I

With this object in view, I have heretofore laid down these propositions: (1) There is not now a science of sociology. (2) There never will be, for sociology is based upon a methodological concept that is not valid. These propositions have called forth replies published in the July number of this journal which I shall now examine. They virtually concede the truth of the first proposition, for they go no farther than to claim that sociology is a science in the making, and that the difficulties it experiences in finding itself are just such in their general nature as every recognized branch of science has had to pass through in its development. But it does not follow that sociology will ever extricate itself. Scholastic systems quite as elaborate and highly classified as sociology now is, were unable to stand the strain and had to be discarded-as, for instance, alchemy and astrology. Whether or not any projected system of knowledge will endure depends not upon its purpose, nor upon the zeal of its advocates, but upon the security of its fundamental concept, and its serviceability in providing systematic accommodation for verified data. I submit, therefore, that what Professors Small and Ellwood have to say about the importance of the aims of sociology is quite beside the mark. All that might have been said of alchemy and astrology in their day of scientific pretension, but that did not save them from being discredited and rejected by the scientific world. The point at issue is not whether sociology means well, but whether it is true-true in the sense that it has a vision of reality and is not misled by appearances.

Let us consider the reasons advanced for believing that sociology has in it the making of a science. Professor Small, while contending that it is "the most impressive body of social science in the world," does not define it as a science, but holds that it should be regarded as a methodological movement or endeavor. He admits that European scholarship has not taken much stock in sociology as such, but he explains this by saying that it has something just as good, and which indeed is sociology in

'Cf. "The Vindication of Sociology," Am. Jour. of Sociol., XV, 9.

everything but name. He makes citations showing the importance attached by German political economists to the psychology of motive, and he remarks that "they illustrate very clearly why the demand for a distinct sociological methodology has been less acute in Germany than in the English-speaking countries." It seems to me that the logic of this is that it does not matter in which direction you go so long as you know where you want to arrive. I think it matters a great deal; one cannot reach any goal unless one moves toward it. The notion that one methodology is as good as another, so long as it is addressed to the same class of problems, is to my mind a logical absurdity. The essence of scientific rank in any body of knowledge is that it methodizes the facts with which it deals, so that they are brought into their proper relations. A methodological scheme is therefore a condition precedent to any claim of scientific standing, but the claimant must stand or fall on the validity of its scheme. Professor Ellwood sees this point. He admits that the problems with which sociology proposes to deal are not new, and he adds "nor is sociology a new science except in the sense that it proposes to attack these problems by the new methods of positive science."2 That is to say, it claims to be a science because it has or is acquiring a special methodology different from that of other sciences, and performing a service that they are unable to render. I have no trouble in following Professor Ellwood's argument and unreservedly admit that his case in this respect is sound in logical formulation. Sociology has its own methodological scheme and to that extent its pretensions to rank as a science are well founded. But to make good its claim its methodological scheme must be valid. It appears to me that usually in sociological literature the security of its methodological basis is regarded as obvious. Faith in the possibilities of sociology, which gives ardor to the efforts of so many sincere and industrious workers, seems to rest upon the assumption that there must needs be a province for a science construing the phenomena of human life in terms of association among individuals. They seem to think that this is too plain for argument, since it is

2 Cf. "The Science of Sociology: A Reply," Am. Jour. of Sociol., XV, 106.

apparent to common observation and ordinary experience that all human institutions are forms of companionship among individuals. This is the major premise of sociological dialectic. With that granted the rest follows by strict logical inference. It is historically evident that institutions vary greatly in time and space. Every age has its own pattern. Every country, every people, and indeed almost every community, in every age, has its own pattern. Therefore social phenomena are very complex. And yet since they all apparently result from individual activities, the problem of establishing sociology as a science resolves itself into the determination of categories of individual volition. The task is difficult-yea, stupendous; and yet it is well worthy of all the labor that can be bestowed upon it; because it means nothing less than attainment by humanity of the power to control the destinies of humanity. Such is the high source of the moral enthusiasm which sustains the sociologists in their futile labors and makes them patient of the present confusion that allows quacks and charlatans to figure as sociologists with as good a right as any. Hence Professor Ellwood feels justified in saying that "he who opposes sociology as such is unconsciously an enemy of mankind.”

