Should groups become self-interpreting agents?

Abstract

This paper examines whether groups can and should be self-interpreting agents. It seems that at least groups based on shared interests, ‘interest groups’, and groups providing a collective identity, ‘identity groups’, would prima facie benefit from becoming self-interpreting. This is a claim which is reflected both in political philosophy and analyses of group agency. In this paper we evaluate this claim, first, by providing a taxonomy of groups regarding their capabilities for self-interpretation. Second, we outline six reasons why non-self-interpreting groups should become self-interpreting. Third, we argue that only properly organized groups, and not looser self-interpretive groupings, can reliably avoid attribution and legitimacy issues regarding their self-interpretations. Fourth, we assess the desirability of forming self-interpretive groups by identifying theoretical, economic, social, and political costs that are typically involved in becoming a self-interpreting group agent, and argue that in some cases the costs are high enough to outweigh the reasons for becoming a genuinely self-interpreting group. Thus, despite the prima facie case, it is not always clear whether identity-groups and interest-groups should become self-interpreting. The answer in different cases hangs on the balance of costs and benefits. We finish with a brief discussion of two objections, and a short reflection.