Scope of the Subject. —
Sociology is the scientific study of society. Men, and many of the lower animals, live in groups. The scientific problem is to dis cover, by means of observation, induction, and verification, quantitative expressions for the regular ways in which group life operates, i.e. what, in quantitative terms, are the consequences of the fact that “man is a political animal.” Study of this problem necessitates inquiry into the origin, composition, interrelationships and activities of groups. It includes consideration of the environmental, biological, and psychological factors which, historically, have conditioned the character of such groups as the process of evolution has produced. It requires investigation also of such differences and resemblances among groups as are of significance in explaining the control which the group exercises over the individuals composing it. For quantitative expression the statistical method must be used. The ultimate aim of such study is to create a scientific basis for the conscious control of human society, to the end that evolution may be transformed into progress both for the race and for the individual. Unfortunately the scope of the subject has not been always thus conceived by teachers who label their courses Sociology. The latter half of the nineteenth century, the pioneer period in scientific sociology, witnessed a remarkable development of interest in the problems of philanthropy and penology. Inquiries into the causes of poverty and crime stimulated inquiry into the broader field of social causation in general, and the term sociology was used loosely to cover any portion of these fields. (See Social Sciences.) The term “applied sociology” for some time was equivalent to philanthropy and penology (q.v.). Recognition of the fact, however, that a theory of sociology can be “applied” in the guidance of public policy in every department of social life has initiated a movement, in America especially, to segregate the special problems of philanthropy and penology under the term social economy. This movement has not worked itself out fully, and there are still many courses given as sociology that should be called social economy. Sociology, in the scientific sense, of necessity uses the materials of history, and the demonstration or the concrete illustration of sociological principles has led naturally to systematic treatment of the historical evolution of society. It has been customary, therefore, to include, as a legitimate part of the scientific study of society, the history of social institutions. Beyond these limits there is a more or less indefinite zone of subjects such as social ethics, civics, social legislation, or even certain special questions in political economy and philosophy that have been included under the term sociology. The popular tendency, however, to make the term cover discussion of any social question whatsoever is gradually disappearing.
The present status of sociology as a science has been a direct result of the history of the subject itself. No one has yet done for sociology what Marshall did for economics. None of the textbooks is entirely satisfactory nor has entire agreement yet been reached as to the subjects which should receive most attention in a fundamental course. Nearly all the pioneers in sociology, with the exception of the very earliest, still retain leadership both in the science itself and in university chairs. Though all such leaders agree on fundamental points, each has naturally emphasized in his teaching that phase of the subject to which he has contributed most. At the present time, however, both the leaders and the large body of younger teachers who have been trained by them are beginning to place somewhat the same relative emphasis on the various factors that have been found useful in explaining the problems of the science. Nevertheless, even now the teacher is compelled to organize his own courses to a considerable extent on the basis of his own reading and such special training as he may be fortunate enough to have had. The particular form which that organization takes in any given instance is usually dependent to a considerable degree upon the university at which the teacher has studied and upon the sources with which he has become familiar. The conditions which have made this situation inevitable can be appreciated only by understanding the history of the subject itself and thus realizing both the richness of the field and the freedom in choice of material which is open to the teacher.
History of the Subject. —
The beginning of sociology, in the study of society itself, must have commenced far earlier than historical records permit proof of the fact; for the propensity of individuals to take thought as to how a group of men may be controlled can hardly be considered a recently acquired trait. Primitive man early developed systematic methods for teaching youth the means whereby both nature and man could apparently be controlled, and the teaching of that part of primitive magic which pertained to social control must have constituted one of the first courses in sociology. Problems of warfare, leadership, and group dominion must have also led both to practical knowledge of the nature of group activity and to the transmission of that knowledge from generation to generation.
