The distinction between institution types and institution tokens plays an important role in Francesco Guala’s philosophy of institutions. In this commentary, I argue that this distinction faces a number of difficulties that are not sufficiently addressed in Understanding Institutions. In particular, I critically discuss Guala’s comparison between the taxonomy of organisms and the taxonomy of institutions, consider the semantics of institution terms on different levels in this taxonomy, and argue for an alternative solution to the problem of how to reconcile reformism and realism about institutions like marriage.
BoydR.1999. “Kinds as the ‘Workmanship of Men’: Realism, Constructivism, and Natural Kinds.” In Rationality, Realism, Revision, edited by Nida-RümelinJ., 52-89. Berlin: De Gruyter.
2.
BrigandtI.2009. “Natural Kinds in Evolution and Systematics: Metaphysical and Epistemological Considerations.” Acta Biotheoretica57:77-97.
3.
DevittM.1981. Designation. New York: Columbia University Press.
4.
EvansG.1982. The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
GualaF.2016. Understanding Institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
6.
HauswaldR.2016. “The Ontology of Interactive Kinds.” Journal of Social Ontology2:203-22.
7.
WigginsD.1994. “Putnam’s Doctrine of Natural Kind Words and Frege’s Doctrines of Sense, Reference, and Extension: Can They Cohere?” In Reading Putnam, edited by ClarkP.HaleB., 59-74. Oxford: Blackwell.
8.
WileyE. O.1980. “Is the Evolutionary Species Fiction? A Consideration of Classes, Individuals and Historical Entities.” Systematic Zoology29:76-80.
