Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 5.djvu/647

 THE SCOPE OF SOCIOLOGY 63 I

process which we cannot yet reduce to terms of a single unity, no matter how sure we may be that the underlying unity exists. Though we may be monistic in our theory of reality, we are necessarily dualistic in our apprehension of phenomena.' Accordingly, every form of expression whatever which tends to obliterate the distinction in consciousness between the physical and the psychical in societary relationships must be regarded as a crudity in our symbolism. We all regard the social reality as something that cannot be reported accurately in terms of factors more elementary than the attributes of human individuals. Whether we shall symbolize what we can find out about associa- tions of individuals in terms of quantity, or quality, or form, or function, or ideal conception ; or how much of each sort of sym- bol we shall employ, is purely a question of technique, not to be settled by any stereotyped formula. With all the dangers of abuse, the device of physiological symbolism has very consider- able advantages at certain points, although it is a stumbling- block to men who lack "the analogical imagination." The use of the device for what it is worth will not be discouraged by dogmatism or misrepresentation or ridicule. It has a quite incomparable pedagogical value within wise limits, and it is likely to be more or less useful, even to investigators, for a long time to come. Indeed, there is not a sociologist in the world who can write upon any part of sociology today, even if his subject be the total depravity of "the biological method," without framing some of his own arguments in tropical use of biological terms.'' We cannot think the social complexity to the limit of our ability to apprehend it without assistance from the next lower degree of complexity that we know. The extent of our use of this aid is a mere matter of detail, and must be determined by expediency. C. The investigation of dynamic laws. — In the case of the philosophers of history we saw that any characterization is inac- curate which purports to distinguish all that their conceptions

■ Cf. below, p. 632.

'How it would have scandalized the critics of "biological sociology" if anyone outside of their own number had suggested " social anastomosis " or " social inoscu- lation " ! Vide Tarde, Les transformations du pouvoir, p. 8.