Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 6.djvu/41

 FOUR SYNTHESISTS 27

domains of human knowledge obey the same laws ? A truly grand and ennobling conception, this vision of universal laws!

5. Statics and dynamics. It may be assumed that contempo- rary students of sociology have departed widely from the earliest use of the terms " statics " and " dynamics ; " yet, since the writers under consideration touch upon this question, it may be profit- able to add a sentence or two on this topic. By social statics Comte understood the theory of a spontaneous order of human society, embracing the conditions and laws of harmony in the social world. The study of social statics embraced the con- sideration of three factors : sociability, the family, and society. In his discussion of sociability Comte affirms the preponderance of the affective over the intellectual qualities, encouraging united and associated effort. The controversy between Spencer and Comte as to whether feelings or ideas govern the world in part turns upon this phase of Comte's discussion. It is hardly dignified to say of Comte that he was not consistent ; yet one cannot read far in his volumes without finding material which can be used in support of either thesis. Comte's discussion of the second and third factors may be passed over with the remark that he sees in the progressive modification of the constitution of the family the establishment of corresponding social states ; and in his treatment of society he emphasizes the elements of command and obedience following in part his formula for the family and takes a point of view which commands all times and all places. Comte's social dynamics deals with the theory of the natural progress of human society, and includes, of course, a study of the factors of social progress which have been considered above. Progress being a beneficent necessity, according to Spencer, social dynamics would be based upon a study of his law of evolution ; while his social statics would take a view of society in stable equilibrium. All that can be said in this connection of Lilienfeld is that he follows the genetic method ; and of Schaeffle, that he insists upon holding the dynamic point of view. Schaeffle's classification of social wealth and of family property is illuminating. He calls it a " functional " classification ; and from this point of view he has