectives act. It argues that charting the way group-level causation carries out and relates to individual determiners and auxiliary structural factors tones down the attractiveness of higher-level efficacy.

A causal clause and a dilemma

Mapping Causation

Insensitive difference‐making

Concluding remarks