Imagens das páginas

will arise, and Professor Giddings deserves the fullest recognition for his services in rescuing sociology from the "straddlers," in insisting that the tree was more than the sum of the branches and that this more was the very thing that gave sociology its reason for existence. This service is none the less real because the false conception was not chargeable to any prominent representative of the science.

I am, of course, aware that the relations here discussed are not so simple as I have seemed to make them. I fully concur in the acute suggestion of Professor J. B. Clark, that in all applications of the tree and branch figure the tree should be a banyan tree. The special social sciences do not deal exclusively with the phenomena of human association. Economics, for instance, receives postulates from psychology and the physical sciences as well as from sociology. As a partially independent science it may even give postulates in turn to sociology, thus reversing the order of dependence. Frequently, too, there is a difference of perspective, as when the economist studies association as a factor in the development of wealth, while the sociologist is studying wealth as a factor in the development of society. It may be urged against every classification that it artificially simplifies and, in so far, misstates the real relations involved. But this does not invalidate the classification. The question is, does it isolate and emphasize the most important relations of dependence? It seems to be generally agreed that the laws of association are the principal postulates of the special "social" sciences if we may judge by the name applied to the group.

I have tried to show that the real working conception of sociology has been much the same with all who have attained recognition as sociologists, misconceptions having rested with outsiders whose important relation as patrons and sympathizers has warranted the discussion. The question whether the special sciences are a part of sociology is important only in so far as it influences the practical relations of

those sciences. I have no fear that any one who makes serious advances in the study of fundamental sociology will be a trespasser in special fields, or that anyone who confines himself to special fields will be recognized as a sociologist. I, therefore, hope that not much more time will be spent in discussing this question of inclusion. But in a paper like this the subject perhaps deserves mention. There are arguments, none of them very important, on both sides.

In favor of calling the special sciences branches of sociology may be urged, first, the etymology of the word which suggests a science co-extensive with society or the phenomena of human association. We must never be slaves to etymology and where the etymology is concealed or usage has set it aside, it should be unhesitatingly ignored. But here etymology is exceedingly evident and all usage is so far in its favor. It is almost certain to influence usage which is only partly under scientific control. There is a constant interplay in the popular mind between all the derivatives of this root which may well make us despair of giving to one of them a narrow and exclusive meaning.

Farther, there is need of an inclusive term and with Spencer we must confess that we know of no other which has any chance of adoption. Social science has been proposed, thus freeing sociology for the narrower use. But the fate of "natural science" in competition with biology is not encouraging. Though backed up by extensive usage its inherent unsatisfactoriness ruled it out and biology has been substituted, it must be confessed with general satisfaction. Moreover, "social science" has been thoroughly spoiled by bad usage.

Finally, the inclusion emphasizes a real connection and mutual dependence which is eventually more important than dangerous.

Against this inclusive use of the term there is first of all, "the pressure of the academic situation," the influence of which, upon the present discussion, was frankly recognized

at the conference. Just now sociology is being examined by boards of trustees. Has it a field of its own which will warrant the creation of a separate chair? Other scientists are watching for poachers upon their preserves. As one econo

mist puts it: "The sociologist has no business in the field without the economist's consent." It is a time for diplomacy, a time to insist that sociology is not economics or politics at all. These considerations are temporarily important but, let us hope, only temporarily so. They should not make us nervous or drive us into a position from which the indefinitely more powerful laws of language growth will ultimately force us to recede. Moreover, the greatest sociologists have hitherto not been teachers and the same may be true in the future. For them at least, this academic nervousness is meaningless and they are not likely to consent to concessions made in its behalf.

Farther, it is said that the inclusion of the special sciences makes sociology unwieldly and too large for any one man. Here again we meet the academic influence, urging that the field be divided as it used to be in the old school books, into lessons of approximately equal size for convenience of assimilation. This consideration is not without force, but it must be remembered that the names applied to the sciences have long ago ceased to determine the scope of individual careers. Chemistry is a science vastly larger than the capacity of one man, but the term is appropriately applied to the study of the whole body of phenomena which involve the law of chemical affinity. To have trimmed the word down to the size of a man would have lessened its usefulness and bred confusion. The wiser course has been adopted of using qualifying adjectives. The observer of general laws treats of general chemistry, while organic chemistry, physical chemistry, etc., are fields of special investigation.

For all these reasons I incline to the opinion that sociology will be most profitable as a general term, including the special social sciences as its branches. I believe such an

inclusive use of the term will be forced upon us whether we will or not, as has been the case with biology. As in the latter case, however, the narrower use is admissible and practicable, though "general" sociology will often be found desirable for explicitness, as even Professor Giddings' writings testify. But inclusive or exclusive it must not be forgotten that sociology is more than a group of special sciences, and that the study of fundamentals should be strongly emphasized. This matter is important; the other, it seems to me, is not. One question remains to be considered which bears slightly on the last. In his recent admirable publication on "The Theory of Sociology," Professor Giddings notes that, "In the study of institutions, more than anywhere else, general (!) sociology has been confounded with the special social sciences." He believes this is due to a desire for " symmetry and completeness." I believe, however, that the symmetry actually attained will hardly justify this conclusion. The social institutions are never equally treated, industry being most of all neglected. The reason is clear. A certain development of the special sciences must accompany or precede the development of general sociology. As a matter of fact these branch sciences have been very unequally developed. Economics has been highly developed, while the family, religion, etc., have been so little studied that they have given their name to no science. Until something is done here generalization is impossible, and for lack of specialists the sociologist has been obliged to do this preliminary work himself. Of course the work is not very thoroughly done, and the resulting mixture (if not confusion) of general with special is not very satisfactory, but it is inevitable. In the academic field this union of nonco-ordinate elements is even more unavoidable. The professor of sociology generally finds others teaching politics and economics on his arrival, but he is expected to teach domestics himself. This and other like combinations must * I suggest the term. I am ready to accept a better one.

long continue in most of our institutions. All the force of academic usage will tend to associate these studies with the name, sociology. It is worth considering whether it is better to oppose this tendency, or make use of it to secure the larger inclusion.

I suggest by way of recapitulation:

Sociologists are substantially agreed as to the nature of the task before them, and the limits within which the individual investigator can most wisely confine his efforts. While differing as to the propriety of using the term sociology in an inclusive sense, they differ less in actual usage, and all confess the question unimportant.

It is farther agreed that the practical worker in sociology should distinguish clearly between general principles and details, that the study of either is sufficient for the most ambitious investigator, and that they appeal to temperaments so different that specialization is desirable. At present the study of fundamentals should be emphasized. The scope of the individual career will depend, not on the symmetry of scientific classification, but on ability and temperament and the exigencies of the academic situation.

Finally, the majority of usage, both scientific and popular, seems to require a definition something as follows: Sociology is the science of society. Its field is co-extensive with the operation of the associative principle in human life. The general laws of association form the subject of general sociology, a science distinct but not disconnected from the branch sciences of economics, politics, etc., which rest upon it, though in part developed before it.

I am far from wishing to force my opinion on others. If I am mistaken in interpreting the conclusion reached by the conference I invite correction. But I am at least sure that I speak for all in urging uniformity and a speedy conclusion of this discussion. Any agreement is better than none when only terminology is at stake. To devote whole chapters or even university courses to the discussion of such a topic will

« AnteriorContinuar »