Of necessity the statesman has ever been a sociologist. Likewise the philosopher has always busied himself with the relation of man to his fellow man. When Plato wrote the Republic and Aristotle the Politics the philosophical study of the subject was well advanced. A considerable part of the education of a Grecian youth was thus definitely in the field now called sociology. Later, when the evolution of world-empires led to the study of how great bodies of heterogeneous groups might be maintained in a single organized and harmoniously working system, men began to construct theories of group action, e.g. those of sovereignty and of the contractual nature of the state. Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau each added elements to the growing body of social theory and helped to render the theory of group action more precise. Finally, in the nineteenth century, when the bounds of knowledge had become world-wide, when the development of the natural sciences had demonstrated the utility of exact scientific method and when the rise of modern nations, the growth of the industrial system, the ideals of democratic government, and the theory of evolution had begun to influence men, Comte and Spencer led the way in the construction of a comprehensive theory of society, utilizing scientific method to elucidate modern problems of social evolution and of social progress. August Comte (q.v.) first used the word sociology in the Cours de Philosophie positive, and it was he who first insisted upon the use of the positive method in the development of the subject. It was Herbert Spencer, however, who in Social Statics, in the various volumes of the Synthetic Philosophy, and in The Study of Sociology attempted by wide observation to demonstrate that universal laws operate in human society. The work of many other men ought, however, to be included in a fuller statement of the important contributors to the development of scientific sociology in the latter half of the nineteenth century. To the influence of Charles Darwin and his kinsman Francis Galton, for example, must chiefly be credited that intensification of interest in the part which biological influences play in society which has resulted in the so-called eugenic school. (See Eugenics.) In the comparative study of institutions the pioneer work of Sir H. S. Maine cannot be forgotten, nor in the philological method of tracing social relationships, that of the Grimm brothers. In anthropo-geography and ethnology, moreover, there were such men as Ratzel, Robertson-Smith, McLennan, Morgan, and many others. Without the work of these men and their followers sociology must have rested upon a far more speculative foundation than is now the case.
Concerning the chief writers who have followed these leaders and who have contributed more particularly to sociological theory in the narrower sense of the term, it must suffice merely to mention names and to indicate the portion of the field in which each has done his chief work. Of such writers Durkheim has particularly emphasized division of labor as the essential factor in the explanation of society; Tarde, imitation; Le Bon, the impression of the mass on the individual; Gumplowicz, the struggle of races; Ratzenhofer, the motivating power of interests; De Greef, social contact and social contract ; Simmel, the forms of society and the process of socialization; Ward, the importance of human intelligence and inventiveness ; Sumner, the unconscious processes in the evolution of institutions; Giddings, sympathy and likemindedness as subjective causes of the origin and maintenance of groups, the tendency to type formation, and the identification of type form with that of the group; Small, the interests to which men react and the methods of the subject; Ross, social control; and Cooley, social organization.
The competent teacher of sociology to-day utilizes the work of all of these men and that of many others who have elucidated less striking phases of the subject. If, perchance, he be capable of contributing to the science, he may be aiding in the recently inaugurated effort to place the entire subject on a quantitative basis.
The Teaching of Sociology.—
The organized teaching of sociology as a university subject began long after the questions with which it deals had gained a firm hold upon the public mind. Little by little teachers of other political or social sciences which had already attained a recognized place in the educational system began to introduce sociological material into their courses and sometimes without sufficient justification to call the result sociology. Popular courses of lectures under the authority of recognized institutions of learning and dealing with almost every conceivable social question sprang up in nearly every civilized land and were called sociology. It was on this inclusive basis that in 1886 a report was made to the American Social Science Association that practically all of some hundred or more universities and colleges in the United States gave instruction in some branch of social science. A similar report could doubt less have been made for every country in Europe.
The first teaching of scientific sociology as a regular part of a college curriculum appears to have been in the United States when Professor Sumner in 1873 introduced Spencer’s Study of Sociology as a textbook at Yale. In 1880 the Trustees of Columbia College established the School of Political Science in that institution, and in it Professor Mayo-Smith received the chair of adjunct professor of political economy and social science. The first department of social science was created at Chicago University in 1894. In the same year the first chair of sociology definitely so called was created in Columbia, and was held then, as now, by Professor Giddings.
