Abstract
Some philosophers have claimed that normativity is an essential feature of social institutions, and have identified the source of normativity in collective intentionality. In this paper I argue that (1) normativity is not essential for social institutions; (2) normativity has many sources and it is unlikely that a single theory is able to account for them all; (3) a powerful conception of institutions – the “rules in equilibrium” account – provides an adequate framework to represent the effects of normativity and to explain its social function; (4) it is a mistake to ask a theory of institutions to do more than that. While normativity is an important element of institutions, we should not build our social ontology on a single, specific conception of normativity.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
