REVIEWS 113
forces which may be organized for progress. This by-product of his work is in my esteem its most valuable contribution to sociology. His so-called "principles" may well be tested as categories for classify- ing social operations, and for distinguishing elements of psychic influ- ence in society. In this view The Theory of Socialization is a dis- tinct advance upoa the larger work to which it refers. The sixty-nine theses which it contains are rather in the form of statical proposi- tions than of assertions about social genesis. As such they invite veri- fication by evidence more easily accessible than that which would be pertinent upon a theory of social evolution. It might be said that if I admit the possible correctness of these propositions as statements of present forms of social influence, I may not dispute their correctness if applied to any stage of social evolution. But my principal objec- tion to Professor Giddings' method is not to the content of his proposi- tions. It is rather against change of venue to a remote region where evidence is all so hypothetical that I must take Professor Giddings' opinion for proof. When examination of social forces is brought out into the open, by theses which may be tested by concrete experience, we are on the way to knowledge. In this respect Professor Giddings' syllabus brings the matter into much better shape than it has in the Principles. The logical form of the propositions is more evident than when they are met in the more elaborate version. Their strategic strength or weakness is much plainer.
The recurrence of the phrase "consciousness of kind" affects me as would reiteration of the proposition "Nature abhors a vacuum" to explain physical phenomena. Consciousness of kind means so much in Professor Giddings' use that it means nothing. It amounts to a cipher sign for the general question, What influences cause social reac- tions? As an answer to the question it is either absolutely non-com- mittal, or it is a sort of Polonius, meaning camel, weasel, or whale to suit occasions.
While I am unable, therefore, to take "consciousness of kind" seriously, in any other sense than as a way of expressing the problem, not the solution, and while I am obliged to regard the ambition to construct a metaphysics of socialization at this stage of investigation as an amiable extravagance, I am decidedly of the opinion that The Theory of Socialization presents Professor Giddings' thought in such shape that it will materially assist in completing a preliminary socio- logical survey. ALBION W. SMALL.
