Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Following Searle on TwitterHow Words Create Digital Institutions$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Adam Hodgkin

Print publication date: 2017

Print ISBN-13: 9780226438214

Published to Chicago Scholarship Online: September 2017

DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226438351.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM CHICAGO SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.chicago.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright University of Chicago Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in CHSO for personal use (for details see http://www.chicago.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 20 November 2017

Since We Make These Digital Institutions …

Since We Make These Digital Institutions …

Chapter:
(p.173) 11 Since We Make These Digital Institutions …
Source:
Following Searle on Twitter
Author(s):

Adam Hodgkin

Publisher:
University of Chicago Press
DOI:10.7208/chicago/9780226438351.003.0011

If the Searle/Tomasello/Hodgkin model of digital institutional development is correct, we need to consider the ethical situation of members/users, which means our ethical situation. Since we are all now users of digital language through the use of which digital institutions are evolving. The theory of institutional development that we have identified is various and not simply deterministic since historical and cultural factors are involved, nor need it be relativist since there are obvious constraints on the ways that digital institutions can be built: broadly speaking engineering constraints. But also the constraint that we impose as members, users and makers of digital action, through our acceptance and recognition of Status Function Declarations. There is also some plausibility in the idea that digital institutions make their own shape of trouble and have a moral character (Twitter, Google, Uber, Facebook, and Reddit are cited), in many cases tripping up over their own mission statements. The bottom line remains: digital institutions, like all institutions depend on the acceptance and recognition shown by their members and users. Institutional failings should be identified and addressed, if the problems are unavoidable or cannot be addressed it is likely and appropriate that the institution will fail.

Keywords:   evolution, deontology, acceptance, recognition, trolling, harrasment, Status Function Declaration

Chicago Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.