The entire decade in which these last mentioned events occurred, however, showed a marked increase of interest, by educators, in sociology. By 1895 the University of Chicago announced numerous courses in the subject and at least twenty-five other colleges and universities in the United States were teaching sociology proper. As many more had made provision for instruction in charities and correction. In Belgium the Université Nouvelle de Bruxelles, established in 1894, with the eminent sociologist Guillaume de Greef as its first Rector, was itself launched largely because of a revolt against the conservatism of other universities with respect to the social sciences. De Greef’s work is now largely supplemented by that of Professor Waxweiler and his staff of the Institut Solvay in the same city. Instruction is both in scientific sociology and social economy. In Switzerland as late as 1900 the only instruction in the subject consisted of a course by Professor Wuarin, the economist, given at Geneva, and one by Dr. Ludwig Stein, Professor of Philosophy at Bern. Italy has produced a number of sociologists of eminence, e.g.Lombroso, Ferri, Sighele, Ferrero, and Sergi, but even in 1900 not one of them was teaching in a university. In that year also there did not exist a single chair of sociology, so called, in Germany. Throughout the preceding six academic years, however, or during one or more of them, courses in sociology were given by Simmel (Berlin), Sombart (Breslau), Bernheim (Greifswald), Sherrer (Heidelberg), Tönnies (Kiel), and Barth (Leipzig). Schäffle of Stuttgart had also become known as the chief representative of the “organic” school. France, the land of the early physiocrats in economics and the home of Comte, was almost the last to organize instruction in the social sciences. During the first three quarters of the nineteenth century no other social sciences were taught in France than the strictly juridical and moral. At the beginning of the last quarter, however, a place for political economy was made in the examination for the bachelor’s degree in law. Even in 1900, according to Professor Gide, sociology was not taught anywhere in France in the form of a regular course, but three professors of philosophy and one of law were delivering free lectures on the subject, Durkheim at Bordeaux, Bouglé at Montpellier, Bertrand at Lyon, and Haurion at Toulouse. Letourneau, however, had by this time achieved a reputation in Paris. The privately supported Collège Libre des Sciences Sociales, had been found in 1892, but the courses included in its somewhat glittering program consisted of but ten lectures each, and were not well attended. Nevertheless, the most celebrated of French sociologists, Gabriel Tarde, first delivered at that institution in 1897 the lectures that subsequently appeared as his Lois Sociales. The school was later organized as the École des Hautes Études Sociales. At the Collège de France, also, certain courses in sociology were given after 1895, honoris causa.
In Austria Gumplowicz and Ratzenhofer have been the most noted names. The former taught at Graz. Russia contributed Lilienfeld and Novicow, but did not establish chairs for them. In Great Britain there was no chair or lectureship in the subject in any university prior to 1904 in spite of the fact that the Sociological Society was already in existence. The first important systematic series of lectures on sociology in the University of London was given in that year. Prior to that, however, Professor Geddes had been lecturing in Glasgow, and at the London School of Economics the sociological movement had received encouragement.
Such were the beginnings of systematic instruction in sociology. It is not practicable here to follow in detail the later development of the movement in all countries. The United States has introduced the subject in institutions of learning more rapidly than has been the case elsewhere. Nevertheless there has been advance in all countries. The present status of the subject in educational institutions in the United States is well reflected by the report of December, 1910, upon the questionnaire issued by the committee on the teaching of sociology of the American Sociological Society. The questionnaire was sent to 396 institutions, of which over 366 were known to give courses in sociology. One hundred and forty-five replies were received. One hundred and twenty-eight institutions reported one or more courses in sociology. In addition to universities and colleges, five theological and twelve normal schools answered the questionnaire. In an effort to gauge the character of subject matter chiefly emphasized in the 128 institutions the number of times various types of subject matter were specifically mentioned in the replies was tabulated and resulted in the following classification and marks: historical subject matter, 84 ; psychological, 80; practical, 56; economic, 22; descriptive and analytic, 21; biological, 16; In addition, definite reference to “sociological theory” occurred 40 times and to “social pathology” 13 times. Under the first subject was included specific mention of anthropology, ethnology, institutions, and social evolution; under the second, social psychology, association, and imitation; under the third, congestion, housing, philanthropy, criminology, and “social problems”; under the fourth, industrial and labor conditions and socialism; under the fifth, physical influences and the study of a specific social group; under the sixth, eugenics and statistical treatment of population. These figures and classes do not imply exclusive or preponderating attention to any one of the classes of subjects mentioned, but merely indicate roughly the type of sociological subject matter which is primarily emphasized in the educational institutions of the country at large. Eighty-six specific suggestions for subject matter to form a fundamental course distributed emphasis as follows historical, 28; psychological, 25; practical, 16; biological, 7; descriptive and analytic, 7; economic, 3. The same report includes a statement of texts and authorities cited in five or more replies to the questionnaire.
