Sociology and modern social problems

Front matter

Ilibtatg

Cornell University Library HM 51.E4 1919

Sociology and modern social problems,

Chapter I

What is Society? — Perhaps the great question which sociology seeks to answer may be this question which we have put at the beginning. Just as biology seeks to answer the question "What is life?"; zoology, "What is an animal?"; botany, "What is a plant?"; so sociology seeks to answer the question "What is society?" But just as biology, zoology, and botany cannot answer their questions until those sciences have reached their complete development, so also sociology cannot fully answer the question "What is society?" until it reaches its final development. Nevertheless, some conception or definition of society is necessary for the beginner; for in the scientific discussion of any problem we must know first of all what we are talking about. Before we can study the social problems of to-day from a sociological point of view, then, we must understand in a general way what society is, what sociology is, and what the relations are between sociology and other sciences.

The word "society" is used popularly to designate a variety of more or less permanent human groups. A word used scientifically, however, must be given a definite meanlo THE STUDY OF SOCIETY

ing corresponding to observed facts. Now we observe in the first place that collective or group life is not pecuhar to man, but characterizes many animals and plants as well. Mere collective or group life, however, is not in itself social life. A clump of grasses, a forest of trees, a colony of bacteria, or a group of protozoa may show interdependence in the life activities of their separate units, but we do not usually call them "societies," because, so far as we know, their individuals do not have conscious relations. Such groups of lowly organisms do, however, show the first mark of social life in that they carry on certain life activities in common. But interdependence in life activities constitutes what we call "comradeship" or "society" only when it reaches the conscious or mental plane.

The second mark of social Hfe, accordingly, is the existence of conscious relations among the members of a group. The group Hfe is carried on by means of mental interactions; that is, the interdependence in life activities is more or less guided and controlled by conscious processes. Using the term in a concrete sense, then, we may say that a society is any group of individuals who carry on a common life by means of conscious relations. We say "conscious relations," because it is not necessary that these relations be specialized into imitative or sympathetic, economic or political relations to make society or social life. Society is constituted by the mental interaction of individuals and exists wherever two or more individuals have reciprocal conscious relations to each other. Dependence upon a common economic environment, or mere contiguity in space, on the other hand, is not sufficient to constitute society. It is mental interdependence, the contact and overlapping of our inner selves, which makes possible that form of collective life which we call "society." Groups of plants do not constitute true societies unless it can be shown that they have some degree of mental Ufe. On the other hand, there is no reason for withholding the term society from many animal groups. These animal societies, however, are very different in many respects from human society, and are of interest to us only as certain of their forms throw light upon human society.

Certain faulty conceptions of society are prevalent, against which the beginner must be warned. In the writings of European sociologists the word society is often used as nearly synonymous with the state or nation. Now the state or nation is a group of people politically organized into an independent government, and it is only one of many forms of human society. To identify society with the state leads to many errors, both in theory and in practice. Another conception of society would make it synonymous with the cultural group or civilization. A society, according to this conception, is any group of people that have a common civilization, or that are bearers of a certain type of culture. Christendom, for example, would constitute a society. But cultural groups again are only one form of human society. Nations and civilizations are very imposing forms of human society, and hence they have attracted the attention of social thinkers in the past to the neglect of the more humble forms.

Any form of association, or social group, if studied from the point of view of organization and development, whether it be a family, a neighborhood group, a city, a nation, a party, or a trade union, will serve to reveal many of the problems of sociology. All forms of association are of interest to the sociologist, though not all are of equal importance. The natural, genetic social groups, which we may call "communities," serve best to exhibit sociological problems. Through the study of such simple and primary groups as the family and the neighborhood group, for example, the problems of sociology can be much better attacked than through the study of society at large or association in general. In this text we shall take the family as the simplest and in many ways the most typical form of human association, to illustrate concretely the laws and principles of social organization and development in general.

From what has been said it may be inferred that society as a scientific term is nearly synonjonous with the abstract term association, and this is correct. Association, indeed, may be regarded as the more scientific term of the two; at any rate it indicates more exactly what the sociologist deals with. A word may be said also as to the meaning of the word social. The sense in which this word will generally be used in this text is that of a collective adjective, referring to all that pertains to or relates to society in any way. The word social is much broader than the words industrial, poUtical, moral, rehgious, and embraces them all; that is, social phenomena are all phenomena which involve the interaction of two or more individuaJs.

