Commentary examines transparency and collective intentionality in social kinds, clarifying social power dynamics.
This commentary on Åsa Burman’s Nonideal Social Ontology tackles three major aspects of her work. First, it discusses the distinction between opaque and transparent social kinds, distinguishing it from the distinction between represented and non-represented social kinds, and that between overt and covert social kinds. Then, it exploits these distinctions in characterizing the nature of the social, proposing that social phenomena might be understood in terms of collective intentionality, though there may be weaker notions of sociality involving interaction and mutual responsiveness among individuals. Finally, it deploys the three distinctions mentioned to clarify various different kinds of social power identified by Burman.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Muhammad Ali Khalidi (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: