Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of Illinois Press and North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to American Philosophical Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Sun, 10 May 2015 22:46:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
American
Philosophical
Quarterly
16, Number
Volume
3, July
1979
ROBERT
BRANDOM
this distinction which was not envisioned by Kant,
and show how a novel response to the dispute
THE
we
when
norms,
an
seek
account
of
and
praise
One
the most
of
Kantian
tradition:
in being
sists precisely
than
be
merely
as well
in
their
doctrine
the
have
turn,
to what
answering
is. Hegel
to what
in the norms
an
by
central
feature
I
of
In order
will
of
decay
examine
an
atomic
one
gestion
to
according
on
of any
the
dictates
governed
by
by
and
and
as
somehow
expressed
self,
phenomenal
this distinction
as
of
an
and
or
the
Realm
of
free
of
explanation
freedom.
What
Yet
rather
redeemed.
In this paper
1 I am not
views which
2 "Truth
than
causal
constraint
I will present
to expound Kant
concerned
can be discussed
in abstraction
and Assertibility,"
The Journal
judgments
in
actions
to
than
to
activity
for
general,
differences
we
in which
respects
norms
the
about
say
we
are
so it is reasonable
objective
dis?
ances
in some
need
utterances
uses
which
the
individual
to
a
linguistic
utterance
Clearly
community
certain
no
are
function
for
want
language-use
an
generates
secure
some
we
makes
priate?
self
longer
are
linguistic
incorrect,
between
the way
incorrectness
and
linguistic
other
about
to exploit
the
illuminate
views
broader
issues.
constrained
causally
so on?can
no
There
of what
attention
there
govern
about
Freedom,
trans?
noumenal
between
and
kinds of norms,
of Nature,
Kant's
principles.
distinction
the
that
acts
surer
that
on
center
our
focus
of norm-governed
performances
are.
these
will
issues associated
which
claiming
differences
but I do not
are
we
not
correctness
linguistic
principles,1
the Realm
am
freedom
case
special
significant
of
sug?
as he
the
the difficult
human
norms,
by
activity.
paper
Kant's
insofar
norms
between
machinery?the
and Reason,
Understanding
serve
causes,
norms
this
developing
is free just
of
way
that one
In
nucleus.
of
constraint
to clarify
accounts
with
spirit).
the character
determining
self
successor.
expressive
evolving
community
The
sup?
an Hegelian
to
ought
admirers,
sort
second
the
generated
to be
needed
recommend
rather
concerning
his
and
to
responded
and will
plemented,
con?
freedom
account
Kant's
claimed
Hegel
by the
by norms
constrained
causes,
by
as
that
non-naturalists
and
out
the relation of fact to norm can be developed
ofthat rendering. I will then argue that the account
of human freedom which
results from this story
in just the ways in which
needs to be supplemented
responses
suggestive
naturalists
between
issue of
The
blame,
approval
disapproval.
freedom arises again in the political context of an
account of the ways in which an individual is and
by norms imposed by his'
ought to be constrained
and
community.
BY NORMS
AND CONSTRAINT
III. FREEDOM
standards
sense
or
of
inappro?
the practice
utterances
of
correctness
that
by
are to be evaluated.
tokenings
truth or falsehood of claim-making
not
may
concern
not
be
us
true,
here,
and
since
true
or
correct
performance
appropriate
of the
type
which
The
utter?
appropriate
ones may
not
be appropriate.
I have argued elsewhere2 that the
notions of truth and meaning
should be understood
as theoretical auxiliaries
introduced as part of a
is to be
a version of
but to develop
various
(or, later, Hegel),
from detailed
consideration
of particular
of Philosophy, vol. 73 (1976), pp. 137-189.
consequences
texts.
of quite
.87
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Sun, 10 May 2015 22:46:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
general
features
of his
AMERICAN
l88
PHILOSOPHICAL
certain
language
our
For
which
generate
norms
present
purposes
we
of using
of appropriateness.
not
need
invoke
an
of
on
utterance
some
other
We
can
on
noise
this
express
of the
ventionality
with
standards
seduced
or
as
pressions
rules
in
of particular
as we
long
into
for
usage
some
of
they must
language which
to the
users
the
by
conform
of
the
are
the
not
of
thinking
ex?
linguistic
language,
which
constitute
in
only
the
utterances
to
the
ances
of
practices
of course
including
competent
for perceived
their
governing
of others
practices
and
the
available
practices
the
of criticizing
to conform
failures
linguistic
perform?
for adjudicating
as may
the
about
arise
appropriateness
disputes
in this way
of
utterance.
think
So long as we
of some
of
communal
the norms
usage
linguistic
governing
as
in the practice
of the com?
expressions
implicit
we
still
whatever
give
objective
capacities
are
to
we
able
attribute
we
account
causal
in virtue
of which
in the
engage
complicated
to them,
for no
regress
like
of
What
embodies
standard
of
an
correct
and
which
utterance
instance
3
See Ludwig Wittgenstein's,
4The distinction
between
of,
or
198 fr.