From the foregoing it is possible to understand clearly why sociology has not as yet made its way into the high school. The subject is already beginning to find a place in the curricula of normal schools, however, and sooner or later it will make its way in a simple form either to supplement or eventually to precede elementary courses in economics, civics, and history. Logically, a discussion of the fundamental bases of social organization should precede any of the questions that assume the existence of a particular sort of social organization, and there is, in reality, no reason at all why the essential factors that cooperate to produce the activities of social groups cannot be explained in such a way that a child may appreciate the simpler modes of their operation and thus be helped to understand later the complex relations of the social life of modern civilization.
Methods of Teaching Sociology. —
The subject matter of sociology, as is evident from the preceding review, lends itself most conveniently to the lecture method of presentation — at least when it is taught as a university subject. This is preeminently true if the historical evolution of society is to be treated in an adequate fashion. No student can be required to do the reading necessary for independent judgment upon the disputed points which often baffle the expert, nor would it be possible to discuss all phases of the subject in the brief time which the ordinary student can devote to sociology. The teacher may usually consider his work in this field fairly satisfactory if he succeeds in making clear the fact that the causes of social evolution can be subjected to scientific analysis as truly, if not as exactly, as any other phenomena whatsoever, if he is able to explain how the combination of various factors — physical environment, race, dynamic personality, economic, religious, and other cultural institutions — created the various types of society that have existed from the earliest forms of tribal organization to the modern world society, if he indicates the sources of information and their trustworthiness, and if in the presentation of these subjects he develops in the student a realization of the historical perspective from which it is necessary to view mankind’s development whenever rational criticism of public policy is required.
In the more closely analytical study of sociological theory more use can be made of existing texts. Even with these, however, the teacher must be ready to illustrate, explain, supplement, and criticize on the basis of reading inaccessible to the student or too extensive for him to master. Discussion of special problems in theory that arise from assigned readings in original sources is indispensable, however, if independent thinking is to be gained. For this purpose source books are a valuable aid. Many teachers have found it possible to stimulate intense interest and thought by setting each student the task of independently observing and interpreting for himself by the Le Play monographic method the phenomena of sociological significance in a concrete social group or community with which he himself is or may become familiar (e.g. his home town, college, or club). By collecting, through observation of such a group, data concerning situation, healthfulness, resources, economic opportunities, racial types, religious, educational, political, and other cultural traits, sex and age classes, nationality, ambitions and desire for wealth, justice and liberty, degree of self-reliance or dependence, amount of cooperation, constraint, discipline, tolerance, emotional and rational reactions, relations with other groups and other such matters, the student gains a lively appreciation of the factors which make or mar the efficiency of the group of which he is himself a member. By comparison of the results of such study in the seminar, characteristic and important differences may be made vivid and vitality given to discussion of the regular antecedents of social activities.
More general studies in demography, based on the census or other official records, and pursued in such a way as to throw light on current problems such as immigration, race questions, growth of cities, significant movements of population, mortality, birth, marriage and divorce rates, or sanitary conditions, often serve to give a concreteness to theory that could not otherwise be gained. Such work, moreover, often forms an excellent preparation for the more difficult task of analyzing the mental phases of collective activity, such as mob action and the formation of rational public opinion, or of determining the conditions under which social choice is free or controlled, conservative or radical, impulsive or deliberate, governed by tradition or based on scrutiny of evidence.
In addition to methods of this sort some teachers have even inspired their students with enthusiasm for making sociology a quantitative science by first grounding them well in statistical methods and then setting them simple though definite and concrete sociological problems that involve the use of that method. For example, it is quite within the power of any college class acquainted with such a simple text as Elderton’s Primer of Statistics to count the number of hours per week spent by each person in a group upon such recreational activities as are carried on, plot out the result, find the prevailing tendency, apply the usual statistical measures, median, mode, quartiles, etc., and gradually acquire facility in attacking more extensive data. (See Graphic Curve.) For instruction of this character the regular meeting of seminars or practicums for report by students upon their particular tasks becomes the most convenient pedagogical device to promote independent criticism and discussion. The seminar method is also useful for the discussion of special reports upon readings in the works of the more prominent sociological writers. In order that the observational method may be successfully applied it is evident that the canons of inductive method must be thoroughly understood by the student. It is also apparent that in the review of extant theory there must be appreciation of the criteria for judging the value of evidence. Above all, encouragement must be given to every inclination on the part of the student to investigate particular problems for himself. He must be made to realize, moreover, that sociologists must be as willing to undertake protracted and laborious tasks in the assembling of data as are the biologists, the psychologists, or the chemists.
