Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 10.djvu/268

 NOTES AND ABSTRACTS.

Discussion of the Papers on the Relation of Sociology to the Social Sciences and to Philosophy, by Professor Durkheim and Mr. Branford. 1

PROFESSOR BOSANQUET (IN THE CHAIR).

Considering how many distinguished speakers they hoped to hear, he would make his remarks very few indeed.

In the first place, they would see that sociology was claimed as a natural science. That was the point which Professor Sorley had taken up in his com- munication. One remark he would make as to whether sociology was to be a science within the limits of nature as understood by the votaries of exact science : he thought when they got the ferment of the social idea within the conception of " nature," that ferment would take care of itself. The ferment of the social idea would perhaps not break the old bottles, but it would sufficiently stretch those bottles, and bring us back to something like the Greek conception of nature, which he thought was the true conception. The next thing was a more serious matter, on which he found himself at issue with Professor Durkheim, and to some extent with Mr. Branford also. He merely mentioned the point in passing, because, whether he was right or wrong, it went to the heart of the subject. It was presented to them rather that evening as if the important problem of the systematization of the specialisms subordinate to sociology was a question of classification. What struck him when he came across it was this, that, e. g., from the point of view of logic, classification was not a primary form of thought. It was, in his mind, always a secondary form of thought. Classification was to him merely a way of representing conveniently the actual relations, attributes, and affinities of things and ideas ; in short, of experiences distinctive experiences of various kinds. With that he did not propose again to go farther that night, but merely to say this his main point that it appeared to him that the real work to be done in all systemat izat ions of this kind in all science, in fact was the analysis and estimate of the contents of special provinces of experience, distinctive types and forms of experience which constituted the object-matter of the different sciences. The problem did not present itself to his mind as classificatory, but one to be solved in actual concrete working in the various domains of experience. Otherwise it might seem to be a purely formal and methodological problem. He thought many of the men who had written con- tributions to their discussion had seen something of this difficulty. They must beware of systematizing too soon. That was how the problem presented itself to his mind.

He drew this conclusion : As to the nature of the unity to subsist in sociology, whether of a science or of a group of social sciences, every science had a distinct type of experience, and sociology itself would certainly be a distinct science in the sense that it dealt with a distinct and distinctive type of experi- ence. When you came to consider sociology in relation to other sciences, it was not a problem for the logician or the classifier, but for the person who carefully, critically, and laboriously pursued these sciences themselves. All these sciences possessed a sociological aspect, and all went beyond sociology. They would tell you themselves where they needed to join hands as sciences dealing with society. Take the science of ethics in particular ; it would tell them that ; viz., how far it wu a solid science, and how far something more. In the same way, let them pursue the distinctive experience which they called social as a subject of itself,

1 Vide AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, Vol. IX, pp. 134-37.

256