Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 15.djvu/123

 THE SCIENCE OF SOCIOLOGY 109

would be found among them. While Mr. Ford is sure that "there is no such science" as sociology, and that "there is no basis for it as a science," still he stands almost alone in his dogmatism upon this matter. If anyone is fitted to judge such a question imperson- ally, it is the workers in the other general sciences most closely related to sociology, viz., biology and psychclogy; and within the last dozen years biologists and psychologists have come to recog- nize very generally that there is a place for sociology. The lack of a clear field with a well-marked boundary for sociology has pro- duced various petty bickerings and jealousies between sociologists and workers in other social sciences. But in the very nature of things, as I have already pointed out, there can be no such clearly defined field for sociology. As a general science it will always be difficult to differentiate it clearly from the special sciences which labor in the same field. In this respect, sociology is not different from other general sciences. Biology cannot be easily differentiated from the special biological sciences; and but a few years ago some workers in these special sciences refused to recognize the exist- ence of a general science of biology. Now, however, it is quite generally recognized that certain problems, such as the theories of heredity, of variation, of selection, and of organic evolution, can- not be adequately dealt with by the special biological sciences. If it is convenient and even necessary to recognize a general science fundamental to all the special biological sciences, it is even more necessary, it could easily be shown, on account of the menace of one-sided views of the social life, to recognize a general science fundamental to all special social sciences.

Sociology, as a scientific endeavor, has had at least two distinct merits ; first, it has stood for the natural-science view of human society, which, traditionally at least, the special social sciences have not stood for; secondly, it has as a consequent emphasized the psychological and biological elements in human social life as pri- mary, rather than the economic and political elements. Sociology has, on the one hand, stood for applying the methods of positive science to the problems of the social life ; on the other, for obtaining an all-sided, comprehensive view of the social life as opposed to fractional or one-sided views. The scientific importance of this endeavor, it seems to me, cannot be overestimated. If the right development of the humanistic sciences depends upon getting rid of one-sided views of collective human life; if sociology is simply