Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 4.djvu/567

 REVIEWS 547

and Efficiency of Organization;" XX, "The Early History of Soci- ety;" XXI, "Tribal Society;" XXII, "Civilization;" XXIII, "Prog- ress;" XXIV, "Democracy;" XXV, "The Theory of Society."

I share Professor Giddings' belief that sociology is destined to have something to say, and something worth saying, about the whole range of subjects above indicated. At present, however, the sociologist who claims to speak as a specialist upon all that is here involved must choose between two decidedly different alternatives. He must either pose as the high priest of a very naive opinionolatry, or he must con- sent to speak cautiously, tentatively, and for the most part formally about relations which, in the greater number of instances, cannot be generalized with authority until special investigators have put much more information at the disposal of the generalizer than anybody pos- sesses today.

The book before us shows distinctly what that " subjective inter- pretation," of which so much was said in the Principles of Sociology,^ amounts to in practice. Judged by its works, it may be called impres- sionistic conceptualism. The thing which we want philosophy to furnish is a report of reality that might be called objectivistic con- ceptualism. The difference between the two is measured by the differ- ent ratios in which the personal equation of the formulator enters into his report of the object. The worth or worthlessness of a conception depends upon whether it reproduces the actual properties of the object or forces into the object accidental peculiarities of the subject. The most ardent adherent of the Berkeleyan idealism would hardly main- tain that the doctrine authorizes the individual consciousness to pre- scribe to all consciousnesses the form and content of mental images. There is no more sanction in pure idealism than in gross materialism for an infallible individual subjectivity.

Entirely apart, therefore, from the question of content, the form of Professor Giddings' doctrine is not the scientific form, and it is, there- fore, not in place as an introduction to study of real things. In con- trast with the sort of study of society which students, young and old, need most to pursue. Professor Giddings' method may be compared with that of Dr. Mulford in The Nation, as contrasted with Professor Woodrow Wilson's method in The State. Each book displays genius of a high order. Each, doubtless, has a mission. For a beginner in political science. Professor Giddings should in consistency prefer Mul- ford, while all but a small minority of political scientists would prefer

^Principles of Sociology, pp. 10, 22, 36, etc.