IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v66y1972i03p796-817_14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Positivism, Historicism, and Political Inquiry

Author

Listed:
  • Miller, Eugene F.

Abstract

The present controversy between “behavioral” and “postbehavioral” views of political inquiry reflects a larger dispute between two opposing theories of knowledge. Whereas the behavioral movement has its epistemological roots in positivism and, ultimately, in classical British empiricism, the most recent protest against behavioralism draws upon the theory of knowledge that has been the principal foe of empiricism over the past century. This theory of knowledge, which received the name “historicism” shortly after its emergence, had become the dominant epistemological position by the mid-twentieth century. This essay considers the general nature of historicism and its influence on the recent revolt against positivism in the philosophy of science. Finally, it examines the use that political scientists have made of historicist principles in opposing positivistic models of political inquiry. It argues that an epistemological relativism becomes unavoidable once certain premises of historicism are embraced.

Suggested Citation

  • Miller, Eugene F., 1972. "Positivism, Historicism, and Political Inquiry," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(3), pages 796-817, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:66:y:1972:i:03:p:796-817_14
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400145289/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Deepak Gopinath, 2015. "Shifting of the ontological-epistemological balance in contemporary research agendas: a critique," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1873-1882, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:66:y:1972:i:03:p:796-817_14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.