Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 4.djvu/549

 REVIEWS 529

live philosophy of the social life" into a unitary philosophy of the universe. The reviewer is acquainted with no other such attempt more significant in content, or in style more perfect. But "the doctrinal structure of sociology" is not yet to be regarded as effected by it. I expressed my opinion concerning this recently in the introduction to the second edition of my Bau und Leben; namely, that "the doctrinal structure" of sociology cannot from the outset be finally constructed, because all the special disciplines of social science are not yet even combined for a sociologically unified presentation, to say nothing of being combined in proportional measure for the above purpose. The reviewer, who cannot be reproached with being an enthusiast for the continuation of the traditional parceling out of social investigation, is still unable at present to give up the opinion that the possibility of a definitive "positive philosophy of the social life" is not yet given ; that the time is not yet come — a fact, moreover, which Ratzenhofer himself opportunely emphasizes on p. 4 and elsewhere. If the reviewer could subscribe to all the rest of the work — which, moreover, is not the case — he could not indorse the first two lines of the preface, accord- ing to which the two works " form the doctrinal structure of sociology," either in respect to the words "the" or "doctrinal structure." Having prefaced the review with this single general remark, we shall now pro- ceed to our analysis.

Ratzenhofer's Sociologische Erkenntnis treats of its subject-matter under seven principal divisions, viz.: I, " The Nature of Sociological Knowledge;" II, "The Psychological Basis of Sociology ; " III, "The Physical-Science Basis of Sociology;" IV, "The Social Process of the Human Race;" V, "The Basis of Sociology;" VI, "The Social Forces;" VII, "Social Development in the Light of Social Knowl- edge."

For the present review the first division, which treats of the nature of sociological knowledge, is of special significance. This is not to say that the other divisions are only a supplement of significant ideas ; the remainder of the work is rather throughout a suggestive sample of inquiry in respect to the " nature of sociological knowledge." For a review in a journal of social science, however, this first division has an especial significance for the purpose of indicating what the author wishes, and what I might in sincerest acknowledgment say he is. The reviewer is able in many respects to indorse unreservedly its content, in spite of holding another professional view as to the nature and con- ception of politics.