Valeria Martino

The following paper explores the categorisation of groups. Indeed, there are different ways to distinguish human groups from one another: on the one hand, sociological analyses focus their attention on the distinction between being inside and outside of groups; on the other hand, collective action theories mainly focus on the distinction between collectives and aggregates, based on the kind of action that groups can perform, i.e., joint or not. In this paper, we offer an alternative view by adopting the agent’s perspective and creating a scale based on the importance the agent attributes to his or her membership to different groups. While this perspective seems to lose objectivity as it does not allow the formulation of an unambiguous scale that applies to all individuals, it does allow us to understand the process of identification and the consequent phenomenon whereby very often we act in accordance with other people’s actions, in a collective way, without prior coordination. A practical example based on the so-called “acting white” will be explored in order to test the paper’s proposal. The analysis intends to offer a common ground on the basis of which it would be possible to have further inquiries on the social dimension of self-experience.

Within the broader scope of joint actions, there is a particular kind, i.e. transgenerational actions, the realization of which requires a long time span and, consequently, a complex and peculiar subject. This paper starts from the detailed definition of transgenerational actions, such as complex, long-term, and asymmetrical actions and aims at outlining a theory of their subject. Such a theory, without embracing the principles of holism, is able to give account of subjects’ specificities. In particular, this is possible if we focus on the notion of end, as defined by Seumas Miller. The paper will then examine an example of transgenerational action to highlight how a theory which is both non-reductionist and non-holistic allows us to address the question of responsibility – and therefore of normativity, so pressing when it comes to social issues – from another point of view: the phenomenological one. Not implying a notion of collective responsibility, like the one held by traditional plural subject theories, this point of view focuses on the possibility of stimulating the sense of responsibility in the individuals who constitute the collective subject.

The aim of this paper is to examine the explanatory power of the concept of “generational social group”. With this aim, we will analyze the three main meanings of “generation”, namely cohort, kinship, and social group. Among them, the social group meaning appears to be the most promising one, as it enables us to understand group behavior and its normative implications. However, some clarifications are necessary. Firstly, the conventional understanding of social groups within social ontology needs to be supplemented with a sociological analysis that recognizes them as peer groups. This entails considering shared characteristics, social interaction, and the sharing of values, which contribute to the recognition of belonging within the group by both insiders and outsiders. Secondly, in literature, the concept of generation inherently implies the existence of generational conflicts. However, these conflicts can be mitigated and reconceptualized within the framework of the advantaged-disadvantaged dichotomy, which is, to some extent, independent of age.

Although there is much confusion about it in everyday language, the distinction between public and common goods is clear enough within Economics. While the former involves the fact of being open to all and state management, the latter requires common but still limited management. The different kind of administration can also be explored through the reference to a different kind of agent meant as the one who makes use of the different goods: if in the case of public goods, we have individuals, as an aggregate, in that of commons we necessarily need to assume the existence of a plural form of subject, who can in fact act in concert in the management of the good itself. Exploring this distinction in its details and consequences, the paper sets out to apply it to a typical public good – green areas in cities – and to show the theoretical advantages that such a consideration of the commons can have, including through a concrete case such as community gardens.