850 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
consists in the prediction of concrete social states, the immediate task of sociological science must be the investigation of elements out of which every social state is com- posed. The preliminary question which sociology must set before itself is what phenomena outside of the reach of existing sciences it is going to study. We can easily define what life in society is. It is the life which is formed by the common life of men. But, if the elements of society are individuals, there would seem to be no good reason for separating sociology from biology and psychology. This con- sequence cannot be avoided by saying that society is not the simple sum of its indi- vidual members. The developed organism is also not the simple sum of its cells. Nevertheless no one wishes to regard the theory of the developed organism as an independent science alongside of the science of the cells. We cannot see the reasons which will establish sociology as an independent science alongside of biology and psychology, if the individual is the element of society.
Psychology explains to us the formation of social feelings in the individual. When we foresee the actions of a man, his political opinions, his moral ideas, etc., we are only psychologists. But can the psychologist foresee anything of the actions of a people ? We do not believe it. The psychology of the people is a new science ; it is sociology. The conditions of the victory of an idea, or of a tendency, are not the same for societies as for the individual. The individual becomes a member of society and participates in its life by bio-psychological processes; but the conditions of the development of society are rather its preceding states than the psychological disposi- tions of individuals. As biology is independent in respect to chemistry, because it presents the phenomena of life in their dependence upon the antecedent states of the organism, so sociology will be independent in respect to psychology and biology. It is independent as over against them in so far as it examines, not human actions which are explained by the life in common, but collective human actions which are explained by preceding collectivity. The origin of society, then, is not a problem of sociology, but of biology; the sociological problem will be the development of society.
History, in the widest sense, furnishes sociology its necessary materials. History does not become in itself sociology, because it does not give us general laws of all societies, but only the form of the special development of a single people. Compara- tive history aims, however, so much at the establishment of general laws that its dif- ferentiation from sociology will be superficial. While all sociologists make use of comparative history, some think that it suffices to solve all problems, and others say not. This divergence is, however, of a secondary importance. That the compilation and systematization of materials does not suffice, goes without saying. Analysis of facts has never founded a science. The synthesis, the hypothesis, is indispensable. Comparative history gives the materials which suggest ideas to the ingenious mind.
We find the method of our science in the analysis of complex societies, for the purpose of discovering the small elementary societies of which they are composed. The question of sociology in itself is : Through what causes do these groups become more and more organized and differentiated ? Sociology is composed of three sorts of investigations: (l) the analysis of societies in order to discover the small elemen- tary social groups ; (2) the study of the ideas which act as motives of the individual in entering and remaining in the group ; (3) the study of the laws and forces which determine the organization, evolution, and differentiation of these groups. — C. N. Starcke, " Quelques questions sur la m^thode de la sociologie," in Revue interna- tionale de sociologie, January, 1899.
The Individual and Society. — Men do not enter into society (Gemeinschaft) through the fact that they live in neighborhood with one another, nor through the fact that their bodies touch each other. In the external world alone there is no bond which could unite them. Were men bound into bundles, they would be merely bun- dles of men, not societies. For society there is required a relationship of internal worlds to one another. But the simple, mutual knowledge of inner life is not yet com- munity of life, not even if mutual sympathy is added. If, however, through mutual knowledge of their feelings there arises also the effort mutually to influence them, then there is at once either enmity or sociality {Gemeinschaft) — enmity in so far as their feelings are in conflict, and so call fo'-th the endeavor to counteract each other ; soci-