Investigations I, Section
will
these two sorts of explanation
per?
the
Classifying
into social
re?
criterioned
complexly
we do from
the
them.
responses,
of
regardless
them
takes
of
of
practices
to this
these
to
treat
formance
later,
such
The
as
outside,
members
to
takes
to be.
them
are
what
com?
any
particular
more
Galaxies
be.
in?
thing-kind,
instances
whose
instances
what
than
utterances
on
rather
than
classification.
linguistic
various
we
specify
an
appropriate
to say about
this
more
of
cannot
things
that
for
utterance
have
(we will
under
the heading
occasions
objective
It may
be
practices
just what
an
constitute
community
those whose
are
kinds
But
translation).
per?
issue
what?
practices,
correct
in this way
to understand
anthropologically
to
sponses
in
performance
a
some
Consider
social
accord
with,
practice?
a
of
have
members
whose
practice
community
In virtue
of what
with
other
each
gestures.
greeting
act
to
some
whatever
many
incorrect
concerned.
that
thus
practices
by communal
according
a rule.4
some
to
responding
as
a
of the community
need not explicitly split up their
activities in the ways we do, though they must do so
in the sense of responding as we have
implicitly,
appropriateness
are
social
are
practices
is generated
make.
the
the
according
is something
munity
individuals
or would
is an
response
explicit
or
the community
says
correctness
of performances
that
What
of a community
Objective
are
they
the
is,
community
or
utterance
entailing
behavior
are
rules or conventions
of (linguistically
expressed)
which must
themselves be applied correctly.3 We
can
as
taken
dividuated
regress
in terms
puzzling
pointlessly
of those norms
rendering
any
by
generated
the
avoid
just in
that
one,
postulated.
Social
such
munity,
the
acto
sponses
an
part of
attempt
language-users,
the practices
as
practices
be
is does
gesture
evaluation).
as far as
does,
goes,
of their own
practices
to
in order
understand
the
verbal
(even
ur
an
according
Clearly,
to
it
counts
con?
takes
community
practice
To
vocables
ur-language
of usage
regularities
of
of the community?
an
candidate
terms
of words
formulated
mentalese)
so
usage,
this form
conventions
in
the
whose
particular
occasions.
point
association
of
by
relevant
the
case
on
arm-motion
produced
particular
an
appropriate
greeting-gesture
to the practice
these
some
is
occasion
QUARTERLY
munity
ness
out
to
be our
of
of
solely
The
the
appraisals
performances
to say this
of
in the next
of
is not
correctness
re?
communal
com?
language-using
before,
topic
consist
utterances.
its members.
to deny
according
section.
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Sun, 10 May 2015 22:46:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
As
that
pointed
in addition
to
the
lin
AND
FREEDOM
social
guistic
one
practices
must
to in order
conform
BY
CONSTRAINT
of
the
NORMS
189
of
appropriateness
as
performance,
the
is
case
or
the determination
of the appropriateness
of a bride
price in some tribe.5 The point is that the past
of an
loudness
concern
which
utterance)
of that utterance?which
features
objective
are
of
they
independent
utterances.
to those
munity
munity.
else
such,
learned
is a
by
social
be
unlearnable
It is, on
presuppose
infallibility.
a condition
of having
probably
language
formal devices
that
would
languages
etc.)
true
of the com?
responses
Our
concern,
however,
the
to which
those norms conformity
is a
com?
of membership
in the linguistic
not
The truth of utterances
is obviously
is with
criterion
one
entirely
are what
certain
containing
a truth predicate,
(the conditional,
Taking
a matter
not
practice,
utterances
of one's
the majority
the community.
minimal
be
deemed
as
something
of objective
true
fact,
however.
One
consequence
over
enjoy
in is particularly
next
section.
able
to do
of
the
the
social
important
Consider
one
what
have
would
a social
to be
practice
objectively.
practice could be expressed by an
which
of past performances
objective description
had been accepted as in accord with the practice
to appropriately),
(were responded
together with
an account of the dispositions of the community
to
The
in the
respond
manner
specified
to future
activities.
in what
come
the
evolve
resolved
order
'different
differently
the
with
community
issue
may
accept
be
may
up for adjudication.
an act as in accord
to
and
later
refuse
particular
practice,
as similar
as you
acts
In
like.
objectively
to the
in the
of a performance
position
tradition
of precedent
which
performances
comprise
we would
the social
viewed
in
practice
temporally,
accepts
addition
general
structure
have
of
to take
the
into
account
community
the
at which
location
a
in the
performance
practices.
