ORIGINAL ARTICLE Determinate attitudes and indeterminate norms José Giromini 1,2 1 Instituto de Humanidades – Conicet, Córdoba, Argentina 2 Agustín Tosco s/n – Ciudad Universitaria, Córdoba Correspondence José Giromini, Instituto de Humanidades – Conicet, Córdoba, Argentina. Email: jgiromini@gmail.com Abstract The aim of this paper is to offer a version of social norma- tive pragmatism – that is, the approach that takes norms to be the result of shared practices – that comes closer to social reality than its cousins in the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind. The purpose is presenting a framework that can be useful for social the- orists sympathetic to normative concepts. This version introduces the concepts of the adoption of the normative stance, the projective structure of evaluation and a sketch of a theory of normative force in terms of accumulation of normative attitude. In order to motivate this conceptual tools, we present them as allowing us to overcome the traditional skeptical challenge put forward by Kripke. KEYWORDS Kripke's skeptical challenge, normative attitudes, normative stance, norms, social pragmatism 1 | INTRODUCTION Philosophical social‐pragmatic approaches to the nature of norms, namely, approaches that take normative phenomena to be the result of shared practices, are not so often discussed in social philosophy nor in the traditional social sciences themselves. This is quite surprising since, as Risjord (2014, p. 152) remarks, social theorists commonly invoke norms to explain social behav- iors, events and structures. This lack of coordination between a very powerful philosophical position and mainstream social theorizing is due to different motives pertaining to each disci- plinary domain. On the one hand, social and pragmatic accounts of normativity grew and devel- oped, notably from Wittgenstein, in the environment of the philosophy of mind and language. Most of these accounts, either communitarian ‐ Sellars (1969), Haugheland (1990) ‐ or interpretationist 1 – Davidson (1984), Brandom (1994) ‐ were built around questions related to Received: 9 April 2018 Revised: 22 February 2019 Accepted: 8 April 2019 DOI: 10.1111/jtsb.12212 J Theory Soc Behav. 2019;1–18. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jtsb 1