Imagens das páginas

2. Do you think the study is entitled to be called a science?

3. In what department does it belong?

4. What is its relation to Political Economy, History, Political Science, Ethics?

5. How much of the subject, if any, should be taught in the high school?

6. In what year of the college course should the subject be introduced, and what subjects do you regard as directly preparatory?

7. What is the nature of the course that should be offered to undergraduates?

8. Would you divide the subject into descriptive, statical and dynamic, and in what sense do you use each of these terms?

9. What relative importance does the treatment of the dependent, defective and delinquent classes hold?

Notwithstanding the disagreeable suggestion of an unauthorized examination which my letters must have raised, they received from most of my correspondents immediate attention. About forty have replied. Of these, three pleaded knowledge insufficient to entitle them to an opinion. All the others gave answers to at least some of the questions. From the nature of the case, answers could not be otherwise than brief. In this respect one reply is a model. One would scarcely think that the fourth question, What is the relation of Sociology to Political Economy, History, Political Science and Ethics, could be dealt with briefly. But one writer disposes of it as follows: "The relation of Sociology to Political Economy, History, etc., is close." On the whole, however, the replies are far more complete and more carefully written than I expected to receive. A brief summary of the opinions expressed will illustrate the condition of thought about sociology among those who ought to be informed. Do not anticipate from this summary a clarification of sociological ideas, but look rather to see the confusion in which sociological thought is involved. We shall take up each question separately.

In answer to the first question, only six expressed themselves as preferring the term Social Science. Among the reasons offered for preferring this term are its breadth and the popular prejudice against an increase in the number of the "ologies." Three find a use for both terms, two using them interchangeably. Still another writes, "Personally I prefer neither, but should like to see the term Politics used in the broad Aristotelian sense, reserving the term, Political Science for the narrower region relating to governmental relations." The great majority, however, are in favor of using the name Sociology because, they say, it is one word, and has also its adjective, sociological. While not assuming so much as "Social Science," it suggests

more unity, and distinguishes itself from several social sciences. Moreover, it has been adopted by such men as Comte, Spencer, Ward, Giddings and others. No objection was offered on account of the etymology of the word. The name, then, that seems to have the field is Sociology.*

But is sociology a science? Fully three-fourths of the answers to this question are in the affirmative. Some say it is a "becoming science." Professor John Bascom, of Williams College, writes, "It is a question of degrees. It will do no harm to call it a science if we do not abate our effort to make it one." The definition of science upon which these answers seem to be based is a systematized body of knowledge, or as Professor John R. Commons, of Indiana University, puts it, "The study and classification of a body of facts, with a view to discovering co-existences and sequences." But there is another point of view from which the question may be regarded, namely, Is there a special field for sociology? Does it justify itself by showing a qualitative differentiation from antecedent sciences? Those who recognize this point of view think that sociology either is or is rapidly becoming a science.

How then, we ask, shall this new science be classified? In what department does it belong? Most of the teachers of sociology think it ought to form a department by itself. Some would place it in the department of the social sciences, along with politics, economics, jurisprudence, etc. Others would change the order, making all the social sciences divisions of sociology. On the other hand, Professor Giddings says, "General sociology cannot be divided into special social sciences, such as economics, law, politics, etc., without losing its distinctive character. It should be looked upon as the foundation or groundwork of these sciences, rather than as their sum or as their collective name." Scattering replies place it under psychology, moral

*While adopting this term, some complain of its misuse. Professor G. W. Patrick, of the University of Iowa, writes, "The word Sociology has been much used in this country, unfortunately, I think, as synonymous with the science of Charities and Corrections." And Professor William MacDonald, of Bowdoin College, says, "I prefer the term Sociology, understanding by that term the science of human society. The use of the term to denote systematic inquiry into the subjects of crime, pauperism and labor seems to me narrow, and likely to withdraw attention from more important and more fundamental inquiries." The word "Sociology," as first used by Comte in the "Cours de Philosophie positive," was a "name for that part of a positive or verifiable philosophy, which should attempt to explain the phenomena of human society. It was exactly equivalent to 'social physics,' for the task of Sociology was to discover the nature, the natural causes, and the natural laws of society, and to banish from history, politics, economics, etc., all appeals to the metaphysical and the supernatural, as they had been banished from astronomy and chemistry."-Professor Franklin H. Giddings.

and political science, political economy and anthropology. One teacher thinks it belongs under the "humanities," while two say it has no natural boundaries, and is therefore not included in any one department. A general feeling in regard to the question is expressed, perhaps, by Professor John Dewey, of the University of Chicago, who says, "I don't feel at all sure. It would seem well to have it a separate branch, in order to make sure that it received proper attention, but I think its separation a great pity if it means isolation from any of the great subjects mentioned in question four; i. e., Political Economy, History, Political Science and Ethics." "Sociology," he continues, "should be a sort of meeting place for the organized cooperation of these subjects, it supplying the general theory and principles and progress, they filling in the media axiomata and the special facts."