But what if the major premise that has been mentioned is invalid? What if, in assuming that institutions may be construed as forms of human companionship, the sociologists are deceived by appearances, the truth being, as is so generally the case with scientific truth, that the reality is very different from the appearance, so that sociology is as much astray as a system of astronomy would be if based upon the apparent fact that the earth is flat. This is a point which, apparently, it does not occur to the sociologists to consider. Even if they touch upon it, they seem to be oblivious to its importance, although it is really vital. A good instance of this appears in Stuckenberg's Sociology-The Science of Human Society. He correctly declares that the essential concept of sociology is "the genesis of society from individuals."3 Society is the genus, and "of this genus all existing societies are species or differentiations. Thus under

the genus society we have such species as the family, the church, the state, each of which contains a large number of specific or concrete societies."4 A little later on he notes that "the ‘endless multiplicity' of society is perplexing, and there is a strong temptation to make the state the unity of which the multiplicity is but a differentiation or at least an integral part of the state." Here is a hypothesis diametrically opposed to the sociological hypothesis. It proposes as the true causal order, not that humanity creates the state, as sociology holds, but that the state creates humanity. But there is no suggestion as to any need of investigation to decide which hypothesis is sound. Stuckenberg dismisses the matter by remarking: "But since society existed before the state, and since all that now exists cannot be claimed as political, we are obliged to look for another bond of union than that of the state in order to interpret non-political associations."

But did human society exist before the state? Mr. Stuckenberg's statement begs this important question, and the logic of his comment amounts to this: the political hypothesis cannot be accepted because it is incompatible with the sociological hypothesis and the sociological hypothesis is manifestly true. In the same way we find Professor Ellwood remarking: "It would seem to be plain without argument, then, that the state is but one of many forms of association with which sociology may deal.” Indeed, it seems almost impossible to get a sociologist to consider the possibility that the truth may be just the other way from what he supposes; that, instead of the genesis of society from individuals, what has taken place is the genesis of individuals from society; that man did not make the state but the state made man and that it is an institution that existed before the human species was formed and was the instrument by which the human species was developed; that the state and government are not the same thing, but that government is simply particular structure arising within the state; and that the state includes society just as any entity includes all its parts. Such notions as

Loc. cit., p. 9.

Loc. cit., p. 20.

these are not refuted or rejected; they are simply ignored. That the fundamental concept of sociology should be fallacious seems as incredible as was at one time the statement that the earth is really round and not flat, despite the testimony of common-sense. II

At times Professor Small uses language which seems to imply that sociology as a term connotes nothing more than the application of the methods of positive science to the interpretation of human nature and its institutions. It would follow that if sociology were discarded in favor of a system of quite different terminology that would be "sociology in everything but name." I am unable to recognize any scientific quality in such a statement. It reminds me of the reasons (in Thackeray's Pendennis) which Captain Shandon gave for naming his new paper the Pall Mall Gazette: "Because everything must have a name. My dog Ponto has got a name." If the term sociology is not a mere appellation that may be applied indifferently to any methodological scheme, according to one's taste and fancy, I submit that it must be taken to be related to its etymology and that it connotes the hypothesis that institutional development is to be construed in terms of association among individuals. It postulates the existence of human beings and proposes to account for the associations they form. As Professor Small puts the case in his General Sociology, the subject-matter of sociology is "the process of human association." This statement is cited with approval by Professor Ellwood, who goes on to remark that despite the great variety of sociological investigation, "the object of the sociologist's attention is always the associational process, that is, the psychical interactions of individuals." The italics are Professor Ellwood's own.

When I criticize sociology, I desire to be understood as criticizing this hypothesis. Nothing is farther from my thought than any notion of antagonizing "the natural-science view of human society," or of resisting scientific effort "for obtaining an all-sided comprehensive view of the social life as opposed to Am. Jour. of Sociol., XIII, 311.