NOTE ON WARD'S "PURE SOCIOLOGY." II.
ONE of the advising editors of this JOURNAL has called in question our plan of treating Dr. Ward's latest book. He thinks it should first have had a comprehensive review; its importance should have been distinctly pointed out; its place in the literature of the subject should have been indicated. After that it might have been in order to show, if possible, that it is not equally strong in all its details. If this judg- ment had been expressed before the other course had been adopted, it would certainly have led to reconsideration, though it does not seem likely that the reasons suggested for the alternative course would have prevailed.
There is too much in Pure Sociology to be passed upon profitably in a single review. A summary and an appreciation would certainly be the conventional way of paying a tribute to an author whom every- body likely to see such a notice already recognizes as facile princeps among American sociologists. Our correspondent has overlooked the fact that this JOURNAL contained a brief but very emphatic recognition of the importance of the book as soon as it appeared (Vol. VIII, p. 710). There is good reason to believe, moreover, that Dr. Ward hoped the book would be taken as laboratory material by American sociol- ogists, and that discussion based upon it would both refine and fuse elements of truth now going to waste. In the beginning of the three historical chapters once intended to be parts of Pure Sociology, but finally published in this JOURNAL to keep the book from being too bulky, Dr. Ward charged part of the backwardness of sociology to everybody's egoism in exploiting his own notions, and nobody's willingness to thresh out the ideas of others (Vol. VII, p. 476). "When different writers shall begin to discuss one another's ideas," he said, "there will be some hope of an ultimate basis being found for agreement, how- ever narrow that basis may be." This was a plain hint that a cross- examination of Pure Sociology would be welcome. The hint was repeated in the book itself in the passage referred to in our last num- ber (Vol. IX, p. 404, citing Pure Sociology, pp. 12, 13). The sugges- tion seemed pertinent and timely. The unique position of Dr. Ward among American sociologists makes mere complimentary notice of his work, not only superfluous, but virtually tiivial. His priority in time, and his advantage in scientific equipment, are so unquestioned that the
567
