Alone Together: Why “Incentivization” Fails As An Account Of Institutional Facts

Keywords

collective intentions; construction; institutions; Searle; social reality

Abstract

In two articles, Smits, Buekens, and du Plessis have argued that John Searle’s account of institutional facts suffers serious flaws and should be replaced with a reductive account they call “incentivization.” We argue against their view in two ways. First, the specific flaws they find in Searle are based on misunderstandings. Second, “incentivization,” as they present it, fails as a reduction of strict collective actions and, thus, cannot account for institutional facts such as money or property.

Publication Date

6-4-2015

Publication Title

Philosophy of the Social Sciences

Volume

45

Issue

3

Number of Pages

315-330

Document Type

Article

Personal Identifier

scopus

DOI Link

https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393115581457

Socpus ID

84930404042 (Scopus)

Source API URL

https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/84930404042

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS