Page images
PDF
EPUB

is based on two considerations: First, that by sufficient heed to the most accessible realities-those of our own country and time-as well as to comparative and genetic sociology, we may be saved from getting too far from our facts, and becoming asphyxiated in abstractions, as men deeply interested in a new and complicated body of theory are in danger of doing; and, second, that we may lead the largest number of competent students, by the natural path, to an intelligent interest in the theoretical teachings of 'general sociology.

JAMES E. HAGERTY, OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

Before discussing the teaching of sociology we should be in agreement as to the question as to whom it is to be taught. Have we in mind the teaching of sociology to Sophomores, Juniors, Seniors or to graduate students? The class of people we teach will necessarily determine our methods.

As a rule the general course in economics in the American university is taught second-year students. I am going to assume that a course in sociology corresponding to this general course in economics may also be taught to second-year students. If so the subject-matter should be concrete, definite, and systematically arranged.

We are going through the same stage in the teaching of sociology formerly passed through in the teaching of economics and we can learn a great deal from the present methods of teaching economics. Formerly the textbooks in political economy devoted the first fifty or sixty pages to definition, the relation of political economy to other bodies of knowledge, its province, its purposes, the methods of investigation, etc. Recent writers have wisely omitted this class of subject-matter entirely. They have doubtless discovered that it is bad pedagogy to present the abstract and analytical phases of a science to students who know nothing of its subjectmatter. In many places we are making the same error in the teaching of sociology.

At the Ohio State University we have placed our elementary course in sociology on precisely the same plan as our elementary course in economics. We have a three-hour course per week extending through the year, which is a prerequisite to all other courses in sociology. This course is open to second-year students. At the outset we give four or five lectures on the evolution of society, emphasizing social phenomena. Our next division is devoted to the economic or physical basis of society. We next discuss the biological factors, including a study of races. The following divisions are then presented in order: the psychological factors, social structure, social control, social institutions, social pathology, and social progress. The Spring Term, or about one-fourth of the year, is devoted to practical problems in which the students are required to make an application of theories.

This, in brief, outlines the method we are pursuing, which is proving

successful. We treat all subjects in this elementary course which are developed in our advanced or more technical courses. The student approaches the latter subjects with a broader point of view than he otherwise would have. The subject-matter presented in the elementary course is concrete and definite. No attempt whatever is made to present the various viewpoints of sociologists or the numerous questions on which they take issue. The natural way for a student to begin the study of any science is with the concrete, positive phenomena which constitutes its subject-matter.

THOMAS J. RILEY, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

I recently visited a county teachers' meeting in Missouri. It was in the spring near the close of the school year. The discussion going on was concerning the teaching of geography. One of the teachers in telling about the progress of her class said, "We have just now got to Missouri," referring doubtless to the special study of her own state near the close of the textbook. Professor John Dewey, in his little book, The School and Society, states that a class in geography in the public schools at Moline, Ill., knew much about the Mississippi River in the textbook, but had not connected the river of the book with the river on which the city is located. These are illustrations of what is likely to happen when the beginning of a study has to do with its definitions, problems, and relations. Students are likely not to make the connection of the things being studied with the facts of living that lie at their own doors.

It has been my experience in four years of trial that the best introduction to a course in elementary sociology is to study the social facts that may be observed in the community where the university is located. In beginning my work at the opening of the last year I instructed my class at its first meeting that they should visit some building in the process of construction, noting especially the division of labor and the necessary interdependence and co-ordination. At the second meeting of the class I found the students all qualified to illustrate and to discuss the topics I had assigned. When this had been considered I in like manner required them to report on physiographic control of social facts in their own city. By this method it seems to me I secured a lively interest on the part of the students, introduced them to an observational method and connected our study with the things lying about them.

The chairman assuring me that I have some time yet at my disposal I venture to ask those who advocate a psychological view of society to what extent they consider psychic forces competent to explain social phenomena; for example: When a plane of living that a family maintains becomes the plane of many families a standard of living for that group has been tacitly arrived at. Studies in the standard of living seem to have

shown that this standard is determined partly by the necessities for food, clothing, and shelter and partly by the ideals, that is the traditions, beliefs, education, and ambitions of the families. These latter things are chiefly the psychic factors, but when the income is small these ideals are not able to find much expression in the standard of living that the class maintains. My question is not whether the psychic factors are more important than the economical factors in determining the standard of living, but whether the standard of living can be accounted for only in terms of psychic forces. It seems to me that such a thing as a standard of living for a class is determined chiefly by the economical and psychic factors together with perhaps several others as physical environment, etc.

