There seems to be a difference between drinking coffee alone at home and drinking coffee in a café. Yet, drinking coffee in a café is not a joint action. It is an individual action done in a social environment. The café, with each person minding their own business next to others, is what I call a gregarious state of affairs. Gregariousness refers to the warmth of the social world. It is the difference between studying alone at home and studying in the library. This light form of sociality is precisely what we were deprived of during the coronavirus lockdowns. Gregariousness cannot be explained as interaction or coordination, and neither can it be grasped solely as a normative aspect of the environment. This is why gregariousness cannot be explained using the concepts of strategic equilibrium, shared planning agency, joint commitment, we-intention, or second-person standpoint. In this paper, I will also provide a prospective theory of gregariousness. The aim of this paper is not to provide a definitive theory of gregariousness, nor to demonstrate that other theories of joint action are incorrect, but rather to draw attention to this aspect of the social world that has been largely neglected.

一个人在家喝咖啡和在咖啡馆喝咖啡似乎是有区别的。然而，在咖啡馆喝咖啡并不是一个联合行动。它是在社会环境中进行的个人行为。咖啡馆里，每个人都在旁边做自己的事，这就是我所说的社交状态。合群是指社交世界的温暖。这就是独自在家学习和在图书馆学习的区别。这种轻松的社交形式正是我们在冠状病毒封锁期间被剥夺的。合群性不能被解释为相互作用或协调，也不能仅仅被理解为环境的规范方面。这就是为什么不能用战略均衡、共享计划机构、共同承诺、我们意图的概念来解释合群性的原因。或第二人称视角。在本文中，我还将提供一个合群性的前瞻性理论。本文的目的不是提供一个明确的合群性理论，也不是证明其他联合行动理论是不正确的，而是要引起人们对社会世界这一被很大程度上忽视的方面的关注。