Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 5.djvu/636

 620 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

Comte's ideas of method are further illustrated by his use of the distinction between statical and dynamical relations. On this point he says :

This division, necessary for purposes of exploration, must not be stretched beyond that use. The distinction becomes weaker with the advance of sci- ence. We shall see that, when the science of social physics is fully consti- tuted, this division will remain, for analytical purposes, but not as a real separation of the science into two parts. The distinction is not between two classes of facts, but between two aspects of a theory. It corresponds with the double conception of order and progress ; for order consists in a perfect harmony among the conditions of social existence ; and progress consists in social development ; and the conditions in the one case and the laws of move- ment in the other constitute the statics and dynamics of social physics.

Further peculiarities of Comte's method are alluded to by Barth as follows :

We find in Comte's proposal an antithesis, namely, on the one hand he insists that the social series is a continuation of the animal series, but it is impossible to deduce the one from the other. The development of society cannot be traced to the peculiarities of individuals. Sociology cannot be derived from physiology, however important biology may be in laying foun- dations for sociology. Biology furnishes only certain general notions ; for example, that of evolution, the specialization of organs, solidarity, etc. On the other hand, the positive law of evolution, according to Comte, is that of the three states, namely, the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive. This, however, is not a biological, but an epistemological principle.

In view of this antinomy in Comte, the fact of value for our purpose is not the intrinsic merit or demerit of his theory of the three states. That theorem is not close enough to reality to deserve any attention except as a curious conceit long since discredited at the author's valuation. The important point is that the conceit, although incorrect, posited a mental, not a physical, principle, as the clue to the social mystery. Comte had a rigidly mechanical conception of the forms in which the social principle works, but he still had a presentiment that the principle itself is not mechanical. Comte is therefore not a successful monist. In his scheme these two elements are left antithetical, as must always be the case so long as we confine ourselves to descriptions of phenomena. The physical and the spiritual aspects of phenomena may be assumed to be