Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 3.djvu/577

 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOCIOLOGY 563

self-culture, that easily assimilate the best thought of the present, and are, therefore, on a par with the average mind that has received the best modern training. Thus we find that a portion of the women who engage in philan- thropy are fully equipped by college training or by self-discipline for thorough and severe intellectual work, and that a larger portion are able to accomplish the less difficult tasks, and to do careful work under direction.

In any line of work where the scientific method obtains, division of labor is admissible, and in many lines, e.g., chemical research, it is the actual prac- tice. The mind of the investigator is often incapable of weighing, and it is only the rare mind that can deduce the law from the phenomena. It is not too much to expect that women of average intellectual strength may, with the requisite special training and under proper direction, secure the scien- tific spirit, investigate facts, and apply principles to individual cases and conditions. Some of the women with superior training can coordinate facts and determine underlying principles. We may then conclude that the col- lege-bred women and the exceptional women of the other types have a splen- did general preparation for scientific philanthropy, and that the other two types have a fair preparation.

Failure is not, then, due to lack of natural ability or of general education. There remains for consideration the question whether the third condition, special training, is fulfilled. Special training involves familiarity with the history and literature of the subject, instruction in the fundamental principles and in the open questions which are still under investigation. The student must discover the relation of this subject to general thought and activity, and its special relation to allied subjects. He must acquire facility of hand and eye and brain in practical work.

In this large gathering of women, let those of us who spend part of our time in philanthropic work apply to ourselves the following tests : Can we state a single general principle in the science of philanthropy ? Can we state clearly a few of the problems that are uppermost in this field ? Can we explain the aim, the practical working, and theeflfects of such movements as free kindergartens, tenement-house reform, social settlements, or General Booth's plan for " the submerged tenth " ? Are we sufficiently familiar with the allied subjects of psychology, ethics, education, political economy, and municipal government to judge fairly of philanthropic questions involving such knowledge? When we arc advocating legislation intended to remove wrong conditions and increase the opportunities of the \ ><!. r. /., the mer- chant's inspection bill, does IMM ioqoaintmnce with past legislation in these lines make our work intelligent and productive of good results ? Can we name a half dozen books that are up-to-date authorities in philanthropy ? Do we know the scope and value of each ? Are we familiar with the best period- icals ? Can we distinguish in nine out of ten individual cases between the .imp .UK! tin- unfortunate man who needs immediate