Except for this post ofc

Absolutely. Though I know less about the post-Austinian life than you do, I think you’re right to be perplexed about precisely this

Someone should propose an edited collection, The Linguistic Twirls

Fair! It’s hard to say anything precise in this medium … just wanted to step in in case it seemed to others that the social turn was what I set out. As you say, I do recognize the increasing embrace of social topics

When it comes to the original question -- I think Austin himself recognized that pretty much anything done with speech is a speech act (including 'constatives'). Some fragments of speech might not be speech acts -- but they are likely to be fragments of such acts. In a way this is as it should be

I actually don't think there is a 'social turn' in analytic philosophy (I have a chapter in my book trying to show that this is not the case). There *was* such a thing as a 'linguistic turn', although this was understood in a bewildering variety of ways (and I suspect the idea is itself a vague one)

"Was Marx a Philosopher"

Christoph Schuringa argues that Marx's overall project is concerned with raising philosophy itself to its highest power to actualize it, seeking to surpass predecessors including Hegel.

#Marx
www.thephilosopher1923.org/post/was-mar...