government from its present unscientific and unprogressive methods to "a central academy of science which shall stand in the same relation to the control of men, in which a polytechnic institute stands to the control of nature." Government would be then, in truth, "the legislative application of sociological principles," and this is what he understands by "sociocracy"-"the scientific control of social forces by the collective mind of society for its advantage."

Following the same general method, John R. Commons has worked out a somewhat elaborate account of the sociological view of sovereignty which he states, of course, in social rather than political terms.1 The most suggestive of these contributions, however, is that made by Ross in his Social Control, 1901.2 Believing that a study of social control should not be limited to an examination of laws alone, Ross has instituted a comprehensive study of all social forces that go to make up the control of the group over the individual. To this end the work is divided into a study of the grounds of control, the means of control, and the system of control. Under the grounds of control are discussed the rôle of sympathy, sociability, the sense of justice, and of individual reaction as bases of social order. Under the means of control, there

1 American Journal of Sociology, Vol. V.

2 E. A. Ross, Social Control, A Survey of the Foundations of Order.

is given a description and analysis of the various forces, by means of which the society obtains social obedience and effects social control. These instrumentalities are partly legal, as law, belief, ceremony, education, illusion; and partly ethical, as public opinion, suggestion, art, and social valuation. The complicated machinery for producing obedience on the part of the individual to the will of the group is subjected to careful examination, with results that are at times startling. Ross maintains, however, that the full understanding of these subtle methods need not lead to any such disastrous consequences as those drawn by the Anarchists. Simply because the "X-ray shows control in all social tissues and the spectroscope reveals the element of collective ascendancy in almost every culture product," it does not follow that all these tissues and products must be destroyed. A full comprehension of the facts of social control, while not wholly quieting to the individual thus controlled, need not lead to rebellion against this restraint.

Under the system of control are examined such topics as class control, the vicissitudes of social control, the limits and criteria of control. The assertion is made that in the future the control of society will be secured largely through the instrumentality of education - the best method of insurance against the spirit of disobedience in the individual. In the same connection an effort is made to lay down certain canons or principles of

social interference. Of these the most significant are: "Social interference should not be so paternal as to check the self-extinction of the morally ill-constituted;" and, "Social interference should not so limit the struggle for existence as to nullify the selective process." 1

In conclusion, it appears that recent political theory in the United States shows a decided tendency away from many doctrines that were held by the men of 1776. The same forces that have led to the general abandonment of the individualistic philosophy of the eighteenth century by political scientists elsewhere have been at work here and with the same result. The Revolutionary doctrines of an original state of nature, natural rights, the social contract, the idea that the function of the government is limited to the protection of person and property, none of these finds wide acceptance among the leaders in the development of political science. The great service rendered by these doctrines, under other and earlier conditions, is fully recognized, and the presence of a certain element of truth in them is freely admitted, but they are no longer generally received as the best explanation for political phenomena. Nevertheless, it must be

said that thus far the rejection of these doctrines is a scientific tendency rather than a popular movement. Probably these ideas continue to be

1 Chap. XXX.

articles of the popular creed, although just how far they are seriously adhered to it is difficult to ascertain. As far as the theory of the function of government is concerned, it would seem that the public has gone beyond the political scientists, and is ready for assumption of extensive powers by the political authorities. The public, or at least a large portion of it, is ready for the extension of the functions of government in almost any direction where the general welfare may be advanced, regardless of whether individuals as such are benefited thereby or not. But in regard to the conception of natural right and the social-contract theory, the precise condition of public opinion is, at the present time, not easy to estimate.

CHAPTER IX

CONCLUSION

It

In conclusion of this study, a few words may be said upon the general characteristics of American political theory. It is evident from the preceding chapters that thus far there has been no remarkable development of political philosophy in the United States. Until recently, there has been no attempt at all at systematic discussion of the problems of politics, and, although the new school has accomplished much, it has not yet developed a body of typical American political theory. would be putting it strongly to say that there is no American political theory, but it is certainly true that very few contributions to systematic politics have been made by the great republic of the New World. Many of the characteristic features even of our own political system have received comparatively little attention ; as, for example, democracy as an all-pervading influence in society and state, the rule of the majority, written constitutions, the relation between church and state. These ideas seem to be so generally accepted that argument or discussion is regarded as superfluous. They are articles of political faith, received with implicit confidence and trust.