Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 2.djvu/322

 308 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

be unconscious of his debt, or how he can honestly omit generous acknowledgment of it (cf. pp. 31-2).

The arrangement of the book seems to me rather accidental. It was apparently an afterthought to make a separate title Part II, Social Development for the last four chapters. There is no corre- sponding title, "Part I," and the frequent references to social devel- opment in the first ten chapters (cf. pp. 124 sq., 141 sq., 158 sq., etc.) lead the reader to suspect that the purpose to treat that phase of the subject separately was not in the author's original plan. On the other hand, chapters xiii and xiv seem to be much more an analysis of con- temporary phenomena than of the historical process of social develop- ment. They are not sufficiently unlike Part I to deserve a separate heading.

Perhaps the author's manner of dealing with the "social forces" illustrates as well as any portion of the book the rudimentary character of its conceptions and methods. On page 62 we read: "Both social and unsocial tendencies are at work in each stage of social develop- ment : some forces (sic) tending to draw men closer together in society, and others tending to break up the societies so formed." In contrast with this very plain proposition, chapter v, " Causes of Social Activ- ity," starts out with the following observations :

Those writers who have recognized this dynamic character of society have generally discussed the topics of the present chapter under the title " Social Forces," and in choosing a different term I may properly point out the mis- conception which I believe is involved in the use of the former one. Social force properly denotes the energy of a social group. This force is essentially the same, and is to be determined in the same way, for each of the different kinds of social groups. . . . Social forces do not exist, but only social force, and the study of this force belongs to the study of the general composition of a social group.

This sort of thinking is possible only among persons who are still in the bonds of dialecticism. If we wish to substitute a dogmatic monism for analysis of phenomena, why stop with the unity of social forces ? Why not avoid all need of discrimination by resting in the unity of all force ? The author seems to see nothing but a quantita- tive meaning in the use of the term "social forces" which he rejects. His declaration that social forces do not exist, but only social force, is true and false precisely as the like is true and false of physical forces or force. As it stands in this chapter it is entirely gratuitous and