In this paper, we discuss some implications of John Rawls’ paper ‘Two Concepts of Rules’ (1955) for social science. We argue that Rawls’ notion of ‘practice’ is not a straightforward contribution to sociological theory, but rather re-orients the idea of what understanding social actions might be. We explicate how Rawls’ distinction between ‘summary’ and ‘practice’ views of rules might play out in approaching mathematical practice and mathematical expressions. We argue that social constructivists like Bloor hold on to a ‘summary’ conception of rules while Wittgenstein adopts the more radical ‘practice’ conception.
Abercrombie, N., S. Hill and B.S. Turner ( 1986) Sovereign Individuals of Capitalism. London: Allen & Unwin.
2.
Barnes, B., D. Bloor and J. Henry ( 1996) Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Approach. London: Athlone.
3.
Bloor, D. ( 1973) ‘Wittgenstein and Mannheim on the Sociology of Mathematics’ , Studies in History and Philosophy of Science4(2): 173-91.
4.
Bloor, D. ( 1976) Knowledge and Social Imagery. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul.
5.
Bloor, D. ( 1983) Wittgenstein: A Social Theory of Knowledge. London: Macmillan.
6.
Bloor, D. ( 1994) ‘What Can the Sociologist of Knowledge Say about 2 + 2 = 4?’, pp. 21-32 in P. Ernest (ed.) Mathematics, Education and Philosophy: An International Perspective . London: Falmer.
7.
Bloor, D. ( 1997) Wittgenstein, Rules and Institutions. London: Routledge.
8.
Davis, P.J. and R. Hersh ( 1981) The Mathematical Experience. Boston : Birkhäuser.
9.
Garfinkel, H. ( 1963) ‘A Conception of, and Experiments with, "Trust" as a Condition of Stable Concerted Actions’, pp. 187-238 in O.J. Harvey (ed.) Motivation and Social Interaction. New York: Ronald Press.
10.
Garfinkel, H. ( 1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
11.
Garfinkel, H. ( 2002) Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim’s Aphorism (edited and introduced by Anne W. Rawls). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
12.
Greiffenhagen, C. and W. Sharrock ( 2006a) ‘Logical Relativism: Logic, Grammar, and Arithmetic in Cultural Comparison’, Configurations14(3): 275-301.
13.
Greiffenhagen, C. and W. Sharrock ( 2006b) ‘Mathematical Relativism: Logic, Grammar, and Arithmetic in Cultural Comparison’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour36(2): 97-117.
14.
Greiffenhagen, C. and W. Sharrock ( 2007) ‘Linguistic Relativism: Logic, Grammar, and Arithmetic in Cultural Comparison’, Language & Communication27(1): 81-107.
15.
Greiffenhagen, C. and W. Sharrock ( 2008) ‘Where Do the Limits of Experience Lie? Abandoning the Dualism of Objectivity and Subjectivity’, History of the Human Sciences21(3): 70-93.
16.
Mackie, J.L. ( 1966) ‘Proof’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplement40: 23-38.
17.
Mannheim, K. ( 1936) Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
18.
Rawls, J. ( 1955) ‘Two Concepts of Rules’, Philosophical Review64(1): 3-32.
19.
Schatzki, T.R., K. Knorr-Cetina and E. von Savigny (eds) ( 2001) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.
20.
Winch, P. ( 1964) ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’ , American Philosophical Quarterly1: 304-24.
21.
Winch, P. ( 1990) The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy , 2nd edn. London : Routledge. (Orig, pub. 1958.)
Wittgenstein, L. ( 1976) Wittgenstein’s Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics, Cambridge, 1939, ed. C. Diamond.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
Wittgenstein, L. ( 1978) Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, 3rd edn, ed. G.H. von Wright, R. Rhees and G.E.M. Anscombe, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
