Table of Contents

• What is Explanatory Dualism?
• Theoretical Foundations
• Why Explanatory Dualism Matters
• Applications of Explanatory Dualism
• Methodological Implications
• Challenges and Critiques
• Teaching Explanatory Dualism
• Conclusion

In contemporary sociological thought, there is an increasing demand for theoretical precision in distinguishing between different levels and types of explanation. One of the most pressing conceptual issues is how to account for the complexity of social phenomena without falling into reductive thinking. This article introduces and explores the concept of explanatory dualism as a framework to reconcile two dominant yet often competing modes of sociological explanation: structural explanation and interpretive explanation. Understanding this dualism not only enhances our analytical clarity but also strengthens the empirical grounding of sociological inquiry.

Explanatory dualism is not a new theory per se, but rather a meta-theoretical strategy for holding together different explanatory logics. It invites sociologists to examine how causality and meaning, institution and interaction, materiality and symbolism are always entangled in the constitution of social life. The value of this approach lies in its capacity to transcend partial or monological accounts, instead offering a richer, dialectical understanding of complex social processes.

What is Explanatory Dualism?

Explanatory dualism refers to the analytical recognition and systematic integration of two distinct yet interrelated modes of sociological explanation:

1. Structural Explanation — focuses on macro-level forces, institutional arrangements, and material conditions that shape human behavior and social outcomes.
2. Interpretive Explanation — centers on micro-level meaning-making processes, subjective experiences, and symbolic interaction.

This dualism does not propose an irreconcilable dichotomy but rather a productive tension that, when appropriately managed, allows for richer and more nuanced sociological analyses. The explanatory dualist does not oscillate between paradigms arbitrarily but applies each in a context-sensitive, theoretically grounded manner. This makes explanatory dualism a flexible but disciplined framework.

Theoretical Foundations

Structural Explanation: Macro Determinants of Social Life

Structural explanations are grounded in the premise that society is composed of enduring systems, such as class, state, economy, and ideology, which constrain and enable individual and group actions. Key characteristics include:

• Emphasis on causality and patterned regularities.
• Interest in social facts, as in Durkheim’s tradition.
• Often operationalized through statistical, historical, or institutional methods.
• Conceptual focus on power, inequality, regulation, and systemic persistence.

From a structural perspective, phenomena such as poverty, education inequality, or racism are not merely personal failings or prejudices but are systemic and institutional in origin. For instance, unemployment may be analyzed in terms of labor market shifts, automation, or neoliberal policy reforms. Moreover, structural explanations emphasize path dependency, historical legacies, and social reproduction mechanisms that produce stability over time.

Interpretive Explanation: Meaning-Making and Social Interaction

Interpretive sociology, in contrast, is rooted in the understanding of social action as guided by the meanings that individuals ascribe to their experiences. This orientation owes much to Weber’s notion of verstehen, to symbolic interactionism, and to phenomenological traditions. Key features include:

• Focus on the subjective, the intersubjective, and the situational.
• Use of qualitative methods such as ethnography, participant observation, narrative analysis, or in-depth interviews.
• Emphasis on agency, reflexivity, identity, emotion, and the performative construction of social realities.

For example, the same phenomenon of unemployment might be analyzed through the lens of how individuals cope with joblessness, the identity transformations it entails, or how job-seeking is performed and narrated in different cultural contexts. Interpretive sociology thus foregrounds human creativity and contingency while recognizing the patterned nature of symbolic life.

Why Explanatory Dualism Matters

In sociological research and pedagogy, there is often an implicit bias toward either structural or interpretive modes. However, privileging one at the expense of the other can lead to:

• Reductionism: Overemphasis on structure can obscure agency and lived experience.
• Idealism: Overreliance on interpretation can neglect material and institutional conditions.

Explanatory dualism challenges this either/or thinking by arguing for a both/and approach. It insists that social phenomena are best understood through the interplay of macro-structures and micro-meanings. This integrative stance fosters intellectual humility, recognizing the limitations of any single paradigm while also enhancing empirical adequacy and theoretical coherence.

Furthermore, explanatory dualism reflects the ontological reality that social life is multi-layered. Institutions do not exist apart from human actors, just as individuals are always embedded in historically and structurally conditioned settings. Thus, explanatory dualism is not simply a methodological choice but a reflection of the epistemological and ontological commitments of sociology as a discipline.

Applications of Explanatory Dualism