Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1978 Political Theory and the Problem of Explanation. James Wayne Lemke Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Lemke, James Wayne, "Political Theory and the Problem of Explanation." (1978). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 3249. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/3249 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 79031*4 LEMKE» JAMES WAYNE POLITICAL THEORY AND THE PROBLEM OF EXPLANATION. THE LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COL., P H .D ., 1978 University Microfilms International 3o o n , z e e s r o a d , a n n a r b o r , m i 4eioe 0 1978 JAMES WAYNE LEMKE ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Political Theory and the Problem of Explanation A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Political Science by James Wayne Lerrike B.A., Southeastern Louisiana University, 1969 August, 1978 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writing of this dissertation, to say nothing of its completion, has been an enjoyable and rewarding enterprise. My good feelings about this experience are in large measure the result of the support and assistance of a number of people. It is with great pleasure that I acknowledge their contributions. I am indebted to Professors James Bolner, Cecil Crabb, Patrick O'Conner, and Donald Schroeder of the Political Science Department, Louisiana State University, for their encouragement and assistance. Professor Edward Henderson of the Department of Philosophy, Louisiana State University, has been particularly helpful in offering suggestions and support both in this dissertation and throughout the years of my graduate education. I would also like to express my appreciation to Professors Rene Williamson and Paul Grosser for their contributions. I feel that I have learned from all of these men; and I hope that my teaching reflects their influence. A special debt of gratitude is owed to Dr. J. Steven Picou of the Department of Sociology, Texas A & M University for his unrelenting encouragement and friendship. He has patiently and carefully read this manuscript at every stage of incompletion and has offered cogent criticisms and suggestions. Professor Cecil Eubanks, Department of Political Science, Louisiana State University, has been more than a disserta­ tion director and major professor; he has been a friend. The magnitude of my debt to him, both intellectual and per­ sonal, is beyond calculation. His influence on me has been strong, pervasive and wholly beneficial. Were I to have what my sociologist-friends would call a "role model," it would be he. It gives me particular pleasure to acknowledge the friendship, support and assistance in matters large and small of Miss Jo Scurria, Secretary, Department of Political Science, Louisiana State University. Miss Scurria has greatly facilitated the completion of this dissertation by removing many of the difficulties of finishing a degree while living eight-hundred miles away. In addition, her warmth and good humor made my days at L.S.U. all the more pleasant. Appreciation is extended to Mrs. Alma Stonecypher for her careful typing of the final copy of this dissertation. I would also like to express my deep gratitude to my parents and family for their continuing support and confi­ dence. Their encouragement has greatly aided the completion of this project. Finally, there is Kerry, my wife, who has variously served as main supporter, head cheerleader, primary consoler, and chief whip-cracker. Quite simply, she makes everything iii seem more worthwhile. Were it not considered bad form to dedicate a dissertation, this dissertation would be dedi­ cated to her. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................... ii ABSTRACT.............................................. vii CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE..................... 1 Conclusion................................. 13 II. EXPLANATION.................................... 20 Explanation: A General Definition........ 20 Process.................................. 20 Understanding............................ 21 Phenomena................................ 25 Evaluation............................... 27 Explanation: A Working Model.............. 41 Theoria.................................. 41 Description.............................. 45 Explanation.............................. 53 Prediction............................... 58 Conclusion................................. 62 III. THEORY......................................... 64 What is a Theory?.......................... 77 Hempel1s Model of Scientific Explanation and Theory............................... 84 The D-N Model of Explanation.............. 85 v CHAPTER PAGE The I-S Model of Scientific Explanation.... 94 T,C Reconstruction......................... 103 IV. THE RECEIVED VIEW IN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL THEORY.......................................... 109 V. POLITICAL THEORY AND THE PROBLEM OF EXPLANATION..................................... 173 Dissents From the Received View in the Philosophy of Science and in Social Science. 173 The Influences of Alternative Versions of Scientific Theory and Explanation on Political and Social Science................ 190 Political Theory and the Problem of Explanation................................. 201 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................... 220 VITA 229 ABSTRACT Lexrike, James Wayne, B.A. Southeastern Louisiana University, 1969. Doctor of Philosophy, Summer Commence­ ment, 1978 Major: Political Science; Minor: Philosophy Political Theory and the Problem of Explanation Dissertation directed by Professor Cecil L. Eubanks Pages in Dissertation, 228. Words in Abstract, 592. This dissertation is an investigation into the nature of theory, particularly in contemporary political and social science. It examines the complicated relationship between phenomena investigated by political and social scientists and the conceptual structures and processes employed to organize information about these phenomena. Although there are several possible forms of this relationship, the focus here is upon the form characteristic of science. Science is presented as a particular framework for providing expla­ nations. A theory is an extension of a scientific explana­ tory framework. The purpose of a theory is to provide an explanation of phenomena under investigation. The reason for selecting scientific explanation and theory as the object of this inquiry is because it is the predominant pattern of explanation among most contemporary investigators of political and social phenomena. vii There is considerable disagreement concerning what properly constitutes a scientific explanation and about the proper form of a theory. Although this dispute has mostly been conducted among philosophers of science, it is signifi­ cant to political and social scientists for two reasons. The first is that the acceptance of a concept of explanation and a model of theory is a prescriptive activity which helps to structure how particular investigations are conducted. It aids in the determination of what is to be considered a problem, of how investigations are to be conducted, of what is or is not to be counted as evidence, and of how that evidence is to be interpreted. The second reason is that political and social scientists have been influenced by one particular version of the nature of scientific esqplanation and theory, the Received View. The thesis of this disserta­ tion is that the consequences of the adoption of the Received View by political and social scientists have not been entirely beneficial, and that many of the theoretical and methodological problems of social scientific inquiry are in part the result of the acceptance of the Received View version of what scientific explanation and theory should be. After outlining the nature of the problem of explana­ tion and its relation to political theory, a general defi­ nition of explanation is presented. This definition empha­ sizes socio-cultural, group and individual factors which influence the proposal and acceptance of explanations. An original, tri-partite model of the general structural viii elements of an explanation, as well as the relationships between these elements, is also developed. This is followed by an extensive discussion of the concept of scientific theory. A model of the generally accepted components of a theory is presented. Considerable attention is devoted to the Received View model of scien­ tific eaqplanation and theory as developed by Hempel and others. The influence of the Received View model on political and social theory is analyzed in terms of three specific sets of problems. The problems, as well as the proposed solutions to them, further demonstrate the impact of Received View thinking on political and social science. Finally criticisms of the Received View emanating from philosophers of science are investigated and alternative versions of scientific explanation and theory are examined.