DR. RUDOLPH M. BINDER, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

There are two classes of students in sociology-those who intend to devote two or three years to this subject, and may wish to specialize in it; and those who can give it but little time in one year. The former need and should receive as strict a scientific training as sociology is able to give. The latter-and their number is legion-need inspiration, contact with living problems and reform movements. In their case strict scientific methods are not applicable, and a general acquaintance with sociological principles is all that can be required. This class of students should nevertheless be encouraged, both because they will make better workers in their own fields through this elementary knowledge of sociology, and because some at least will find this study sufficiently profitable to pursue it farther.

PROFESSOR CARL KELSEY, THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

I am tremendously interested in the general trend of thought evidenced by the papers read this morning. It seems to me that we have spent altogether too much time in trying to justify our own existence and in marking out division lines between the older subjects and our own. The field of human knowledge is, after all, one and the different sciences represent but different viewpoints from which the field is studied. I believe that the future of sociological teaching is bright if we can restrict ourselves to the study of concrete problems, problems not in the sense of pathology alone but with clear recognition that all social phenomena, whether of advance or decay, involve problems. It is our business to study these and I can only hope that in our presentation to the classes we may in some measure adopt the magnificent and tremendous logic which characterizes the work of our honored Nestor, Professor Ward.

PROFESSOR JEROME Dowd of THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA

Resolved, That the chair appoint a committee of ten, including the president of the Sociological Society, to make a report to the next meeting of the society, consisting of: First, a statement of the subject-matter of first courses now given in the colleges of the country; and, second, a suggestion of the subject-matter for a fundamental course to serve as a guide to sociological teachers and as a basis for advanced work.

In support of the motion Professor Dowd said:

There are two reasons for this motion: First, in taking rank as a science and in attaining to that dignity and respect which the importance of the subject and the wide interest in it demand, it seems to me desirable that sociology should standardize its fundamental courses in the same way that the fundamental courses of other sciences are standardized. For illustration, when a student takes Chemistry 1, Physics 1, Biology 1, Economics 1, or Law 1, such course stands for a definite subject-matter, and enables the student to find an easy adjustment in going from one institution to another, and it forms a solid basis for advanced work.

Second, I believe that the concrete statement of the subject-matter of a fundamental course would harmonize and crystallize our views as to the scope and field of sociology to an extent that no amount of theoretical discussion could possibly do.

The resolution was adopted, and the following committee was appointed.1

1910.

1

For names of committee, see American Journal of Sociology, January,

SOCIOLOGY AND THE STATE

LESTER F. WARD

Brown University

I

Sociology must be something very bad because it is so much like vice. Most of those who hated it at first sight now embrace it and the rest are either in the enduring or the pitying stage.

As in the case of nearly all other sciences sociology was at first attacked and called a "pseudo-science." The sociologist is perfectly familiar with this, and it has ceased to trouble him. He has been hearing it from Lorenz Stein, Dilthey, Maurice Block, Bernheim, Lehmann, Treitschke, Martini, Van der Rest, and Leslie Stephen. They all say the same things, nothing more and nothing new. Some pains were taken at first to show that there were vast fields which no other science has ever touched or can touch without becoming sociology. But the need of sociology was so great and so keenly felt that there ceased to be any call to defend it. The people of all countries actually demanded the new science. None of the other sciences held out any hope of furnishing a theoretical and scientific basis for the study of the social problems of the day. Political economy had become a sort of quietism, and bade the people hush and cease to disturb the established order. But the people would not hush, and the unrest grew. Economics then vaulted over to the Austrian theory of value, which is a sociological principle, and then pretended that it had always been the "master science." Political science floundered about among a thousand fine-spun and wholly improbable theories of the state. It was both politically and socially hopeless.

When at last a science of both human origins and human welfare rose on the horizon it was immediately welcomed as that which had been so long looked for. Launched by Comte and fathered by John Stuart Mill, it moved, though at first slowly.

« PreviousContinue »