Philosophical discussion uncovers the complex relationship between labels and social kinds, suggesting labels don't define membership.
Social philosophers have long been interested in the connections between the social world and our ways of thinking or talking about it. Some suggest a tight connection between our language and the sorts of social kinds we encounter. The thought is that labels, that is, linguistically expressed concepts, sometimes confirm their own application: that labelling someone or something as a K, for some kind concept K, makes that person or thing a K. I argue that generally, being labelled as a K is neither necessary nor sufficient for being a K. Then, I explain that familiar social critiques don’t require the thought that label-application causes or constitutes kind membership.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bess A Rothman (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: