Emilie Pagano

Brian Epstein has argued (in The Ant Trap and ‘Anchoring versus grounding’) that social kinds ‘export’ across worlds. Although the conditions for war criminality are not ‘fixed’ in the Empire, for instance, Darth Vader is a war criminal there. And, according to Epstein, an account of social construction should imply that he is. Ultimately, he argues that ‘grounding-only’ accounts of social construction – like those proposed by Jonathan Schaffer and Aaron Griffith – imply that social kinds do not export across worlds. As a result, he argues that we need more than grounding; in particular, we need both grounding and what he calls ‘anchoring’ to account for it. In this paper, I argue that, once we draw a distinction between what I call ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ social kinds, Epstein’s argument is either invalid or irrelevant.

Just as contemporary metaphysics, in general, is marked by an interest in ground, contemporary social metaphysics, in particular, is marked by an interest in social construction. It’s no surprise, then, that some contemporary metaphysicians have come to understand social construction in terms of ground. In this paper, I argue that this is a mistake. In particular, I argue that any otherwise plausible account of construction as ground is objectionably revisionary. First, I discuss an argument for the view that construction is ground that is endorsed by its proponents, and identify its weaknesses. I then consider, and dispense with, different versions of the view that construction is ground, and argue that these either overgeneralize, undergeneralize, or both. After responding to the objection that my arguments presuppose monism with respect to construction, I conclude that though ground is relevant to construction, extant ground-theoretic accounts of its relevance fail to capture it.