There
may
be
experts
with
various
respect to judgments
when
accords
of
as
ind?termination
even
And
with
in objective
to
complete
exactly
total
even
objective
time
over
authority
if in the past
and
in
social
or no
any
may
they
at any
impunity
reason.
in objective
practices
that
a strong
responses,
with
source of difficulty
is another
so
practices,
exhibited
their
that regularity
for
own
their
they have
regularity
from
terms,
in capturing
the
namely
pos?
were
practice
terizable
always
The
response.
some
charac
objectively
objective
of
expression
rather
but
be in accord with
clearly
as
long
no
as
itself definitionally
This
response.
even
to
eventually
characterizable
of
chains
social
of
longer
in a
being
social
criterial,
generated
by
granted,
there
chains,
so
just
practice
There
such
envisaging
must
which
performance
problem
the
second,
practice
some
is no
they
an
is
situation
is
objective
obstacle
terminate
generated
by
objectively
The
response.
objective
description
such
of a community
for which
practice
were
social
the rule
rather
than
responses
the exception
thus
(e.g. linguistic practices) might
require the prediction of everything anyone in the
ever do. Although
would
it is not
community
obvious at this point, it will be shown in the next
section
that
we
to what
with
as we
can
insofar
also
only
predict
structure
each
in the social
and where
areas
minate
response,
practices
upon where
depending
it comes
perform?
Social
does?an
of precedents
Thus
candidate
consideration.
case-law
way
very
in a chain
for
up
areas
large
case
the
of codification
performances.
possible
There
in the
as
be
like
engage
they
practices
to characterize
in order
com?
dominion
criterial
with
only
future
well
could
of theirs admits
practice
rules
as
or
of a community
decisions
use of words
the correct
with
"molybdenum,"
depart
munities
ances
in English
can
envisage
of adjudication
in pp. 215-272
situation
in which
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Sun, 10 May 2015 22:46:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AMERICAN
i go
social
every
the
of
practice
as
has
community
its
must
which
response
with
another
generating
in accord
PHILOSOPHICAL
performance
social
practice.
be
This
pos?
To
what
about
dispute
to envision
between
are
to the naturalist,
other
(although,
about
what
views
various
norms
norms
facts
the naturalism/non
sort of distinction
consider
this,
on
the
and
are
facts,
of
course,
facts.
According
as
as any
objective
naturalists
have
sort of facts
are
to
"is"
It
"ought."
as
traditions
of
by
At
incorrectness.
other
norms
hand,
and
is clear
that
social
facts
practices,
or express
constituted
ones,
generate
linguistic
are
those
practices
case
the
for
correctness
of
judgments
least
of
these
and
norms
of
norms)
to
viewing
social
objective
concerning
The
non-naturalist
functioning
sees
in
value
emerging
When
the
as
practices
the
issue
accommodating
becomes
The
fact.
possible.
these
the
inherent
sees
naturalist
no
to
and is committed
facts
objective
communities.
complex
of various
a new
category
of norm
or
situations.
is put
in
we
need
any
a set of
constitutes
a
expresses
terms,
via media
choose
between
difference
that there is an objective
the claim
factual and
the social and the objectively
between
treats
community
The
and
behavior.
social
con?
normative
or
ontological,
we
to whether
according
that
of
body
and
practices
of
categorization
as
treat
them
of a community
between
treating
authority
difference
to
responds
criterial classification
of things into
social is itself a social, rather than
or
objective
or not. What,
some
system
as
it
treating
things
to the
subject
is the
then,
as a
set of
of
consisting
objective processes?
For the possibly special case of linguistic practices,
a
answer
straightforward
is
treat
We
available.
as the expression
of a linguistic
rather
than an objective
when
process
a causal
than
it, rather
offering
expla?
us agree
to extend
nation
of it. Let
the application
term
to include
the
of
trans?
