Abstract

John Stuart Mill's writings are filled with tension and ambiguity. In this project, I account for this tension and ambiguity through a focus on his "mode of theorizing". By mode of theorizing I mean the way Mill strategically constructed his writings so as to convince others that what he had to say was reasonable, relevant, and truthful. I contend that the tensions and ambiguities in his writings are strongly correlated with his mode of theorizing. Mill's highest theoretical aspiration was to assist with the realization of social progress. But depending on the text , the specific means of achieving this goal change. For example, Mill's earlier work comes across as an attempt to show how social science can reveal the conditions necessary for social progress. And while the "latter" Mill never abandons his faith in social science, he does shift away from implementing the steps he earlier believed necessary for its success. Instead, Mill seems to be more "political" in his latter work.I argue that this surface description of his political thought creates a false dichotomy in the form of an early versus a late Mill. I show that Mill's mode of theorizing is the thread that connects the supposed two Mills. Further, when his mode of theorizing is sufficiently understood and taken into account, the substantive dichotomy dissolves and his political theory is shown to resonate in both his early and latter work. Mill's mode of theorizing is best described as an attempt to employ both universal and particular conceptual categories without synthesis in pursuit of social progress. Mill's mode of theorizing, therefore, demands that we take seriously the tensions and ambiguities that are a defining feature of his writings