Phases of Social Life. — Social life in its broadest sense, as we have seen, includes the group life of the animals below man. Social evolution begins with animal association. But the social life of man has developed many complex phases not shown by animal social life, such as industry, art, goverrmient, science, education, morality, and religion.

Collectively these are known as "culture" (which is the scientific term for civilization in the broadest sense) ; and the development of culture is what distinguishes the social life of man from the social life of brutes. On account of the importance of these various phases of culture in human social life many thinkers have made the mistake of attempting to explain social organization and evolution through these. It has been especially popular of late to attempt to interpret the social Kfe of man through his industrial life. But industry, art, govep-nment, morality, religion, and all other phases of civilization are products of the social life of man. Beneath them lies the biological and psychological fact of association. This is equivalent to saying that industry, government, morality, religion, and the like, in order to be understood, must be viewed from the social standpoint and interpreted as products of man's social life rathfer than vice versa.

It should be added that the individual and society are correlatives. We have no knowledge of individuals apart from society or society apart from individuals. What we do know is that human life everywhere is a collective or associated life, the individual being on the one hand largely an expression of the social life surrounding him and on the other hand society being largely an expression of individual character. The reasons for all these assertions will appear as we develop our subject.

What is Sociology? — The science which deals with human association, its origin, development, forms, and functions, is sociology. Briefly, sociology is a science which deals with society as a whole and not with its separate aspects or phases. It attempts to formulate the laws or principles which govern social organization and social evolution. This means that the main problems of sociology are those of the organization of society on the one hand and the evolution of society on^the other. These words, organization and evolution, however, are used in a broader sense in sociology than they are generally used. By organization we mean any relation of the parts of society to each other. By evolution we mean, not necessarily change for the better, but orderly change of any sort. Sociology is, therefore, a science which deals with the laws or principles of social organization and of social change. Put in more exact terms, this makes sociology the science of the origin, development, structure, and functioning of social groups.

Certain faulty conceptions of sociology have greatly impeded its progress as a science. We must not conceive of sociology, for example, as an encyclopedic science of aU social phenomena; for there are manifestly other sciences of social phenomena, such as economics and politics. Again, it is wrong to conceive of sociology as the science of human institutions; for there are other sciences dealing with human institutions and, besides, the non-institutional activities of our social life are scarcely less important sociologically than the institutional. Finally, it is extremely inadequate to conceive of sociology as a study of social evils and their remedies. The development of sociology is indispensable for the correction of social evils, for the elimination of social maladjustments; but it must study primarily the laws of normal social organization and evolution rather than the abnormal elements in our social life; for the abnormal is an incident, a faulty development, within the normal. By understanding the laws of social normality, however, we may be able to correct the abnormal.

The distinction between the sciences, however, is one of problems. Thus by understanding what the problems of sociology are, we shall be able to understand its relations to other sciences.

The Problems of Sociology. — The problems of sociology fall into two great classes: first, problems of the organization of society; second, problems of the evolution of society. The problems of the organization of society are problems of the relations of individuals to one another and to institutions. They include not only problems of group structure, but also problems of group fimctioning. Such are, for example, problems of group imity, and so of national unify; or again, of the influence of various factors in physical nature or in the human mind upon social organization. These problems may be considered as problems of society in a hypothetically stationary condition, or at rest. For this reason Auguste Comte, the founder of modem sociology, called the division of sociology which deals with such problems Social Statics.

But the problems which are of the most interest and importance in sociology are those of social evolution. Under this head come all problems of social origins and of social change. Especially important practically among these are the problems of social progress and of social retrogression; that is, the causes of the advance of communities, nations, and civilizations to higher types of social life, and the causes of social decline. The former problem, social progress, is in a peculiar sense the central problem of sociology. The effort of theoretical sociology is to develop a scientific theory of social progress. The study of social evolution, then, that is, of social changes of all sorts, as we have emphasized above, is the vital part of sociology ; and it is manifest that only a general science of society Hke sociology is competent to deal with such a problem. Inasmuch as the problems of social evolution are problems of change, development, or movement in society, Comte proposed that this division of sociology be called Social Dynamics.