"translation"
any
to engage
set of
formation
of the capacity
in one
social
we
practice
translate
social practices
set
in some
to engage
social
of
Transformation
practices.
of
the
We
translation.
some
with
behavior.
locatable
In practice,
explainer,
of
set of
and
the system
objective
social
be
any
of,
explanation
causal
about
be
of
understanding
Instead
we
account,
as an
practices
for
responsible
in question
say,
of red
the physiology
signal-producer.
an
such
own
the
facts
the
of
tempting
use our
how
involve
may
training
sort
this
complex
coping
can
performance
the reliability
objects,
of
Objectively,
as part of a
and explained
of other similarly described
described
objectively
causal web consisting
events.
two ways
considering
complex
spatio-temporally
quite
these
the motivating
For
about
their
(with
practices
of kind operating,
social
dis?
naturalist/non-naturalist
into a disagreement
translates
relation
distinction
The
fact.
objective
here
pute
hence
(and
other
are inherent
in social practices,7
the dis?
which
tinction between norm and fact coincides with the
distinction between social practices and any matter
of
of behavior
body
practices
social
important).
a certain
objective
we
Accounts
of what ought to be may legitimately be
to the
inferred from accounts of what is. According
non-naturalist,
or merely exhibits
straint on performance)
complex
but objective regularities is not a matter of objective
fact. It is not, in other words, independent
of how
II
new way.
naturalism
QUARTERLY
an
may
and
of
at?
instead
unexplained
account
of
we
6
Wilfrid
the most of this basic sort of distinction
between
the objective
Sellars has made
contemporary
Among
philosophers,
a causal or descriptive
his works for the importance
between
order and
of such a distinction
and the social. He has argued throughout
to Kant,
a normative
indebted
and the early Wittgenstein,
and reason giving
rather
order of justification
(a dualism
Schopenhauer,
and the Philosophy
of Mind"
in Sellars' Science, Perception,
This point is one of the keys to the classic "Empiricism
than Descartes).
this perspective
elaborates
and Reality
(London,
1968). Richard
Rorty
1963). See also chapter 7 of Science and Metaphysics
(London,
I am indebted.
in his forthcoming
Philosophy and theMirror of Nature, to which
7
I cannot argue the matter
that the social practice
idiom offers a quite general account of the nature of
here, I believe
Although
norms to other sorts of
entail discussing
such issues as the relation of moral
normative
constraint.
To show this, however,
would
to enter here.
social norms, a project I don't want
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Sun, 10 May 2015 22:46:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
in that
do
would
to
strategy,
to
conform
govern
explaining
it to our
own
own
expect
same
sorts
this
adopt
in
question
of appro?
system
norms
its
Translating,
rather
performance,
consists
performances
than
causally
as
in
elements.
in our
extended
our
sense,
assimilates
own
complex
social
to control
and specify
disanalogies
For
intended.
our
however,
even
holistically.
to a whole
One
providing
practices,
of fit
goodness
Translations,
must
proceed
of behavior
own
set
social
in a
sponded
way
particular
by
our
i.e.,
which
with
in accord
or would
does
another
elicit
of
and
practices
another
response
so on. From
the
practices,
constitutive
in
an
of
invocation
practices
objective
us in a vicious
of
correctness
explanatory
regress
criterion
involve
account
a chain
of
critical
didn't
end
would
or
circle.
of each
performance
appropriate
holistic
then
the web;
comprising
can
the
take
of performance
regularities
objective
to objective
of correctness
criteria
of
appeal
place
case.
that
this
I am not
in any
claiming
particular
a social
can
arises?we
situation
always
specify
counts
what
of
the
practices
practice
response.
condition
by
generated
The
point
of
an
is
objectively
it is not
that
the possibility
of our
characterized
a
some
by
social
objective
notice
that
each
response.
on this
practice
in
performance
as a member
this
our
of
than
ultimately
practice.
we
treat
way
the
and justification.
treat
performer
to our norms
By translating,
some
explaining
of
we
When
subject
community,
causally
or
governed
the measure
account,
is our social
so
behavior)
his performances
a member
necessary
community
to
performance,
fication.
The
That
is just
is
rather
criterial
classi?
community
are.
is or
community
is social
our
to
according
members
stranger,
own.
of our
particular
a matter
which
of
the
include
as variants
of
case
paradigm
than
objective
own
as
What
isn't
community.
and
practice,
of practices,
stranger's
treat
and
chains
critical
or anyone
that we
practices
to dissect
rather
commentary
the variety
else be able
of appropriateness
of this distinction
There are two consequences
which we should notice. First, causal explanations
can proceed atomistically,
building up the behavior
of a complex system out of independently describable
behavioral
l9l
in a set of social
engaging
Next,
assimilating
it as a dialect
of our
treating
practices,
idiom.8
practical
of
of
justification
ours.
as we
Insofar
the
the
and
priateness
situation.
we
second
NORMS
BY
CONSTRAINT
AND
FREEDOM
sort
the
its
that
issue
of
in a certain
but
way,
not
it is clearly
the
sort
of
or
to
respond
the
various
So
candidates).
