May 2, 1902.J 



SCIENCE. 



701. 



applaud in this book, even though it diverges 

 farther from the trunk-line of sociology, as 

 some of them see it, than his earlier vporks. 



The contents of the book are likely to be 

 summarily and seriously misjudged by schol- 

 ars in other sciences who merely give it casual 

 notice. It seems to propose quantitative 

 measurement of phenomena which obviously 

 cannot be controlled, and to do the measuring 

 by means of units which are both vague and 

 variable. For instance, four types of indi- 

 vidual character are posited: The forceful, 

 the convivial, the austere, and the rationally 

 conscientious. In an appendix the geograph- 

 ical distribution of these tjrpes in the United 

 States is shown by an outline map shaded to 

 correspond with the supposed predominance of 

 the types respectively. The resident of Illi- 

 nois, who finds himself in the 'austere' belt is 

 provoked to inquire whether his previous im- 

 pressions of miscellaneousness among his 

 neighbors are utterly at fault. If he happens 

 to live in Chicago, which, like other large 

 towns, is classed as 'rationally conscientious,' 

 he may turn to the text for the formula of 

 himself and his fellow-townsmen. It runs in 

 this fashion (p. 83) : "This type is the prod- 

 uct of a reaction against and progress beyond 

 the austere character. It is usually developed 

 out of the austere type. Like the austere, it 

 is strongly conscientious, but it is less narrow 

 in its interpretations of what constitutes 

 harmful self-indulgence, and is more solicit- 

 ous to attain complete development of all 

 powers of body and mind. It enters all re- 

 spectable vocations, but is much occupied also 

 with liberal avocations, including literature, 

 art, science and citizenship. Its pleasures are 

 of all kinds, athletic, convivial and intellect- 

 ual, including enjoyment of the arts ; but all 

 jjleasures are enjoyed temperately." If one 

 were disposed to be facetious, here is abundant 

 occasion. But this is merely a sample of 

 many features in the book which equally stim- 

 ulate the sense of humor. Sceptics about soci- 

 ology, who on general principles come to the 

 book to scoff, will hardly remain to pray. 

 They will pronounce the whole affair absurd. 

 But his colleagues know that Professor Gid- 

 dings is not a man given to absurdities, and 



the very boldness of his drafts on their atten- 

 tion forbids snap-judgments. The clue in all 

 these cases is to be sought in the difference 

 between illustration and demonstration, and 

 in the probability that Professor Giddings 

 points out to his students, as scrupulously as 

 any of his critics would, the approximate 

 nature of such characterizations at best, and 

 the limitations that must govern their appli- 

 cation to masses. 



But the sceptic will insist: 'What scientific 

 value can there be in a method that deals with 

 terms so inexact?' As will appear presently, 

 my estimate of the relative importance of Pro- 

 fessor Giddings' method for sociology is al- 

 most the inverse of his, yet whatever be the 

 true ratio, sociologists ought to unite in testi- 

 mony that they understand Professor Gid- 

 dings, and that his program deserves scientific 

 consideration. 



The volume is divided into two books, en- 

 titled: I., 'The Elements of Social Theory'; 

 II., 'The Elements and Structure of Society.' 

 Book I. treats of the logical and methodolog- 

 ical correlations of sociology with other divi- 

 sions of knowledge. Though the author's indi- 

 ^'i duality appears in these chapters at many 

 points, the crux of the book is not in the pro- 

 legomena. 



Book II. is divided into four parts, each 

 containing four chapters. The titles are: 

 Part I., 'The Social Population'; Part II., 

 'The Social Mind'; Part III., 'Social Organi- 

 zation'; Part IV., 'The Social Welfare.' 



A disciple of the school of Schaeffle may be 

 permitted to remark that, in spite of endless 

 differences of detail, the outline which Pro- 

 fessor Giddings draws from these points of 

 departure connotes essentially the same funda- 

 mental ideas which 'Bau undLeben' developed. 

 After all the contempt which has been heaped 

 ui3on that work by men of other scliools, such 

 an independent and virile thinker as Pro- 

 fessor Giddings is merely prospecting along 

 the lines of Schaeffle's survey. This does not 

 mean that Professor Giddings is either a con- 

 scious or an unconscious imitator. His orig- 

 inality is beyond question. It means that, up 

 to a certain point, Schaeffle described the es- 

 sential facts of society so truly that nobody 



