Searle, Collective Intentionality, and Social Institutions

  • Raimo Tuomela
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 79)

Abstract

In this paper I will discuss some aspects of (1995) account of social institutions, especially features that are concerned with the role of collective intentionality in the creation and maintenance of social institutions. His account is interesting and rich. I find many of the basic ideas in his theory to be on the right track. However, I think that there are still non-trivial problems related to it. The theory seems too narrow on two counts. First, Searle’s theory is too narrow in that it leaves out a central class of social institutions. This is the class consisting of social institutions relying on expectation-based social norms or, as I have called them, “proper social norms” (cf. Tuomela, 1995, Chapter 1). Second, Searle’s emphasis on deontic status and status functions seems to be too demanding in general. While it works well for some cases (e.g. money), it does not apply to all those institutional cases where a new “conceptual and social status” in a sense to be explicated is involved, nor does it apply to institutional cases which only involve norm-governed social practices.

Keywords

Stake Clarification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Miller, K., and R. Tuomela. “What are Collective Goals?” ms. 2001.Google Scholar
  2. Searle, J. “Collective Intentions and Actions.” P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack (eds.). Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990: 401–415.Google Scholar
  3. Searle, J. The Construction of Social Reality. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. Searle, J. “Responses to Critics of The Construction of Social Reality.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LVII (1997): 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Tuomela, R. A Theory of Social Action. Dordrecht, and Boston: Reidel, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Tuomela, R. The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of Basic Social Notions. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. Tuomela, R. “Searle on Social Institutions.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LVII (1997): 435–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Tuomela, R. “Private versus collective attitudes.” I. Nida-Ruemelin (ed.). Analyomen 3 (Perspektiven der Analytischen Philosophie). Berlin, and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999: 317–321.Google Scholar
  9. Tuomela, R. Cooperation: A Philosophical Study. Philosophical Studies Series in Philosophy. Dordrecht, and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers (in print), 2000a.Google Scholar
  10. Tuomela, R. “Collective and Joint Intention.” Mind and Society 1 (2000b): 39–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tuomela, R. Collective Intentionality: Social Practices and Institutions, book ms. 2001a.Google Scholar
  12. Tuomela, R., 2001b, “Collective Acceptance, Social Institutions, and Social Reality.” Forthcoming in American Journal of Sociology and Economics (selected proceedings of the conference “Social Ontology”, held in Buffalo, NY, in 1998).Google Scholar
  13. Tuomela, R., and W. Balzer. “Collective Acceptance and Collective Social Notions.” Synthese 117 (1999): 175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tuomela, R., and K. Miller. “We-Intentions.” Philosophical Studies 53 (1988): 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raimo Tuomela

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations