Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 5.djvu/132

 1 1 8 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

contrary thereby advertises misconception of what the organic concept involves.

It is, furthermore, a trick of certain men to represent the organic concept as identical with a biological theory of society. Colonel Wright surrenders to their claims and thus shows that he has not given very searching attention to the history of sociology. He gives currency to the stupid invention of recent folk-lore that the organic concept and a psychological interpretation of society are mutually exclusive, or at least antipathetic. A thinker of his acumen could not have per- sonally examined the facts without puncturing that silly myth beyond mending. These symptoms point to the conclusion that in the desire to be practical the author has neglected certain important kinds of generalization for other kinds of detail. He has consequently not inte- grated his material sufficiently to make it in the highest degree practi- cal. Recognizing the philosopher's need of Colonel Wright's type of work, 1 must protest that he does not show reciprocal esteem for the philosopher's contribution to practical knowledge.

The second limitation which seems evident to me is in the optimism which contrives to extract from the census cucumber an amount of sunlight that it does not contain. On this point I speak as a layman. It may be that Colonel Wright, as a statistical expert, could remove all the doubts which his exhibits raise. It may be that specialists in statis- tics can easily silence my objections. At all events, I shall venture to raise a few questions. With reference to the United States census, and to quantities of official reports that go to make up the " Contributions of the United States Government to Sociology," there is ample prima facie reason for the belief among the plain people that officially sanctioned exhibits of alleged facts are not the reliable basis for social conclusions that they purport to be. No man in the United States has a more attentive hearing than Colonel Wright when he speaks of tendencies supposed to be attested by official figures. It does not seem to me that, in this book, he has discharged the full obligation which his enviable reputation imposes, for he has not given sufficient* warning of the snags in the path of students who seek conclusions in the evidence cited. Colonel Wright does not sufficiently emphasize the difference between his belief about tendencies and demonstration of the correctness of his belief in official figures. Is it not true that there is enough hocus-pocus of one sort and another in our cen- suses to make scientific demonstration impossible on many points about which Colonel Wright speaks with a good deal of confidence?