manipulation
while
genuine,
is
that
translation,
by
rather
social
than
distinction,
a
objective,
is treated by some
of how the behavior
how
it
is in itself.9 We will
rather
than
community
matter
have
between
section.
which
larger
some
more
to say
For
this way
issues
let
now,
we
about
and
translation
us
the
of approaching
are
crucial
explanation
the
notice
concerned
distinction
in
the
next
consequences
8
one gives of causal
the sort of explanation
in Knowledge and Human Interests (Boston,
1971 ) distinguished
Habermas,
J?rgen
is
of impersonal
that causal explanation
inference, while
interpretation
employs a "monologic"
"logically"?claiming
phenomena
comes to, the account
here of the
I am not sure what
this logical rendering
in character. While
developed
always "dialogic"
between
control
in many particulars with Habermas'
between
coincides
the social and objective
difference
story about the differences
and conversation.
9The
of the "intentional
stance"
the justification
of the adoption
of D. C. Dennett's
views about
(in
point here is reminiscent
A difference
is that social practices need not exhibit any
Intentional
Systems "The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 68 [1971], pp. 87-106).
in order for it appropriately
I have discussed elsewhere
"intentional"
character.
(see note 2) some of what is required of a social practice
a claim that something
is the case. I would
to be taken as making
of
the cogency
has argued
forcefully
against
J. F. Rosenberg
1975).
Linguistic Representation (Dordrecht,
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Sun, 10 May 2015 22:46:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AMERICAN
192
If we
and
can make
causal
the distinction
between
as
stick
explanation
translation
to the same
responding
the
naturalism/non-naturalism
bypass
distinguishable
then
behavior,
we
norms
between
objective (factual,
account,
the
the
however,
order
normative
factual
treating
something.
is social
rather
in
The
than
it was
an
On
our
between
difference
social
two
and
of
ways
distinction
social/objective
If we
objective.10
the
and
practices
events
in objective
expressed
social
in
difference
is
facts
difference.
expressed
order
processes
and
descriptive)
now
norms
by
the difference
The
rather
difference
an
vicinity
According
someone
as
to
free
norms
the
insofar
He
objectively
norms
which
community.
to what
appeal
a candidate
about
behave
which
terms
is one
in
of us.
causes
the
of
rather
our
we
is no
it
for
toward
the
we
those who
treat
the
but
engage
it is how
they finally
free.11
objectively
a
is rather
misleading
of
between
our
own
facts
membership
On
Our
way
the way
this
talk
Reason
subject
manipulate
to norms
and
community,
taken to be a member
objective,
two
stances
satisfactory
that
anything
can
and
also
account
that
by the
natural
we
course
involved
in
ideal
of
another's
utterance
that
least
(at
predictable
in
of
in
will
treating
we
where
situations
are
not
an
such
in
explanation
amount
certain
be
an
utterance
as
of
merely
But
obviously,
engaging
that
any
is
explanation
translate
presume
actually
capable
there
of causes,
become
That
events
Of
norms
we
it was
that
order,
strain
in social
inherent
of
degree
strain.
or
oracle,
utterances.
it a social
by
we
simply
Thus
to be
record-changer
over. Of
course
in question
in a derivative
tree
as we
can
cases
we
must
a member
is only
second-class
in
strain
in
it as
consider
do
this
either
that of an
or
as
the
record
allow
that
of our
of our
ordinary
the
is
the
community
for it is not
fashion,
many
of
take
practices,
can
its performances
the groaning
and
in very
or
greater
rock
in such
engaging
involved
or
the expression
of exhaustion,
us that
to be
telling
item
of
with
practices,
a
Thus
to norms
insofar
subject
in social
We
practices.
by giving
capable
not
need
other.
is a regulative
When
as
The
social.
causal
objective
also be explained
statistically)
physiology,
caused.
each
we
when
treated
as
treated
locatable
It
arguing.
science.
utterance
terms
be
of freedom
emerges
can
be
all
exclude
of an
capable
little
causal
at
spatio-temporally
principle
needs
speaker.
now
not
do
or even of engaging
community,
we
for doubting
of
things
or
community.
is a finally
remember
branch
community
objective
that matters.
the difference
members
to be
extended
candidate
is not
then, man
human
freedom
about
takes
the
by
to a
belonging
of being
the
those
constrained
Ill
lesser
the
than
practices,
There
unfree.
course
Of
translation,
by
granted
talking
via
subject
con?
practices
as he
him,
and
object,
can
about
in
him
of membership
insofar
him
own
view,
social
treat
objective
to which
our
consider
the
constrain
an
as
as we
him
constrain
him
in the
someone's
treating
in
is free
with
cope
which
treat
ways
is the criterion
our
community.
