Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
example, by means of game theory. The fundamental difference is that SCT allows
to view the group as an agent, namely as a social agentive group, whereas game
theory does not provide agency to the group itself. The notion of social contradiction
defines the contradiction of the social agentive group with itself viewed as a single
agent.
This analysis of social contradiction precisely represents situations such as the
Condorcet's Paradox and the discursive dilemma. Note that, without the concepts
that we have introduced, it is hard to identify what type of conflict cases like
that exhibit. Social contradictions are not conflicts between individuals that belong
to the group, since the group is defined by the agreement on the procedure that
settles individual possible conflicts. Social contradictions are not conflicts between
different groups, as in the paradoxical case only one group is involved. Moreover,
social contradictions do not apply to general groups of individuals, they are specific
to social agentive groups. It comes with no surprise that a number of individuals
may have conflicting attitudes and that there is no way to solve their conflicts.
The point of social contradiction is that, although individuals agree on the rule to
settle conflicts, this peculiar type of conflict can still occur. Therefore, the type
of conflict of the SCT paradoxes is a specific type of conflict that applies only
to groups insofar as they are viewed as social agentive groups and that is not
reducible to any individual conflict. The non-reducibility of social contradictions
to individual conflicts can be argued by simply noticing that we cannot say which
conflict between individuals is responsible of the social contradiction. For example,
by reducing the social contradiction to conflicts between individuals, we would
not be able to distinguish the opposition between the majority and the minority
in a paradoxical case and the opposition between the majority and the minority
in a coherent and unproblematic majority voting. It can be argued that it is the
procedure that is responsible for the paradoxical outcome, e.g. the majority rule.
However, the majority is reliable in many other cases and SCT results show
that the only procedures that ensure consistency are the dictatorships of some
individual. Therefore, social contradictions are something we have to live with, as
they may occur in any possible actual solution of individual conflicts that ascribes
agency to the group. Without the notion of social agentive group, we could not
ascribe propositional attitudes to the group itself, and we could only interpret SCT
paradoxes as conflicts between individuals. Thus, our specific treatment of conflict
as social contradiction is needed as social contradictions are non-reducible to other
forms of conflict.
2.5
A Taxonomy of Conflicts
We present a taxonomy of conflicts along the conceptual analysis that we have
outlined. We distinguish types of conflicts that depend on two parameters: the type
of agents involved (individual agents or social agentive groups) and the matter of
conflict (namely, the type of propositional attitude at issue).
Search WWH ::




Custom Search