Abstract

The various "collective" literatures have generally focused on collectives that are unified and directed by "shared intentions" – mental or intentional states that are (1) possessed by each member of a collective, in some sense, and (2) immediately relevant to the formation and behavior of the collective. Three people moving a couch are unified by the shared intention to move the couch because each has an intention to move the couch and to do so with the other members. There are a number of different ways to theorize these shared intentions, and I am not trying to choose among them. Instead, I would like to recognize them as a group and contrast them with theories of a very different kind of collective: the large, highly organized collectives increasingly identified as "corporate agents.” The literature has often failed to recognize the very different kind of unity that binds the members of a corporate agent, and the failure to recognize this difference has led to unnecessary confusion and implausible claims. I begin by describing this "peculiar unity" in some detail, then turn to the question of whether this unity is sufficiently robust to underwrite claims of material existence. In the absence of consensus on the requirements for material existence, I test my account against popular proposals from Baker (2000) and van Inwagen (1995). I conclude in each case that the corporate agent qualifies as a material object in its own right, and suggest that these successes suggest that it would qualify on other accounts not addressed here.