Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 15.djvu/855

 REVIEWS 841

their purpose. Professor Howard deserves the gratitude of his colleagues in sociology for this excellent piece of work. He has set an example from which it is to be hoped that "waves of imitation" will spread into other institutions. Instruction in social psychology needs just such attempts at organization.

G.E.V.

Psychological Interpretations of Society. By Michael M. Davis^ Jr., Ph.D. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1909. Pp. 260.

This essay is No. 2 of Vol. XXXIH in the "Columbia University Studies in History, Economics and Public Law." Chap, i to x in- clusive constitute the author's doctor's thesis on the theories of Tarde. To these chapters has been prefixed a section on "The Social Mind." Dr. Davis gives a brief historical survey of the psychological interpretation of society, discusses the different mean- ings of social unity, and analyzes the various ideas which have been associated with the term "Social Mind." The treatment is admir- ably clear and is to be welcomed as a distinct contribution to meth- odology.

In chap, xi on "Social Process" and in a third section on "Appli- cations," Dr. Davis has carried out logically some of the principles of social psychology developed in his discussions of Tarde. The treatment of psychology in the interpretation of history is thor- oughly sane. It illustrates the value of a theory of process which does not attempt to explain a highly complex situation in terms of any one of many interdependent factors. The chapter on "Public Opinion and Socialization" is a wholesome corrective to the infer- ences drawn from Le Bon's identification of the crowd with the public. Many will regard the author's assertion that the phenomena of public opinion are becoming more and more rational as somewhat optimistic but on the whole the position is well fortified. The final chapter discusses "Personality and its Social Significance." This is an attempt to reconcile the "great-man" theory and the collectiv- istic theory into a working hypothesis that will include the truth of both these extreme views. In spite of its somewhat composite character, the essay has essential unity and is to be welcomed heartily by all who are interested in the progress of social psy- chology, ^g^