406 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
action, even today, is, in a sense, socially unconscious (vide p. 20); for instance, the men who are at this moment conducting the municipal campaign in New York know very well what they want, individually and as organizations, but, in the mind of most of them, there is relatively little conception of the bearings which their respective plans have upon the structure and functions of American society. Yet, whether we credit these men with much or little social consciousness, their actions are at least as much sub- ject-matter for sociological explanation as the actions of men on any lower mental and social plane. There are also social actions which are unquestionably conscious, which certainly are not to be classified as applied sociology when the social psychologist, for example, undertakes to explain their genetic relations. These, however, according to Ward's definition, do not fall within the scope of pure sociology. In order not to do him injustice, I must repeat that his practice does not seem to conform to his definition, and that his real intention would certainly make his pure science of society cover explana- tion of the whole body of phenomena that occur in the course of "achievement."
Between his definition and his practice, however, Ward seems to be in a dilemma. If he should say that the actions of our con- temporaries are subject-matter for pure sociology because they are socially unconscious, why for his present purpose should he classify social phenomena into conscious and unconscious at all ? It is the difference between the explicative and the telic attitude of mind which his divisions of pure and applied sociology actually respect. There would remain for the conscious group only those actions which deliberately set before themselves some modification of society, and we might agree that all theorizings to such ends are theorizings which constitute applied sociology. But, to Ward himself, such theorizings are social phenomena requiring explanation just as really as the actions of savage people. Under his definition, however, he has no liberty to deal with them, in pure sociology. According to his formulas, Comte writing The Positive Philosophy, or Carl Marx agitating for a reconstruction of society, or himself publishing Dynamic Sociology,
