Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 11.djvu/578

 562 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

allowed to become members. While this question was not spe- cifically answered, the opinion appeared to prevail that so long as the predominating point of view in the association be scientific, practical sociologists ought certainly not to be excluded from its membership. In fact, it would appear that practical sociological workers in different parts of the country, and engaged in different lines of activity, have quite as much to gain from an interchange of views and of experiences as have the purely theo- retical or academic sociologists. Moreover, one of the best results of the new organization would be achieved by bringing into close and regular contact the "theoretical" and the "practi- cal" sociologists; each has much to learn of the other.

With regard to the question whether the new organization should be separate and independent or not, remarks were made by Dr. Lester F. Ward, of Washington, D. C. ; Professors David C. Wells, of Dartmouth College; W. F. Willcox, of Cornell; Franklin H. Giddings, of Columbia; David Kinley, of Illinois; Thomas N. Carver, of Harvard; E. C. Hayes, of Miami; C. W. A. Veditz, of George Washington University; and S. M. Lind- say, of Pennsylvania. In the course of this discussion it was pointed out that if the new organization were to become a section of an already existing association, it would not be easy to answer the question : Of ivhat association should it be made a part ? There seemed to be almost equally good reasons for annexing it to any of several organizations such as the Economic Associa- tion, the Statistical Association, the Social Science Association, the Anthropological Society, and the Association for the Ad- vancement of Science. It was urged by some, moreover, that if the new organization is made part of an existing organization, one could become a member only by joining the parent organiza- tion. Again, if the sociologists form merely a part, let us say of the Economic Association, that would imply that sociology is either subservient to economics or a part of it. And if the sociologists were to ask for a part in the program of the Economic Association, the part which the economists would be willing or able to give them would probably be insufficient, and the practical result of such an arrangement would be apt to