as we
Insofar
of
inherent
to which
formity
real distinction
The
two
behavior.
causes,
by
simply
of
cannot
difference.
objective
two "realms"
is not
these
one.
is between
an
than
between
ontological
than
between
a social
becomes
rather
rest
toward
adopt
Being
of
set of
transfer
we
causally.
is a matter
is a matter
dispute
QUARTERLY
attitude
two
of
ways
can
PHILOSOPHICAL
is the
occurrences
10 It is a measure
ones that the possibility
of this sort of view would not come
of this idiom over more
traditional
of the superiority
or evaluation/description
as a norm/fact,
to say that
For what does itmean
distinction.
readily tomind so long as the issue is formulated
are not factual or descriptive,
And yet this is what we are claiming,
and evaluative?
in the specific
but normative
these distinctions
sense captured
rendering.
by the social/objective
11
It is rather a social matter,
and imaginary
that freedom
either.
is not merely
of course on this account
subjective
Though
some individual
takes it to be)
the social from both the subjective
and the criterial classification
(which is whatever
distinguishes
that this criterial classification
is itself
takes it to be). I have argued
it is regardless of how anyone
and the objective
(which is what
social
rather
than objective.
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Sun, 10 May 2015 22:46:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AND
FREEDOM
are
there
line
border
as with
cases,
temperamental
and
cats,
infants,
of
force
The
automobiles.
the
claim
are
the
in
to be
differences
only
want
If we
to treat
tree
the
as
translated
its branches
here.
accommodated
one
like
utterances
social
the
are
and
clear
causal
the
criterial
ones.
to Kant's
tinction
He
account
any
regarded
by norms
as
insofar
abstractness
norms
involved,
formal
fact
of
linking
content
Kant
of
constraint
norms
is secured
formula?to
is to be one
dialectic
or
particularity
Hegel
sought
token-reflexive
a Kantian
of us. This
in
only
one
however.
necessary
the
of
presupposition
which
autonomy
is a
development
of
Communal
not
In
the
as
and
self-expression
to constraint
reducible
rest
of
this
paper
we
Bildung,
by communal
consider
such
enabled
norms.
a notion,
by
we
can
practices
not
does
be
balanced
which
are
simply
enable
the
("Pass
to
navigate
"Good
salt,"
the
most
fact
common
the
examine
at
of
shared
language
stock
expressions
so
so as
and
on)
situations
which
morning,"
social
and so on).
feeding, working,
are
conversation
the
rate,
of a new
any
creation
to use
sentences
the
of
to
is not
but with
of the individual. It is
to engage in the social
use
us
social
constitutes
of norms,
by
the
the
with
want
sets
con?
the
what
present
that
sentences
make
that
our
up
have
never
fact
of
is not
language
to
retreat
as a
set of
from
social
the
prac?
munity
of
the
decides
social
we
some
whether
com?
sentence
novel
of
judgments
the way
selective
agent
of the
side
possibility
constraint
of the
in
Our
particular,
that for some
sentences
in
as
in
linguistic
In
issue.
was
with
norms,
them.
from
govern
in the community
with
consequently
by
other.
vain
rational-moral
establishes
the
reference
Hegel
the
by
be
norm
some
by
which
to empty
of
its
lead
which
before
these
of
the nature
with
our
take
concern
Our
activity.
dimension
will
the norms
of
is appropriately
in terms
to the purely
freedom
sort of cultural-historical
The
principles
content
the
ignores
we
above,
acknowledge
characterization
to Kant's
to be doomed
it
dis?
is constraint
of freedom
As
sideration
ordinary
features of con?
of constraint
the
freedom
objected
Hegel
the norms
and
and
of Reason
involved
ontological
from
results
of the norm/fact
that
doctrine
is unattractive.
such
that
not
this explanation
norms
by
restriction
seen
have
objective,
which
of freedom
account
the
conjoining
duct.
are
classifications
But
we
once
other,
occurrences,
can
those differences
in objects treated one
the
translation
environing
and
way
and
between
of
therefore
in this way.
difference
differences
explanation
and
objective,
the
normative
itself a social
as
There
the
between
difference
the
factual,
and
*93
constrained
suggesting
between
NORMS
membership
norms, and
the wind
of us,
BY
CONSTRAINT
governing
for
appropriateness
think
of
those
like "This
reinforcement
such
communal
novel
utterances
common
governing
as
is red",
of many
on
the product
different
of
utterances
of
that
various
occasions.13
very
expression
the language
to use a
is not just
Learning
learning
set of stock
sentences
uses
too.
which
else
everybody
One
has not
learned
the language,
has not
acquired
to engage
the capacity
in the social
which
practices
are
novel
use
the
of
the
language,
which
the
sentences
appropriate,
utterances
and
of
understand
other
members
until
one
can
produce
will
deem
community
the
novel
appropriate
of
the
community
essence
ought
of natural
languages.
to understand
this
creative
12
Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, Mass.,
1965), Chapter One.
