On rules and rule-following: obeying rules blindly

The theoretical importance and explanatory value of `rulesʹ have frequently been questioned. This article discusses two different lines of criticism presented by the representatives of ethnomethodology and connectionism. It is argued that in both approaches a `ruleʹ is understood in a limited sense. Consequently their criticism does not give grounds to refute the notion of rules. The assumption that the later Wittgenstein proposes to reject `rulesʹ altogether can also be seen as mistaken. Wittgenstein attempts to dissolve the conceptual problems associated with the notion by considering it as praxis. His rule-considerations are compatible with an emergent approach to language, for they both reject rule-reification.