Episode Overview

Podcast: New Books Network — New Books in Philosophy
Episode Title: Armin W. Schulz, Presentist Social Functionalism: Bringing Contemporary Evolutionary Biology to the Social Sciences (Springer, 2025)
Date: September 10, 2025
Host: Carrie Figdor
Guest: Armin W. Schulz, Professor of Philosophy, University of Kansas

This episode features Carrie Figdor’s interview with Armin W. Schulz about his new book, which proposes a novel view of social institutions—"presentist social functionalism"—drawing on contemporary evolutionary biology to refresh debates in the social sciences about normativity, institutions, and function.

Main Theme

Schulz's book explores how social institutions should be understood not primarily by their historical origins or evolutionary lineage, but by the features that enable them to survive, persist, and function in current environments. This "presentist social functionalism" bridges philosophy, evolutionary biology, and the social sciences to rethink questions about norms, institutional stability, corruption, and corporate function.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Schulz’s Academic Trajectory (03:01–09:17)

• Schulz describes falling into philosophy and economics out of curiosity for "how things hang together" and being intellectually drawn to foundational issues in decision-making theory and the philosophy of science.
• He details a turning point sparked by encountering philosophy of biology, which offered new conceptual resources for understanding rational decision-making—"ecology, evolutionary biology...they have a real, like, currency that they can think about decision making, namely fitness." ([04:54])
• His career has tied together economics, philosophy, evolutionary biology, and social sciences through various academic positions and research grants.

Historical Backdrop: Evolution and Economics (09:17–12:59)

• Schulz and Figdor discuss the long, fractured relationship between evolutionary thinking and economics. Though Darwin was inspired by economists, economics later distanced itself from evolutionary ideas, unlike psychology.
• "There have been sort of systematically people that have said, maybe, maybe we should think about economics in a more dynamic way. Maybe we should think about markets as sort of evolving systems...but it's often been labeled as heterodox." ([10:30])

Defining Social Institutions and Their Normativity (14:50–21:22)

• Schulz contrasts models of social institutions:
  • Rule-based conception: Institutions as sets of shared norms and expectations which structure appropriate behaviors (e.g., marriage, voting).
  • Equilibrium/game-theory view: Institutions as equilibrium outcomes (e.g., "driving on the left").
• He emphasizes the distinctively human capacity for norm awareness—knowing not only what is done, but that there are right ways to do things, regardless of empirical consequences.
• "We are aware of the fact that there are certain things that we ought to do, that there are certain ways of playing the game...that are appropriate." ([15:36])
• Schulz favors the rule-based conception for its generality and fit with human normative life.

Why Be Functionalist About Institutions? (22:22–29:37)

• Social science, since Durkheim, has long analogized societies to organisms, seeing social institutions as components fulfilling roles/functions for the whole.
• Early functionalisms assessed institutions in terms of what needs they satisfied for individuals, but this became problematic as many enduring institutions seemed dysfunctional or not directly beneficial.
• Schulz: "Institutions can sort of play a role independently of the individuals...Sometimes we have the institutions we have because they help us...but in general, the social institutions need to be analyzed in their own terms." ([28:07])

Alternatives and the Move to Presentism (30:18–36:47)

• Historical (evolutionary) function: Many theorists tried to ground function in the historical causes of an institution’s proliferation—what about the institution's past allowed it to spread?
  • QWERTY keyboard example: An institution can persist by historical accident rather than because it functions well ("the worst keyboard design spread"). ([32:15])
  • "If you want to assign functions to social institutions based on their history, you're not going to get very far...many social institutions are very young and they just sort of appeared this generation..." ([32:55])
• Schulz sees this as a dead end and proposes a present-focused account.

