Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 10.djvu/532

 516 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

reasons for saying that the similarities are too few and the differ- ences too great is accepted by ourselves for true on the strength merely of the degree of conviction that they occasion within us. The principle is rather one of philosophical thought, and, as a criterion, would scarcely be admitted by physical science. An extreme empirical sociologist might answer that there is a con- sciousness of kind present in the case cited, but merely of a lower degree than the consciousness of kind which prevails among human beings. We would answer him by saying that an analysis of consciousness in both cases will reveal something unique in the consciousness of kind involved in the case of human beings, and so different in quality from that involved in observing the ape. The judgment involved in consciousness of kind among men is entirely unlike the judgments upon the other objects of conscious- ness. There is even a qualitative difference in the consciousness of kind felt by individuals in a certain social stratum toward others of a different position. The average man feels, e. g., a cer- tain indefinable difference between himself and a colored man. How much greater, therefore, must be the feeling of uniqueness when the consciousness of kind between individuals of a high social stratum is compared with that which, it would be claimed, does exist between them and animals! There is found to be some- thing unique in the judgment of kind for which the ordinary judgments of science are entirely inadequate. So here again we are led to an appreciative point of view.

An example of sympathetic insight one of the elements of consciousness of kind might be gotten from the testimony of musicians who say that to hear a great artist render a difficult composition gives them more pleasure, perhaps, than it does those who have not tried to play it. They realize the difficulties that have been overcome, the fine shadings in interpretation, and the technique that the artist has displayed, and consequently the performance means much more to them. Does this not involve a certain community of consciousness between performer and hearer? Can we not see here a direct application of the same principle in sociological explanation? The performer's achieve- ment has richer significance as the hearer has richer musical con-