The thesis
I had a chat with Dan Levin the other day about my draft introduction. He pointed out that I had a great question, but no thesis, i.e., I had stated no point or purpose to the question. In this case, I had not stated what I expected to find in answer to my question.
Gerald Levin, in the Macmillan College Handbook (2d ed.) describes the thesis as “the central idea of a piece of writing.” He is careful to distinguish the thesis from a statement of intention or a statement of subject. It is rather the statement of purpose for the paper; in the case of a research proposal, a statement of what I intend to prove.
What is my thesis then? Peri has suggested a three-pronged approach to the question “Why does the LDS Church exercise political power?”: 1) describing an LDS political philosophy; 2) describing a rational actor explanation; and 3) describing a Foucaultian explanation. Surely though I must have suspicions about which explanation will be best, and the purpose of the dissertation ultimately, but also the thesis of the proposal, is that I intend to demonstrate that one is better than the others, and if it is note, discover why not.
The thesis in my study should be approached in the same manner as the hypothesis of a more quantitative study. I suggest a (hypo)thesis to test and test it.
So, my question is “Why does the church exercise political power?” and my thesis is “The church exercises political power because of a highly developed political philosophy. This philosophy permits the church to at once claim to believe in a total separation of church and state on the one hand, and on the other exercise political power, both externally and internally, in the pursuit of very specific policy ends.”
In order to prove, or disprove, the thesis I will avail myself of alternative modes of explanation: 1) attempt to tease out from statements of church leaders, official documents, and scripture, a political philosophy such as I have described above; 2) attempt to construct a rational actor explanation; and 3) attempt to construct a Foucaultian, disciplinary explanation.
