Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 10.djvu/683

 IS SOCIETY A PSYCHICAL UNITY f 667

tion of terms. It largely depends upon how you define your terms whether you will say that society is a psychical unity or not. At first blush it might seem that the sociologist had nothing to do with the definition of the terms of this question. It might be argued that to the psychologists must be left the definition of such a term as " psychical." But it must be replied that each science has its own point of view and must define its terms with reference to its own purposes ; that definitions given from the point of view of other sciences often fail to answer the purposes of the sociologist. The sociologist must define his own terms, not arbitrarily, to be sure, but within the limits of general scientific usage.

Let us proceed, then, to examine the terms of our question : Is society a psychical unity ?

For the purposes of this discussion the term "society" may be quite simply defined as "any group of interrelated individuals," as this definition conveys essentially all that is meant when a sociologist speaks of " a society." As for the definition of " unity," we may agree with Dr. Adams that " unity is not a matter of existence, but of method ; it is merely a limiting conception." 5 A unity is simply "a whole of attention." Anything which can be thought of as a whole made up of related parts is, therefore, a unity.

The only opportunity for serious disagreement is in regard to the definition of the term "psychic" or "psychical." 6 It will be seen at once from the above quotations that Dr. Adams uses the term as wholly synonymous with the terms " subjective " and " conscious." According to this conception, there are no objective psychical facts. Language, literature, imitation, and the like, so far as they are object- ive, are not psychical facts at all. Mr. Adams is even forced to say that public opinion, tradition, and social ideals are not psychic phe- nomena. It must be at once admitted that he has statements of many psychologists which apparently support his position. There has been a tendency in recent years, among the experimental psychologists in particular, to limit the terms " psychic " and " mental " wholly to the sense of " conscious." This has been done for the sake of exactness in psychological science. According to this view, psychic or mental phenomena, facts, or processes are simply the phenomena, facts, or

Ibid., p. 211.

I prefer the longer form, perhaps because it suggests to me more readily the contrast with physical. It may well be that in time the longer form will come to have the broader meaning.