Presentist Social Functionalism Explained (36:47–43:27)

• Instead of looking historically, presentism analyzes what features of the institution enable it to persist, survive, and reproduce now, in its current environment.
• Two major advantages:
  1. Sidesteps the lack of clear historical mechanisms seen in social institutions.
  2. Allows social scientists to identify which institutions are transient and which are enduringly central to a society.
• "Let's just think about a social institution and think about what features does that institution have that, that make it more likely that it will persist or reproduce...We're not asking how it got here." ([36:55])

Example: Transient vs. Stable Institutions (40:24–43:27)

• Transient institutions: Fashion norms, office dress codes—dependent on specific, shifting contexts.
• Stable institutions: Voting systems—robust features adaptable to varied contexts and changes, thus more likely to persist.

Application: The Corporation Debate (43:27–51:53)

• Schulz applies presentist social functionalism to the controversy over the function of corporations (shareholder vs. stakeholder views):
  • The history of the corporation doesn’t determine its function today.
  • The modern function may be dynamic and context-dependent; some corporations may serve primarily profit motives, others broader stakeholder goods.
  • Legal versus social scientific perspectives may diverge (e.g., the question of "corporations as persons").
• "We can import a lot of these tools from evolutionary biology...we're not limited to say that a corporation has to have one function. Different corporations could have different functions." ([45:41])

On Institutions vs. Individuals (53:35–58:11)

• There is no single, a priori correct way to individuate institutions or attribute functions—the usefulness depends on what yields good social scientific explanations and predictions.
• Schulz argues for pragmatic flexibility and "reflective equilibrium" between philosophical theorizing and empirical social science.

Defining and Diagnosing Institutional Corruption (58:29–60:43)

• Traditional views see corruption as individual wrongdoing; Schulz’s presentist account allows for understanding when institutions themselves are undermined—by rules or structures that prevent them from fulfilling their present function.
• "We can understand institutional corruption just as those cases where stuff happens that prevent an institution from fulfilling its function, that is where we put our hands figuratively onto those features of the institution that enable it to spread." ([59:24])

Future Directions (60:54–62:17)

• Schulz is working on new grants related to internal conflict within collective agents and the interface between biology, economics, and social theory, as well as continuing research on what is distinctive about human cognition.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On interdisciplinarity and serendipity:
  "I just sort of got passionate about something and, and got. Was fortunate that I got to pursue my passions, really." ([08:53] — Schultz)

• On social institution definitions:
  "A social institution is just a rule, a rule of how to behave, how to act. That's known as the rule based conception of social institution." ([16:50] — Schultz)

• On function not determined by history:
  "Most social institutions don't have that history. And by the way, many social institutions are very young...so you don't even know where to start assigning functions to these things." ([32:55] — Schultz)

• On the presentist method:
  "We're not asking how it got here. We're looking forward: which features make it the case that this particular institution is likely to spread and thrive in this environment." ([36:53] — Schultz)

• On pragmatic theorizing:
  "The proof of the pudding is in their eating. To think about what the right ways are of individuating institutions or features of institutions...is a question of what makes for good ways of doing social science." ([56:23] — Schultz)

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Timestamp | Segment/Topic | |----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 03:01 | Schulz’s academic background and intellectual journey | | 09:17 | Intersections between evolutionary biology and economics | | 14:50 | What is a social institution? Rule-based vs. equilibrium conceptions | | 22:22 | Why be functionalist about social institutions? Historical context | | 30:18 | Critique of historical (selectionist) accounts of social function | | 36:47 | Explanation of presentist social functionalism | | 40:24 | Examples of transient vs. stable social institutions | | 43:27 | Functional analysis of corporations; application to stakeholder/shareholder debates | | 53:35 | Institutions versus individuals; levels of analysis; pragmatic theorizing | | 58:29 | Institutional corruption and how presentism analyzes it | | 60:54 | Current and future research projects |

Summary

This episode offers a deep and accessible exploration of how evolutionary biology can reframe debates within philosophy and the social sciences on what social institutions are, what functions they serve, and how they persist or decline. Armin W. Schulz’s "presentist" approach moves the conversation beyond historical origins, directing attention to the current features that sustain institutions and allow us to diagnose problems like corruption with fresh analytical tools. The discussion is notable for its interdisciplinarity, clear philosophical scaffolding, and timely applications to corporations and contemporary social life.