Difference between revisions of "Rawls2009a"
JakubMlynar (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Anne Warfield Rawls; |Title=An Essay on Two Conceptions of Social Order: Constitutive Orders of Action, Objects and Identities vs Aggre...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Anne Warfield Rawls; | + | |Author(s)=Anne Warfield Rawls; |
| − | |Title=An | + | |Title=An essay on two conceptions of social order: constitutive orders of action, objects and identities vs aggregated orders of individual action |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; constitutive order; conversation analysis; ethics; interaction; moral philosophy; ordinary language philosophy; trust; Wittgenstein | |Tag(s)=EMCA; constitutive order; conversation analysis; ethics; interaction; moral philosophy; ordinary language philosophy; trust; Wittgenstein | ||
|Key=Rawls2009a | |Key=Rawls2009a | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=9 | |Volume=9 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=500–520 |
|URL=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1468795X09344376 | |URL=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1468795X09344376 | ||
| − | |DOI= | + | |DOI=10.1177/1468795X09344376 |
|Abstract=I argue that there is a deep parallel between problems that John Rawls (1955) argued had developed in moral philosophy as a result of not recognizing the difference between two conceptions of rules, and problems that have developed in sociology as a result of not recognizing that there are two conceptions of social order. That most philosophers and sociologists have not appreciated this problem does not weaken the importance of the argument. In fact, I think that the misunderstandings which have resulted from lack of attention to constitutive practices, with research and policy implications effecting social, legal and justice issues in modern society, strengthen the original argument considerably. | |Abstract=I argue that there is a deep parallel between problems that John Rawls (1955) argued had developed in moral philosophy as a result of not recognizing the difference between two conceptions of rules, and problems that have developed in sociology as a result of not recognizing that there are two conceptions of social order. That most philosophers and sociologists have not appreciated this problem does not weaken the importance of the argument. In fact, I think that the misunderstandings which have resulted from lack of attention to constitutive practices, with research and policy implications effecting social, legal and justice issues in modern society, strengthen the original argument considerably. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:01, 23 November 2019
| Rawls2009a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Rawls2009a |
| Author(s) | Anne Warfield Rawls |
| Title | An essay on two conceptions of social order: constitutive orders of action, objects and identities vs aggregated orders of individual action |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, constitutive order, conversation analysis, ethics, interaction, moral philosophy, ordinary language philosophy, trust, Wittgenstein |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2009 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Classical Sociology |
| Volume | 9 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 500–520 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1468795X09344376 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
I argue that there is a deep parallel between problems that John Rawls (1955) argued had developed in moral philosophy as a result of not recognizing the difference between two conceptions of rules, and problems that have developed in sociology as a result of not recognizing that there are two conceptions of social order. That most philosophers and sociologists have not appreciated this problem does not weaken the importance of the argument. In fact, I think that the misunderstandings which have resulted from lack of attention to constitutive practices, with research and policy implications effecting social, legal and justice issues in modern society, strengthen the original argument considerably.
Notes
