Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 9.djvu/586

 568 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

value of anything he writes must be taken for granted. The best way to get at the whole value is not to assume infallibility, but to apply more searching tests than would be advisable in the case of an author of less assured standing. In short, if there are any flaws in his book, they bear a very slight ratio to his whole sociological merit. As this is common fame among us, both he and his critics risk less when he is under discussion than if another man were put to the test. There is small danger-liability for him and a minimum of plausibility in sus- picion of unworthy motive in them. In a word, he is subject to the penalties of his eminence. Not in a destructive spirit, but with a purely constructive purpose, we have planned to examine his work in detail. Such a discussion would not be worth while if the findings were all assumed in favor of the author in advance. He has expressed himself better than another can paraphrase him, and mere reiteration would be worse than useless. Not what he has said, but what remains to be said, is next in order. We think it more appreciative and respectful, there- fore, to challenge the book, step by step, in a serious attempt to point out what it leaves to be desired, than to praise it as though it contained the conclusion of the whole matter.

The substance of Pure Sociology is in Parts II and III. Part I summarizes a wide range of prolegomena, and in so doing leaves many things in rather incomplete shape. This outline form of expression doubtless does injustice to the author's reserve thought. Our criticisms of this part of the work may suggest the poodle pestering the mastiff. We are discussing, however, the merits of the printed page, not of the author himself, and we are sure that assailable points even in these less important chapters afford subject-matter for profitable reflection.

The theorem of chap, iii reads: "The subject-matter of sociology is human achievement. It is not what men are, but what they do. It is not the structure, but the function" (p. 15).

The relations between this conception of sociology, and the dozen others previously enumerated are guarded in such a way that no good ground for objection appears; but accepting, for the sake of argument, the "achievement" conception of sociology, certain questions of emphasis at once arise. For example, the paragraph continues: " Sociologists are nearly all working in the department of social anat- omy, when they should turn their attention to social physiology." The matter-of-factness in Ward's use of this idea affects me unfavor- ably. He appears to put too much stress on the purely mechanical associations of the term "function," and thereby to put himself out