| In this dissertation, I argue that John Stuart Mill's social science and its methodology provides the basis for his philosophy as a whole, by providing the information that informs his utilitarian project of practical reform. Mill has been criticized for an “atomistic” and unsituated view of society, but attention to his epistemology and methodology of social science reveals a commitment to seeing individuals as members of social groups, both as inquirers and the objects of inquiry. Situating the social inquirer in a social context reveals Mill's concerns about the threat that personal prejudice and class and cultural power pose to the accurate observation of language, nature and society. Because of this threat, Mill's social scientific experts need to promote diversity as an aid to their pursuit of social scientific knowledge.; Mill's situated account of social science also requires that these social and moral sciences themselves be realized in institutions. Seeing growth in knowledge in terms of a sociological theory of progress draws our attention to the political character of Mill's theory of knowledge: such knowledge is contingent and discursive and its bearers are responsible, in their attempts at reform, to a public. This account of knowledge emphasizes the difficulties inherent in understanding what will benefit a particular individual, and accordingly limits the paternalistic interventions such a social science can justify. The context of justification for Mill's social science, reflection and discussion, serves as the context of justification of Mill's moral and political sciences as well. For morality, justification imposes a rational requirement to order and reflect on one's preferences, in the context of the moral demands of the general utility. For Mill, prudential rationality is set in a moral context, which is itself set in a social and political context. Hence, Mill's theory is a “political utilitarianism”. This political interpretation of Mill's thought helps us see him as a worthy contributor to contemporary debates about diversity, power and discourse, and resists interpretations of Mill which overemphasize the Romantic and aesthetic aspects of his thought. |