The Relations of Sociology to Other Sciences.^ — (A) Relations to Biology and Psychology. In attempting to give a scientific view of social organization and social evolution, sociology has to depend upon the other natural sciences, particularly upon biology and psychology. It is manifest that sociology must depend upon biology, since biology is the general science of life, and human society is but part of the world of life in general. It is manifest also that sociology must depend upon psychology to explain the interactions between individuals, because these interactions are for the most part interactions between their minds. Thus on the one hand all social phenomena are vital phenomena and on the other hand nearly all social phenomena are on the mental plane. Every social problem has, in other words, its psychological and its biological sides, and sociology is distinguished from biology and psychology only as a matter of convenience. The scientific division of labor necessitates that certain scientific workers concern themselves with certain problems. Now, the problems with

' For a fuller discussion of the relations of sociology to other sciences see my advanced texts, Sociology in its Psychological Aspects and Introduction to Social Psychology (published by D. Appleton & Co.).

which the biologist and the psychologist deal are not the problems of the organization and evolution of society. Hence, while the sociologist borrows his principles of interpretation from biology and psychology, he has his own distinctive problems, and it is this fact which makes socioh ogy a distinct science.

Sociology is not so easily distinguished from the special social sciences, such as politics and economics, as it is from the other general sciences. These sciences occupy the same field as sociology, that is, they have to do with social phenomena. But in general, as has already been pointed out, they are concerned chiefly with certain very special aspects or phases of the social Hfe and not with its most general problems. If sociology, then, is dependent upon the other general sciences, particularly upon biology and psychology, it is obvious that its relation to the special sciences is the reverse ; namely, these sciences are dependent upon sociology. This is only saying practically the same thing as was said above when we pointed out that industry, government, and religion are but expressions of himian social Hfe. In other words, sociology deals with the more general biological and psychological aspects of human association, while the special sciences of economics, politics, and the Hke, generally deal with certain products or highly specialized phases of society.

(B) Relations to History} A word may be said about the relation of sociology to another science which also deals with himian society in a general way, and that is history.

1 For a discussion of the practical relations between the teaching of history and of sociology, see my paper on " How History can be taught from a Sociological Point of View," in Education, January, 1910.

History is a concrete, descriptive science of society which attempts to construct a picture of the social past. Sociology, however, is an abstract, theoretical science of society concerned with the laws and principles which govern social organization and social change. In one sense, sociology is narrower than history inasmuch as it is an abstract science, and in another sense it is wider than history because it concerns itself not only with the social past but also with the social present. The facts of contemporary social Ufe are indeed even more important to the sociologist than the facts of history, although it is impossible to construct a theory of social evolution without taking into full account all the facts available in human history, and for this reason we must consider history one of the very important methods of sociology. Upon its evolutionary or dynamic side sociology may be considered a sort of philosophy of history ; at least it attempts to give a scientific theory which will explain the social changes which history describes concretely.

(C) Rdations to Economics. Economics is that special social science which deals with the wealth-getting and wealth-using activities of man. In other words, it is concerned with the commercial and industrial activities of men. As has already been impHed, economics must be considered one of the most important of the special social sciences, if not the most important. Yet it is evident that the wealth-getting and wealth-using activities of man are strictly an outgrowth of his social life, and that economics as a science of human industry must rest upon sociology. Sometimes in the past the mistake has been made of supposing that economics dealt with the most fundamental social phenomena, and even at times economists have spoken of their science as alone sufficient to explain all social phenomena. It cannot be admitted, however, that we can explain social organization in general or social progress in terms of economic development. A theory of progress, for example, in which the sole causes of human progress were found in economic conditions would neglect political, reUgious, educational, and many other conditions. Only a very one-sided theory of society can be built upon such a basis. Economics should keep to its own sphere of explaining the commercial and industrial activities of man and not attempt to become a general science dealing with social evolution. This is now recognized by practically all economists of standing, and the only question which remains is whether economics is independent of sociology or whether it rests upon sociology.

The view of the most advanced economic thinkers of the present day is that economics should rest upon sociology. That economics does rest upon sociology is shown by many considerations. The chief problem of theoretical economics is the problem of economic value. But economic value is but one sort of value which is recognized in society, moral and aesthetic values being other examples of the valuing process, and socially prevalent values express the collective judgment of some human group. The problem of economic value, in other words, reduces itself to a problem in social psychology, and when this is said it is equivalent to making economics dependent upon sociology, for social psychology is simply the psychological aspect of sociology. Again, industrial organization and industrial evolution are but parts or phases of social evolution in general, and it is safe to say that industry, both in its organization and in its evolution, cannot be understood apart from the general conditions, psychological and biological, which surround society. Again, many noneconomic forces continually obtrude themselves upon the student of industrial conditions, such as custom, invention, imitation, standards, ideals, and the like. These are general social forces which play throughout all phases of human social life and so show the dependence of industry upon society in general, and, therefore, the dependence of economics upon sociology. Much more might be said in the way of concretely illustrating these statements, but the purpose of this text precludes anything but the briefest and most elementary statement of these theoretical facts.