The foregoing methods are applicable chiefly to the university student. In college or in high school the methods employed are naturally more useful if they arouse the student’s interest in problems that pertain to civic welfare, and if they aid him in understanding the forces that make or mar the efficiency of the particular social groups in which he is himself to play a part. For such purposes the method of studying current social problems becomes extremely useful, provided the teacher is skillful in the selection of the topics for discussion and can utilize sociological principles of interpretation. By using the ordinary facts present in every town or village, it is possible much earlier than is usually supposed to have the pupil observe significant sociological facts and become familiar with the scientific mode of interpreting them.
In addition to these simple statements of method it is, perhaps, unnecessary to remark that in the teaching of the science itself the most inspiring instructor is he who is himself able to employ successfully the usual deductive, inductive, comparative, historical, and statistical methods in the discovery of new truth.
References: —
Bagehot, W. Physics and Politics. (New York, 1887.)
Bernard, L. L. The Teaching of Sociology in the United States. Amer. Jour. of Sociology, Vol. XV, p. 164. (1909-1910.)
Carver, T. N. Sociology and Social Progress. (Boston, 1905.)
Chapin, F. S. Report of the Questionnaire of the Committee on Teaching of the American Sociological Society. Publications of the Amer. Sociological Society, Vol. V. (1900.)
Clow, F. R. Sociology in Normal Schools. Amer. Jour. of Sociology, Vol. XVI, p. 253. (1910- 1911.)
Cooley, C. H. Social Organization. (New York, 1909.)
Dealey, J. Q. The Teaching of Sociology. Publications of the Amer. Sociological Society, Vol. IV, p. 177. (1909.)
Ellwood, C. A. How Should Sociology be Taught as a College or University Subject? Amer. Jour. of Sociology, Vol. XII. p. 588. (1906-1907.)
Giddings, F. H. Modern Sociology. The International Monthly, Vol. II, No. 5. (Nov., 1900.)
___________. Democracy and Empire. (New York, 1901.)
___________. Principles of Sociology. (New York, 1896.)
___________. Sociology. Columbia Univ. Series on Science, Philosophy, and Art. (New York, 1908.)
___________. Sociology as a University Subject. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. VI, p. 635. (1891.)
___________. The Province of Sociology. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. I, p. 76. (1890.)
Hobhouse, L. T. Social Evolution and Political Theory. (New York, 1911.)
Howerth, I. W. The Present Condition of Sociology in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. V, Pt. I, p. 260. (1894.)
Ross, E. A. Foundations of Sociology. (New York, 1905.)
___________. Social Control. (New York, 1908.)
Semple, E. C. Influences of Geographic Environment. (New York, 1911.)
Small, A. W. General Sociology. (Chicago, 1905.)
Spencer, H. First Principles, Pt. II. (London, 1887.)
___________. Principles of Sociology. (London, 1885.)
___________. The Study of Sociology. (New York, 1884.)
Sumner, W. G. Folkways. (Boston, 1907.)
Tarde, G. Laws of Imitation. (New York, 1903.)
Tenney, A. A. Some Recent Advances in Sociology. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. XXV, No. 3. (Sept., 1910.)
Thomas, W. I. Source Book for Social Origins. (Chicago, 1909.)
Ward L. F. Contemporary Sociology. Amer. Jour. of Sociology, Vol. VII, p. 476. (1900-1901.)
___________. Pure Sociology. (New York, 1907.)
___________. Applied Sociology. (Boston, 1906.)
___________. Sociology at the Paris Exposition of 1900. Rep. U. S. Com. Ed., 1899-1900, Vol. II, pp. 1451-1593.
For a list of textbooks, together with statistics of their use in institutions of learning, see Reportof the Committee on Teaching of the American Sociological Society in Publications of the American Sociological Society, Vol. V., p. 123. (1910.)
