Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 3.djvu/871

 REVIEWS 857

nevertheless, sure that the introduction of such a treatment of method into an undergraduate course would be ill-advised.

The book contains many passages to which students may well be referred at different stages of more concrete study. The first chap- ter would serve the purpose with beginners that the author intended, though it turns out, upon close inspection, to be rather an a priori account of how the idea of society must have arisen than a report of the precise stages through which it actually did arise. The section on the definition of sociology is particularly clear (pp. 44-53). I* > s not so evident that the author has straightened out the relation of psychology to sociology (pp. 62 scg.). He rejects the division of sociology into " static " and " dynamic " upon grounds which, so far as his statements go, are insufficient, to say the least (p. 107). His treatment of " descriptive sociology " (p. 107) seems to me not well considered. He has, to be sure, such good company as Professors Ward and Giddings in declining to use that designation. Their grounds are not his, however, and are firmer than his. The question, " What sociology is there to be described?" shows that the author gives to the phrase curious connotations. Whether " descriptive sociology" is properly within or without the limits of sociology is a question of innocent methodological gerrymander, after all. To assert that the phrase " descriptive sociology " involves an absurdity requires the same assertion about the phrase " descriptive geography " in dis- tinction from physiography. If there is an absurdity here, it is in the psychology which supposes that we can generalize facts before we have any sort of descriptive analysis of the facts. Not so clear is the author's use of the terms "society" and "societies" (p. 108 and chap. v). He certainly gets at his algebra of the principles of "society" by discussing "societies." This is as it should be, but I am not able to make the two phases of the author's conception quite coherent.

The chapter on " The Principles of Society " does not profess to produce any of them. It tells what their formal relations will be when we have some. Again my objection is pedagogical. There is too much of this formal element for beginners, while it is not carried far enough to join company with the specialists. If Dr. Stuckenberg pursues inquiries after " principles of society," he will not be able to test them very searchingly without getting them placed within the categories "static" and "dynamic," which he rejects. On pp