Gall, attending only to imperfect physiological considerations, and neglecting the social, wandered off into a sort of scientific declamation on the subject of war, declaring the military tendencies of mankind to be immutable, notwithstanding the mass of historical testimony which shows that the warlike disposition diminishes as human development proceeds. A multitude of examples of this kind of mistake might be presented, the most striking of which are perhaps in connection with theories of education, which are usually formed on absolute principles, to the neglect of the corresponding state of civilization.

The true nature of sociology is evident enough from what has been said. We see that it is not an appendix to biology, but a science by itself, founded upon a distinct basis, while closely connected, from first to last, with biology. Such is the scientific view of it. As to the method, the logical analogy of the two sciences is so clear as to leave no doubt that social philosophers must prepare their understandings for their work by due discipline in biological methods. This is necessary not only to put them in possession of the general spirit of investigation proper to organic science but yet more to familiarize them with the comparative method, which is the grand resource of investigation in both sciences. Moreover, there is a most valuable philosophical principle common to both sciences which remains to be fully developed before it can attain its final prevalence; I mean the positive version of the dogma of final causes. This principle belongs eminently to the study of living bodies, in which that distinction is especially marked, and where alone the general idea of it can properly be acquired. But, great as is its direct use in the study of individual life, it is applicable in a much more extensive and essential way in social science. It is by means of this principle that the new philosophy, uniting the two philosophical meanings of the word "necessary," exhibits as inevitable that which first presents itself as indispensable; and the converse. There must be something in it peculiarly in harmony with social investigations, as we are led up to it by the most opposite methods of approach, one evidence of which is De Maistre's fine political aphorism, "Whatever is necessary exists."

RELATION TO INORGANIC PHILOSOPHY

If sociology is thus subordinated to biology, it must be scientifically related to the whole system of inorganic philosophy, because biology is so. But it is also connected with that system by immediate relations of its own.

In the first place, it is only by the inorganic philosophy that we can duly analyze the entire system of exterior conditions, — chemical, physical, and astronomical, amidst which the social evolution proceeds, and by which its rate of progress is determined. Social phenomena can no more be understood apart from their environment than those of individual life. All exterior disturbances which could affect the life of individual man must change his social existence; and, conversely, his social existence could not be seriously disturbed by any modifications of the medium which should not derange his separate condition. I need therefore only refer to what I have said in regard to the influence of astronomical and other conditions on vital existence, for the same considerations bear on the case of social phenomena. It is plain that society, as well as individual beings, is affected by the circumstances of the earth's daily rotation and annual movement; and by states of heat, moisture, and electricity in the surrounding medium; and by the chemical conditions of the atmosphere, the waters, the soil, etc. I need only observe that the effect of these influences is even more marked in sociology than in biology, not only because the organism is more complex, and its phenomena of a higher order, but because the social organism is regarded as susceptible of indefinite duration, so as to render sensible many gradual modifications which would be disguised from our notice by the brevity of individual life. Astronomical conditions, above all others, manifest their importance to living beings only by passing from the individual to the social case. Much smaller disturbances would visibly affect a social condition than would disturb an individual life, which requires a smaller concurrence of favorable circumstances. For instance, the dimensions of the globe are scientifically more important in sociology than in biology, because they set bounds to the

a

ultimate extension of population,—a circumstance worthy of grave consideration in any positive system of political speculation. And this is only one case of very many. If we consider, in regard to dynamical conditions, what would be the effect of any change in the degree of obliquity of the ecliptic, in the stability of the poles of rotation, and yet more in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit, we shall see that vast changes in social life must be produced by causes which could not endanger individual existence. One of the first reflections that presents itself is that positive sociology was not possible till the inorganic philosophy had reached a certain degree of precision. The very conception of stability in human association could not be positively established till the discovery of gravitation had assured us of the permanence of the conditions of life; and till physics and chemistry had taught us that the surface of our planet has attained a natural condition too rare and too partial, apart from accidents, to affect our estimate; or, at least, that the crust of the globe admits of only variations so limited and so gradual as not to interfere with the natural course of social development, development which could not be hoped for under any liability to violent and frequent physico-chemical convulsions of any extent in the area of human life. There is thus more room to apprehend that inorganic philosophy is not advanced enough to supply the conditions of a positive polity, than to suppose that any real political philosophy can be framed in independence of inorganic science. We have seen before, however, that there is a perpetual accordance between the possible and the indispensable. What we must have we are able to obtain; and if there are, as in the case of the mutual action of different starry systems, cosmical ideas which are inaccessible to us, we know in regard to sociology now, as to biology before, that they are of no practical importance to us. Wherever we look, over the whole field of science, we shall find that, amidst the great imperfection of inorganic philosophy, it is sufficiently advanced in all essential respects to contribute to the constitution of true social science, if we only have the prudence to postpone to a future time investigations which would now be premature.

IV

THE GENERAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOCIOLOGY AND THE SPECIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCES 1

Sociology as the science of society confines itself strictly to human association. It aims to show what is meant by association, how it is brought about, to what process of development it is subject, and what results it produces. Three questions respecting human society are supreme: What? Why? How? Since human association itself is our aim, it is evident that the stress is not to be placed on any particular kind of association. The subject is so large that we shall be obliged to confine ourselves to the general principles of society and to their general application.

In thus aiming at what marks human association as characteristic we also aim at what marks every particular form of human society. If personal forces are the constituent elements of association, then these forces must constitute every kind of society formed. The forces may differ in kind, in number, in intensity, and in degree of development; but no society can exist otherwise than by virtue of these forces. The personal forces exist only in individuals; therefore the idea of society includes that of individuals as possessors of the social forces. In a society for physical culture, for mental culture, for political ends, and for any purpose imaginable, the prime question pertains to the character of the personal forces involved. Just as being includes all being, but only in the most general sense as being, so association includes every society, but only in its most general sense. Here, then, is the broad difference between social science itself and the specific social sciences: the former discusses whatever

1 From Introduction to the Study of Sociology, by J. H. W. Stuckenberg PP. 75-77 (copyright, 1898, by A. C. Armstrong & Son, New York).

belongs to society as society and applies the general ideas obtained to the different associations; but each special social science confines itself to a particular phase of society. While sociology deals with the great principles or essences of association, and shows how they apply to all society, the specific social sciences specialize certain forms of association and give an account of their specific characteristics. More details are therefore to be expected in the limited social sciences than in the general social science.

Let us suppose that sociology gives a principiant account of the nature and working of the social forces; that would be a general interpretation of society. Among them are found industrial forces, which are consigned to economics for special treatment; there are also political forces, which are consigned to political science; there are ethical forces, which are consigned to ethics; and so with all the other social forces. Sociology is therefore the general social science of which the special social sciences are differentiations; it is the genus of which they are the species, the trunk on which they are the branches. While each social science has its specific sphere (the operation of specific social forces), it is not within the province of any one of them to determine what association itself is and how the various forms of society are related to it; that is the mission of the more general science, sociology.

After indicating the general relation of sociology to the special social disciplines, we now proceed to consider the relation of some of the latter to our subject.

POLITICAL SCIENCE 1

Various limited societies have tried to absorb society itself and put themselves in its place. In the gens or the tribe, as an enlarged family, it is the family which embodies the social idea. Perhaps the members knew no other association. In Judaism and the Middle Ages the theocracy, the kingdom of God, or the church, is viewed as the essence of society. We can understand

1 From Introduction to the Study of Sociology, pp. 78–81.