May 2, 1902.] 



SCIENCE. 



703 



of several kinds of shop. So long as the work 

 is done indiscriminately in one, the same pro- 

 cesses with the same tools being performed by 

 different men; or so long as processes which 

 require the technique of the shop are abridged 

 by a right which assumption of a distinctive 

 name is presumed to confer upon some outside 

 workers, there is danger both that the work of 

 the shop will be inferior, and that there will 

 be costly delay about differentiating the shops. 

 There are tremendous problems for workers in 

 the sociological shop. They will not get their 

 eyes fairly trained on those problems till they 

 are willing to depend upon the workers in the 

 psychological shop to mind their own business. 



In the last analysis. Professor Giddings' 

 view of the relations of anthropology and psy- 

 chology to sociology probably do not essen- 

 tially differ from those which prompt this 

 criticism. The former sciences are absolutely 

 necessary foundation-layers and tests of all 

 sociological conclusions. The sociological in- 

 terest is not however the anthropological or 

 the psychological interest. Professor Gid- 

 dings has nevertheless illustrated a very prev- 

 alent tendency among the sociologists to 

 suffer seduction from their proper problems 

 by interest in problems already claimed by 

 other divisions of labor. 



Professor Giddings devotes himself to mak- 

 ing out, by a large number of differentia, the 

 distinguishable physiological, intellectual, emo- 

 tional and moral types of individual. Now 

 I have not a word to say against the value of 

 this work, nor do I question its ultimate bear- 

 ing upon sociology. What I do urge, however, 

 is that this is business for the anthropologist 

 and the psychologist, while the sociologist 

 would do better to make requisitions upon 

 these specialists for information within their 

 o^vn field, and devote himself to statement and 

 study of problems which, from his point of 

 attention, are social first and individual sec- 

 ond. It is certain that individual types of 

 the sort which Professor Giddings suggests 

 will never be made out with sufficient accuracy 

 to have any scientific use, unless they are de- 

 termined by the measurements of the appro- 

 priate laboratories. Sociologists would pro- 

 mote science very much faster if they would 



devote the same amount of strength which 

 they now expend in labors outside of their 

 owa. field to creation of an effective demand 

 for the labors of the proper specialists. 



The point may be illustrated if I suppose 

 myself an imitator of Mr. Howells' visitor 

 from Altruria. Suppose I am an investigator 

 from Utopia, where we will assume intercourse 

 between persons is all purely spiritual, with 

 no material aims or media. My astral body 

 hovers over New York harbor, and my purpose 

 is to find out as much as possible about the 

 means and ends of what I hear the New York- 

 ers calling 'business.' I note certain differ- 

 ences in the craft plying in all directions. 

 Suppose that, like Adam, I am inspired to 

 apply fit names to the creatures; thus, canal- 

 boat, ferry-boat, lighter, tug, dredge, excur- 

 sion-steamer, tramp, liner, pilot-boat, coaster, 

 fishing-smack, battle-ship, etc. Now suppose 

 I make up my mind to enlarge my ideas of 

 'business' by taking these different craft as 

 my clues, and that I proceed to hunt down the 

 part which each type plays in 'business.' The 

 present argument is that it would be more to 

 the purpose for me to attempt this by starting 

 with the registration and clearance papers of 

 these craft, and by following them as they go 

 about their several kinds of work, taking all 

 preliminaries for granted, than it would be 

 for me to probe back in the other direction, 

 through the architectural construction of the 

 craft, down to the chemical and physical prop- 

 erties of the materials so assembled. That is, 

 if my immediate interest is traffic, it is poor 

 economy for me to specialize on questions of 

 marine architecture, and chemistry and phys- 

 ics. This is not to deny the relation of traffic 

 to technical and pure science. Neither the 

 science, on the one hand, nor the commercial 

 knowledge on the other, will be complete till 

 it is a synthesis of both; but it would be just 

 as evident a mistake for me, in pursuit of 

 knowledge of 'business' to concentrate my 

 attention on pure science, as it would, if I 

 were in pursuit of pure science, to concentrate 

 my attention upon business. 



Now to go back to Professor Giddings as a 

 tj'pe of the sociologists. We shall never com- 

 pletely understand social reactions until we 



