VII.

CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY.

BY PROF. A. V. HIESTER.

At the request of the managing editors the writer has undertaken the difficult but important task of keeping the readers of the REVIEW in touch with the main currents of contemporary social thought. This innovation in the policy of the REVIEW has been prompted by the growing recognition of the importance of sociology, not only for the citizen and man of affairs, but particularly for the Christian minister. No minister who would wield an influence in his community can afford to be ignorant of the social, economic and political questions of the day, any more than a physician can afford to be ignorant of the structure and functions of the human body. It is in accordance with this opinion that some of the leading theological seminaries are now engaged in the task of recasting their courses of study with the purpose of making more room for sociology, philanthropy, penology, psychology and kindred subjects. This is notably the case at Yale. In our own seminary Dr. Rupp for a number of years gave a course of lectures along social and economic lines; and in Franklin and Marshall College sociology, both pure and applied, has been an established feature of the curriculum since 1900.

But, first, a word of caution. The various currents of thought are not so clearly defined in sociology as in the older sciences. There are many eddies and cross-currents to confuse and mislead. That sociology is still in this inchoate state is due to the fact that the theoretical part of it has been built up largely through the work of men, who have confined themselves to particular phases of social life, and have ignored,

not only other phases, but also the work of other men. Sociologists have, therefore, worked at cross-purposes, and the consequence has been an utter lack of agreement on fundamentals. Nor has there been any proper coördination between the historical, the analytical and the ameliorative sides of the science. It was very largely owing to this manifest defect that the American Sociological Society was organized two years ago; and it was the unanimous opinion of those who were present at the preliminary meeting that the new society should include in its membership, not only persons engaged in academic instruction, but also practical philanthropists and penologists, not only sociological writers, but also sociological workers. This was done in order to create a clearing house of social ideas, establish a federation of sociological interests held in proper balance, and bring the several groups of persons interested in sociology into relations of mutual sympathy and helpful coöperation.

In order, however, to make contemporary currents of social thought comprehensible it will be necessary, first, to relate them to the past. It is because we can learn what a thing is by tracing it through the various stages of its growth and development, that the historical method has became so important in modern research. It will be altogether proper, therefore, and not without value, if at this point a rapid survey be taken of the road by which sociology has arrived at its present attitude toward the problems of society. Such a survey will prove helpful, not so much because the attempts of yesterday to formulate and solve social problems can suffice to solve the problems of to-day-as though the battles of the modern world could be fought with the weapons snatched from the walls of some feudal armorial hall—but rather be cause these attempts of yesterday have led to a clearer statement of the problems, and because, too, they have helped to eliminate the impossible solutions and so cleared the way for better ones.

It is quite needless to ask when men first directed their

attention to social phenomena, and tried to see these phenomena in their connections, and then attempted to describe them in their supposed relations. We cannot go back far enough in the history of the race to catch these first beginnings, for ever since men have been men they have puzzled their brains about social truths. At first, of course, and for a long time, the attention paid to social phenomena was unconscious, and only very gradually did it become deliberate and take rank as a dignified intellectual pursuit. Hence, while sociology as a distinct science is scarcely more than half a century old, there is a sense also in which it is as old as human reflection.

If the body of ideas about society, which we call sociology, be examined genetically, they will be seen to have sprung from three distinct sources. The first source will be found in the plans of government, law, industry, religion or social order in general, which have been formulated and put into operation by leaders of thought and action in the course of social evolution. These plans sprang in the first instance out of the peculiar conditions of particular social groups, and in the degree that they proved successful under the tests of actual practice they helped to prepare the way, as they were meant to do in many instances, for more general systems and theories. The second source of social ideas is to be found in the ideal systems put forth, sometimes by philosophers, sometimes, too, by idle dreamers and fanatical visionaries, but never tried. And in the third place we shall find the contributions of the scientists who through systematic investigation and logical construction have laid the permanent foundations of sociology.

These three classes of ideas do not follow each other in chronological order; nor are they constant in their relative strength and influence; nor are they so completely separated that none is influenced by the others. On the contrary they are synchronous, variable and interdependent. They are

rather like three streams flowing side by side with varying rates, volumes and courses, now narrow and now broader again, now sluggish and now rapid and violent, now mingling their waters and now dividing again.

I. Under the first source of ideas there are two distinct classes of social experiments: 1. Those which have been imposed upon entire nations by governmental agencies, whether these agencies expressed the collective will of the people or only the arbitrary fiat of a despot. 2. Those which have been entered into voluntarily by small groups without governmental support or sanction, and which have been maintained, not by external coercion, but by an internal cohesive force.

1. Of the first class there are a large number of experiments, both ancient and modern, which may be studied with profit by the sociologist. But in this paper only the following can be considered: (a) the Hebrew Commonwealth; (b) the Solonian Constitution; (c) the French Revolution.

(a) The Hebrew Commonwealth from whatever point of view regarded presents a peculiar social polity. For the sociologist it raises two important questions: first, the question of its origin; and, secondly, the question of its content.

The question whether the Mosaic system was given by God in immediate revelation and in completed form, or developed through long ages of national evolution from certain germinal principles, cannot perhaps be definitely determined. But most probably it was the product of a process of gradual growth and development. This view is supported by several considerations.

From various passages of the Old Testament it appears that what Moses received from God was only a rough outline which was gradually filled in under the requirements of the times. In several places, indeed, we are afforded glimpses of this process of growth, passages which show how general rules, civil, criminal and ceremonial, originated in, or were modified by, special circumstances.

A second consideration is the fact that of the several codes which contain the Mosaic legislation the earlier ones limited themselves for the most part to the broader duties of humanity, justice and morality. Thus the Deuteronomic Code is distinguished from the earlier Book of the Covenant by its systematic and elaborate character; and it clearly evidences a more advanced social life. In addition to nearly all the provisions of the Book of the Covenant, it contains many new ones, and along with this greater variety of subjects there is also a more detailed treatment. This proves that social organization has grown more complex and needs institutions at once more numerous and more complicated to regulate it. A still greater advance in social organization is indicated by the code known as the Law of Holiness, Lev. chs. 17-26, and the Priests' Code scattered over the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. But this advance is almost entirely limited to ceremonial observances, which do not abrogate, but presuppose and complement, the provisions of the earlier codes dealing with civil and criminal law.

A third argument in behalf of the view that the Mosaic polity was a gradual growth is afforded by the fact that it was not peculiar to the Hebrews. It did not in fact differ essentially from the systems of other Semitic peoples, nor even from those of the ancient world generally. It is maintained by Semitic scholars that it contains elements borrowed from the Canaanites; that some of its ceremonial terms are found in Carthaginian and other Phoenician inscriptions; that the Levitical ritual goes back to a time when there was no material difference in form between Hebrew sacrifices and those of surrounding nations, that the Babylonians had something analogous to the Jewish Sabbath; and that even the rite of circumcision was not peculiar to the Hebrews.

All this is quite in harmony with the conclusions of modern publicists. For no political principle is more generally accepted to-day than the doctrine that no constitution can be either enduring or efficient unless founded on the basic prin