These answers indicate the opinion in regard to the matter inquired about in the next question, namely, the relation of sociology to political economy, history, political science and ethics. Those who believe that all these branches are departments of sociology content themselves by merely saying so. Those who regard sociology as an independent science think its function is to co-ordinate the results of these special sciences, or that sociology studies the same phenomena from a different point of view; that is, sociology treats of the phenomena of economics, etc., that are due to the existence of society. For this study history furnishes material. It is the medium through which sociological phenomena must be observed.* "History," says

*But history is dependent upon sociology for its topics and its valuation. "I would like to emphasize this thought," says Professor James R. Weaver, of De Pauw University, "that history may be taught best through some such study as constitutional law, the theory of the state, international law, or sociology." To better indicate the points of view, I give a few answers to this fourth question in full. "I should adopt a classification like that of DeGreef. History is sociological evolution. I should say that ethics looked at, not from an historical and descriptive standpoint, but from that of improvement, is identical with Sociology. It is Sociology working toward the goal of human betterment."-Professor J. R. Commons, Indiana University,

"Political economy is not a department of social science, nor is political science. Both furnish materials to social science, but are to have their independence respected. This last is true of history as a fundamental discipline. Ethics is merely a related subject according to the Intuitional Conception. Conceived in its evolutionary aspect, it is parallel with political economy and political science, as aiding social science."-Professor D. Collin Wells, Dartmouth College.

"History simply contributes material to this as to all the other social sciences. Ethics, understood not as a science of life, but as a science of conduct, is a depart. ment of Sociology. Political economy and politics lie partly within and partly without the field of Sociology, but they are so special, so highly developed, and, moreover, comprise so much that is so technical, that they should not be regarded

one, "is its material, ethics its guide, political economy its interpreter, and a rational system of political science its proposed end." Many express themselves as in doubt about the relation of ethics to sociology. Professor Anthony, of Bates College, says that "Sociology is Political Economy in practice, History in the making, Political Science as an art, and Ethics applied." And this view of ethics is held by Professor Peabody, of Harvard, who describes sociology as ethics applied to the economic situation.

Coming now to the opinions expressed in regard to the time when the study of sociology should be introduced into the schools, we find decidedly more agreement. Only six think any part of sociology should be taught in the high school, and three of these, owing to the absence of suitable textbooks,* think it is of doubtful utility. Professor Commons thinks the high school should teach "descriptive sociology, local, State and federal government, administration, labor, capital, pauperism, etc., the whole subject treated objectively, beginning with the best known facts in the locality and proceeding outward, one-half hour a day more or less during the entire high school course." "The teacher," he says, "could make it an exercise for the entire school, and by alternating the subjects, the teaching force would not have to be enlarged." Professor Charles R. Henderson, of the University of Chicago, would have a brief sketch course introduced very early. This course should provide for systematic observation of familiar social facts. There is almost general agreement, however, that sociology proper is a branch that cannot be successfully taught outside of the college or university.

As to what year in the college course the study should be taken up, there is some uncertainty and much difference of opinion. Twenty-four as branches of Sociology, but as independent sciences.-Professor E. A. Ross, Leland Stanford Jr. University.

"Political economy and social science have to do with many questions intimately related, and so affecting each other that it is difficult to separate them. History, recording the evolution of society, must take account of many causes and events, the laws and institutions entering into its structure. The study of social science gives opportunity for pointing out the results of certain forces operating during a certain historic period, and I, therefore, regard the relation of social science and history as very close and important."-Professor H. L. Reynolds, Adrian College. * Professor A. W. Small and Mr. George E. Vincent, of the University of Chicago, have recently published an excellent textbook entitled, "An Introduction to the Study of Society."

+ Professor Henderson says: "Sociology should not be introduced as a formal and separate study before the second year of the college course, and then only in a general survey to precede special social studies. But from the time that children begin to study geography and history in the schools, a teacher acquainted with sociological methods can train pupils in the habit of observing, classifying, naming and reasoning upon the social phenomena."

answer the question directly. Of these, four would have sociology taught in the Freshman year, two in the Sophomore, five in the Junior, and thirteen in the Senior year. Others were uncertain, or felt unprepared to answer. As a matter of fact, most of the courses in sociology offered in the United States are graduate courses, or Senior year electives. As preparatory studies, history takes the first rank, with political economy second. Ethics, psychology and biology are also named by many as desirable, biology, especially, for besides encouraging the scientific habit of mind, it gives a definite and concrete conception of the theory of development as worked out in that science, which is useful in the study of social evolution. Logic, political science, civics and anthropology are each mentioned once. Dr. A. W. Small would have descriptive sociology taught as a preparation for all the special social sciences, and then, after a preparation has been gained in biology, psychology, history, ethics, political science, and, if possible, anthropology, he would introduce the elements of statical and dynamic sociology. Preparatory studies aside, the opinion seems to be all but general that every well-regulated college and university should offer a course in sociology to its undergraduates. What should be the nature of that course? To this question I received few definite replies. "General summary,' elementary and stimulating," "only those topics which illustrate economics," and other like answers, are too vague to be effectively summarized. The implied opinion seems to be expressed in the reply of Professor C. H. Cooley, of Michigan University, which I quote: "In my opinion, such a course should consist of two parts: first, a concrete survey of historical forms of association from the primitive family-or horde-down to the numerous and complex associations of the present day. This survey should be something more than a condensation of the history of institutions. It should be unified throughout by applying to all institutions certain fundamental questions relating to their sociological character-such as how far they are free, how far coercive, whether vague and indefinite or formal and binding; the physical mechanism of their organization, as transportation and the facilities for the production and preservation of material goods; the psychical mechanismmeans for the dissemination and preservation of thought, communication, law, custom, morality and literature. These things have been much studied in themselves, but little as factors of association.

99 66

"The second part of the course should attempt a searching and somewhat detailed analysis-a Theory of Association. To show what I mean I would cite the first two volumes of Schäffle's 'Bau und Leben' as an attempt to work out such a theory. To accomplish an analysis of association is the main end of the study, but I believe that

« AnteriorContinuar »