(D) Relations to Politics. We have already said that the state is one of the chief forms of human association. The science which treats of the state or of government is known as political science or politics. It is one of the oldest of the social sciences, ha\ing been more or less sj'Stematized by Aristotle. The problems of politics are those of the origin, nature, function, and development of government. It is manifest that politics, on both its practical and its theoretical side, has many close relations to sociology. While the state or nation must not be confused with society in general, yet because the state is the most imposing, if not the most important, form of human association, the relations of politics and sociology must be very intimate. On the one hand, political scientists can scarcely understand the origin, nature, and proper functions of government without understanding more or less about the social life generally ; and, on the other hand, the sociologist finds that one of the most important facts of human society is that of social control, or of authority. While political science deals only with the organized authority manifested in the state, which we call government, yet inasmuch as this is the most important form of social control, and inasmuch as political organization is one of the chief manifestations of social organization, the sociologist can scarcely deal adequately with the great problems of social organization and evolution without constant reference to political science.

An important branch of poHtical science is jurisprudence, or the science of law. This, again, is closely related with sociology, on both its theoretical and its practical side. Law is, perhaps, the most important means of social control made use of by society, and the sociologist needs to understand something of the principles of law in order to understand the nature of the existing social order. On the other hand, the Jurist needs to know the principles of social organization and evolution in general before he can understand the nature and purpose of law.

(E) Relations to Ethics} Ethics is the science which deals with the right or wrong of human conduct. Its problems are the nature of morality and of moral obhgation, the validity of moral ideals, the norms by which conduct is to be judged, and the like. While ethics was once considered to be a science of individual conduct it is now generally

• For a full statement of my views regarding the relations of sociology and ethics, see my article on "The Sociological Basis of Ethics," in the International Journal of Ethics, April, 1910.

conceived as being essentially a social science. The moral and the social are indeed not clearly separable, but we may consider the moral to be the ideal aspect of the social.

This view of morality, which, for the most part, is indorsed by modern thought, makes ethics dependent upon sociology for its criteria of Tightness or wrongness. Indeed, we cannot argue any moral question nowadays unless we argue it in social terms. If we discuss the rightness or wrongness of the drink habit, we try to show its social consequences. So, too, if we discuss the rightness or wrongness of such an institution as polygamy, we find ourselves forced to do so mainly in social terms. This is not denying, of course, that there are religious and metaphysical aspects to morality, — these are not necessarily in conflict with the social aspects, — but it is saying that modern ethical theory is coming more and more to base itself upon the study of the remote social consequences of conduct, and that we cannot judge what is right or wrong in our complex society unless we know something of the social consequences.

Ethics must be regarded, therefore, as a normative science to which sociology and the other social sciences lead up. It is, indeed, very difficult to separate ethics from sociology. It is the business of sociology to furnish norms and standards to ethics, and it is the business of ethics as a science to take the norms and standards furnished by the social sciences, to develop them, and to criticize them. This text, therefore, will not attempt to exclude ethical implications and judgments from sociological discussions, because that would be futile and childish.

(F) Relations to Education. Among the applied sciences, sociology is especially closely related to education, for education is not simply the art of developing the powers and capacities of the individual; it is rather the fitting of individuals for efl&cient membership, for proper functioning, in social life. On its individual side, education should initiate the individual into the social life and fit him for social service. It should create the good citizen. On the social or public side, education should be the chief means of social progress. It should regenerate society, by fitting the individual for a higher type of social Kfe than at present achieved. We must have a socialized education if our present complex civilization is to endure. Social problems touch education on every side, and, on the other hand, education must bear upon every social problem. It is evident, therefore, that sociology has a very great bearing upon the problems of education ; and the teacher who comes to his task equipped with a knowledge of social conditions and of the laws and principles of social organization and evolution will find a significance and meaning in his work which he could hardly otherwise find.