13W. V.
in the first chapter of Word and Object (Cambridge,
Quine's
elephant
topiary example
i960), suggests
to see how his story is appropriate
to the former.
mind
the latter type of sentences exclusively,
for it is difficult
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Sun, 10 May 2015 22:46:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
aspect
that he has
of
in
PHILOSOPHICAL
AMERICAN
194
of a new
language
freedom,
expressive
one
When
freedom.
kind
of
has mastered
utterances.
One
becomes
of novel
actions,
without
the
have
not
capable
of
only
directed
one
ends
of
capacity
expressive
the
one
intentions
to be
to express
able
one
when
from
kept
some
by
expression
a suitable
Without
sort of constraint.
cannot
have.
and
intentions
that one
desires,
simply
or a
we
cannot
to a
attribute
Thus
prelinguistic
dog
a certain
to prove
child
the
desire
conjectured
the belief
theorem,
needs
system
or
reform,
the
intention
the
is to
this
one
that
the
which
utterances
a
As
capacity
in the
novel
be
of
does
not
nor
appropriate
(as is always
because
case
social,
such
possible
the
an
constraint
open
texture
how
that
are
the
sort
is generated
of social
lots
acceptable.
of
of
have
language?the
that
languages.
on
modelled
abstract
and
strained
by norms
So
an
as
of
use of
the creative
performances?
fact
by the
one
that
is
con?
in the social
is
i.e.
community,
the
account
some
of
we
to be constituted
formal
purely
in the
generate
can discern
novel
of
possibility
will
will
term,
which
freedom
freedom
positive
to
given
expressive
natural
by
enabled
as
accepted
individual
possible
as
different
between
vague
whose
or
think of that
state
to be
or
has
antecedently
Expressive
a set of
with
little
we
further,
vation
social
practices
see
the
as
part
of
in accord
of
process
social
becomes
practices
positive,
of culti?
are
practices
novel
produce
social
practices
as well.
as
For
of novel
capable
to judgments
subject
social
to
a set of
with
novel
community
new
individuals
of
capacity
(themselves
exercise
[Bildung]
the
ness),
can
freedom
responses
of appropriate?
A
generated.
social
Some
natural
by the fact
practice
in accord
performances
achieved
community.
is and
does
merely
fact
freedom,
expressive
should we
Nor
envisaged.
performances
makes
possible
express
can
are
community
we
For
not objective
them?are
constitutive
performances
utterance
practices,
what
between
respond). No novelty
would
that
of
con?
social
division
a matter
to
is able
utterances
with
constraint.
expressive
expressive
of fit
looseness
the boundaries
again
and
inappropriate
the
And
practices
on many
appropriate
free?
freedom
expression
understand
novel
an
is constrained
Expressive
surpass
this
because
simply
or other,
norms.
language
of social
complex
as Hegel
of
in a
some
speaks
some
the
simply
One
norms.
"boundaries"?the
but
and
One
language.
to
social
freedom,
positive
consist
linguistically
what
freedom
the
acquire
to
produce
capacity
exhibits.
form
in
up
in the
inherent
the
monetary
community.
virtue
of being
norms
constraining
not
contents
occasions,
relevant
it is only
by
inherent
that
say
the
by
can
strained
the
of
satisfaction
as one
by
norms
make
practices
language
which
practices
sense
could
of norms
the framework
outside
social
QUARTERLY
digmatically
novel
performances
ances
possible
hand,
comprise
social
languages,
on
the
part
and
practices
are made
possible
and
and
on
a child's
individuals
the
other,
marked
relative
and
thus
with
mastery
para
practices,
make
possible
who
those
of
possible
novel
Particular
practices.
the
social
fashion Hegel
Thus
social
participate
further
of
perform?
them
make
which
by
on
them,
the
one
the community
they
together
in a
develop
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Sun, 10 May 2015 22:46:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
language
AND
FREEDOM
first
makes
the
possible
hension
of
production
novel
appropriate
and
social
which
practices
comprise
or
a scientific
consists
the
and
exercise
of
expansion
novel
ways,
one
intentions
or
the
acquire
express
not
could
arts
in
whether
to
in order
in,
in
sports.
to per?
