IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v44y2020i6p1365-1394..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emergence, time and sociality: comparing conceptions of process ontology

Author

Listed:
  • Guido Baggio

Abstract

The paper focuses on a comparison between Lawson’s and Mead’s processual ontologies and more specifically on their conceptions of emergence. The first aim of the article is to highlight elements of similarity between their conceptions of social reality. It also aims to show, on the one hand, that Mead’s bio-social account of the emergent can help to interpret the dynamic process of emergence of both the social realm and agents’ identities (as described by Lawson) from a dynamic non-reductive naturalistic perspective; on the other hand, it shows how Lawson’s category of ‘social positioning’ can complement Mead’s ontogenetic explanation of changing social positions and the definition of ‘multiple selves’. By carefully considering the key elements of Lawson’s and Mead’s projects, it is, in fact, possible to understand better the meaning of a commitment to an updated processual ontology. In considering connections with classical pragmatic authors, it can be demonstrated that there are significant overlaps regarding the respective ways of considering the emergent. This offers a chance to understand more deeply how both pragmatism and Cambridge social ontology can together become part of the wider contemporary philosophical debate. In fact, Mead’s attempted synthesis between social and physical theories would help to highlight the common and complementary aspects linking what can be defined as his and Lawson’s ‘processual ontologies’.

Suggested Citation

  • Guido Baggio, 2020. "Emergence, time and sociality: comparing conceptions of process ontology," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 44(6), pages 1365-1394.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:44:y:2020:i:6:p:1365-1394.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/beaa019
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:44:y:2020:i:6:p:1365-1394.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.