In a recent article in this journal, Del Mar offered two main criticisms of Marmor’s account of social conventions. The first took issue with Marmor’s claim that the constitutive rules of games and kindred social practices determine in an objective way their central aims and values; the second charged Marmor with scanting the historical context in which conventions do their important normative work in shaping the goals of games. I argue that Del Mar’s criticism of Marmor’s account of the normative (...) centrality and force of constitutive rules in games and the like fails, but that his criticism faulting Marmor for giving short shrift to the normative work conventions do in these social practices is on the mark. So while I reject Del Mar’s claim that a closer look at the social and historical contexts in which the conventions of games and the like carry out their normative tasks undermines Marmor’s account of constitutive rules, I think his argument that conventions play a far more important, even if supplementary, role in shaping our understanding of and participation in these social practices than Marmor allows is persuasive. (shrink)

This paper offers a brief reply to William Morgan’s critique of my review of Andrei Marmor’s Social Conventions . Morgan’s principal critique is that I am wrong to think that the constitutive rules of games do not determine their aims and values. In particular, with regards to chess, Morgan argues that the rules of chess determine that the aim of playing chess is to win the game. I defend my position that one can play the game of chess without the (...) aim of winning - e.g. one can aim to play beautifully, and not, as Morgan suggests, only to win beautifully. More broadly, I argue for an account of games that is sensitive to the gap between playing and the game’s constitutive rules. Ultimately, the argument points to the descriptive priority for the social sciences of the concept of ‘play’ over the concept of games understood as ‘rule-governed domains’. (shrink)