(G) Relations to "Home Economics." "Home economics," or domestic science, is another good example of an applied social science which rests upon sociology. So far as it deals merely with the physical problems of the household group, such as nutrition and sanitation, it rests upon chemistry, physiology, bacteriology, and other physical sciences. But so far as it deals with the higher life of the family, with the " home " in the true sense, it must rest upon sociology. Sociology comes in, then, to give a point of view and of approach ; for the practical problems of the family life cannot be properly viewed unless the function of the family in human society is understood, and even something is known of the origin and evolution of the family as a form of association.

(H) Relations to Social and Philanthropic Work} If social and philanthropic work is to be scientific, it must rest chiefly upon sociology. The elimination of hereditary defectiveness, the overcoming of the social maladjustments of individuals, and the correction of faulty social and industrial conditions — the three great tasks of scientific social work — all require great knowledge of human society. While economics and political science furnish indispensable facts for the social worker, the general laws of normal social life, or human living together, must be sought in sociology. Sociology stands in much the same relation, therefore, to scientific social work as biology does to medicine, and hence the social worker requires thorough equipment in sociology that he may approach his tasks aright.

Whether social work aims to be remedial, that is, to restore to normal social life dependents, defectives, and delinquents; or preventive, that is, to remove the causes of social misery; or constructive, that is, to develop a higher degree of social welfare for all, it must take into account at every step the laws which govern human relations, the principles of social normality, the causes of social maladjustment, and the agencies of social progress; and these must be sought fundamentally in sociology.

1 Additional reading on this topic may be found in the author's articles on "Philanthropy and Sociology" in The Survey, June 4, igio, and on "Social Facts and Scientific Social Work" in The Survey, June 8, 1918.

The Relations of Sociology to Social Reconstruction.^ — The last sentence indicates briefly the bearing of sociology upon problems of social reconstruction. The Great War has left our civilization torn and divided. At the same time it has revealed fatal weaknesses in our institutions. Social readjustments along many lines have become necessary. Hence many programs of reconstruction have been presented. To judge between these the citizen needs to know the fundamental principles of social organization and of social progress — the laws of social survival, of social efficiency, and social harmony. We no longer build bridges without consulting bridge engineers; neither should we attempt to build institutions without the fullest use of expert knowledge. To judge the many social programs of the present, then, the citizen needs a knowledge of sociology.

Among the many party programs put forward as a basis for social reconstruction at the present time, for example, is sodaUsm; and of socialism there are many varieties, from the extreme revolutionary class socialism, which is now popularly known as Bolshevism from the party name of its Russian advocates, to the relatively conservative type of sociahsm exemplified in the platform of the British Labor Party. Now, while sociology has no logical connection with socialism or any other party program, it is evident that the various forms of socialism cannot be properly imderstood or intelligently criticized without knowledge of sociology. This is true of all party programs, but it is especially true

' Additional reading on this topic (which may be best taken up, however, after Chapter VIII) may be found in the author's book on The Social Problem (pubhshed by The Macmiilan Company).

of socialism, for in many of its forms it rests upon a particular social philosophy or theory of social evolution, namely, the theory that all social evolution is determined by economic conditions. Just how we shall regard the philosophy of revolutionary socialism in the light of scientific sociology, we shall see in a later chapter; in this introductory chapter we are concerned only to notice that the socialist program and all other social reconstruction programs of the present need to be tested by sociological knowledge.

It is not simply proposals and programs which need to be tested by the citizen; many new social experiments which are now being tried throughout our civilization manifestly depend for their success upon a general diffusion of social intelligence. Democracy itself, indeed, is such an experiment. Democracy means a social life in which the opinion and will of every normal adult counts in the determination of social policies. Obviously the success of democracy depends upon the possibility of vast masses of men forming rational opinions and executing rational decisions as a group. That is possible only through social and political education. We must educate for democracy if we wish it to succeed; and that means that we must diffuse knowledge not merely of the machinery of democratic government, but of social conditions which must be dealt with by such government and of the duties of citizens in regard to such conditions.

It is obvious that sociology, if it is to be impartial, must not be developed in the interest of any class, party, or particular reform. Rather it must aim at the discovery of the full truth regarding human relations. But this truth when discovered will be the means of deciding the wisdom or unwisdom of any proposed reform or program of social reconstruction. Thus scientific truth is practical in the deepest sense. Only imbiased knowledge can lead us aright; and hence to learn to lay aside class, party, or personal bias and to see social facts as they are is the only method by which we can hope to build a better human world.