and
capacity
desires,
even
beliefs,
in the development
of new sets
community
of social practices, at once the result of individual
novel
self-cultivation
performances
(producing
consists
make
formances
possible
of a group
"culture"
they
responses
new
social
to other
practices)
per?
and
the condition
the
as
institutionalized
which,
as
the
set of
social
practices
in.14
engage
for
practices,
in an
attempt
to compare
two
languages
dialectical
capacities
itself
continually
creates
novel
expressive
cultivation
Self-cultivating
veloping
dialectic
will
their
of
expressive
shared
practice
accordingly
account
than will
for
in
or individual.
community
de?
and
communities,
to this
according
capacities
and novel
performance
of
objective
to
difficult
causal
don't make
own
our
into
novel
performance-types.
ference15
assumes
practices
does
(this
such
proportions
to treat it as a qualitative
that it is plausible
not,
of
course,
dif?
that
entail
we
causal
norms,
have,
the
of
previously
The
cultivation
of
We
after
are,
familiar
all,
I95
in convenience
difference
the quantitative
Here
behavior
between
with
by treating it as
coping
a
and
causal
and
explanation
seeking
objective
a
as
of
it
translation
it
social
and
seeking
treating
adequate
expressive
NORMS
numbers
indefinite
compre?
This
utterances.
BY
CONSTRAINT
processes
possible
and
specification
notion.
general
of
supplementation
that
The
the
individual
of
satisfaction
greater
wants,
con?
of
paramount.
an
account
The
which
general
the
made
form
of
their
community
resolution
can be reproduced
in less
of this dilemma, which
terms in the idiom of social practices,
metaphysical
is this. Constraint of the individual by the social and
norms
political
may
be
legitimate
inherent
insofar
in
as
communal
that
constraint
practices
makes
14
individual
three sorts of sub-structure:
culture in this way, we may distinguish
traditions, and institutions.
repertorys,
Defining
in
all those he is capable of engaging
of social practices
has a repertory
of the community
individual member
comprising
at
insofar as it is different
time. Such a repertory has a history,
to) at a particular
according
performances
appropriate
(producing
a particular
in them. The practices which
human being who engages
have in common
one time than at another. Those practices
in by
is a tree structure whose nodes are sets of social practices
make up a tradition share a common
engaged
ancestry. A tradition
are the transmission or training to engage
branches
and
whose
not
entire
his
individual
individuals
node,
repertory)
per
perhaps
(one
at any time of individuals
and sub-sets of their current
is then composed
in the social practices are transformed. A social institution
relation.
of those roles in their mutual
is the evolution
of the institution
repertorys which are their institutional roles. The development
15
causal explanation
and
between
to identify the difference
we
matter
it
is
cannot
the
objective
here,
plausible
pursue
Although
one or the other stance is the appearance
of dialectical
of social practices
translation
development
(where the criterion for adopting
of the last century perceived
which
neo-Kantians
the difference
freedom as described
of expressive
above) with
by the cultivation
features of the natural and cultural sciences respectively
the methods
of Erkl?rung and Verstehen, which were the distinguishing
between
between
the difference
think of as codifying
things which have natures and things which have histories).
(and which we might
Each
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Sun, 10 May 2015 22:46:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PHILOSOPHICAL
AMERICAN
196
an expressive freedom
possible for the individual
which is otherwise impossible for him. Creative self
is possible only by means of the discipline
cultivation
as
social
of the
practices which constrain one, just
the
of
production
poem
not
requires
sub?
only
One
and
all,
some
speak
the production
to say
language
and
comprehension
a
requires
performances
anything
of novel
shared
of
background
insofar
of the
To
this
say
political
It does
questions
so much
is not
who
are
constrained
to present
by
theory
as
to present
idiom.
those
of
freedom
expressive
it.
at
about
University
16 I would
not,
for
trade-offs
instance,
between
even
begin
different
to settle
QUARTERLY
these
from
Utopia
abstractly
evaluate
to
the kinds
cording
freedom
and
self-cultivation
account,
and
that
novelty
helpful
quality
of
ac?
expressive
enable
they
in
can
institutions
political
and
principle
en?
and
of novel
in this
escapes
and
possible
novel
performance,
in practice
changes
to
within
reflectively
a concrete
varieties
Received
the many
nor
considerations,
the production
courage. For it is precisely
is admired
which
possibilities
expressive
of Pittsburgh
like to acknowledge
freedom.
and positive
of negative
project
one
comments
Richard
Rorty
and Annette
Baier
July
kindly
provided
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.12 on Sun, 10 May 2015 22:46:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
23, 1978
on an earlier
version.