THE PROBLEM OF SOCIOLOGY 293
invented by individuals of genius, or that it was a gift of God to men. In religions systems the inventions of sly priests, and immediate revelation no longer divide the credit, etc. Instead of these things we now believe that historical phenomena are to be explained by the reactions and co-operations between the indi- viduals, by the aggr^ation and sublimation of countless separate contributions, by the incorporation of the social energies in struc- tures which exist and develop over and above the individuals. Sociology accordingly, in its relationships to the existing sciences, is a new method, an auxiliary to investigation, a means of approaching the phenomena of all these areas in a new way.^ This being the case, sociology is related to the older disciplines not otherwise than, in its time, induction, which, as a new principle of investigation, invaded all possible sciences, acclimated itself in each, and helped each to new solutions of the tasks within its field. Induction was not for that reason a special science, not to say an all-comprehending science. No more can these claims be urged upon like grounds for sociology. In so far as sociology rests its claims on the ground that man must be understood as a social being, and that society is the vehicle of all historical experience, it contains no object which is not already treated in one of the existing sciences. The actual situation is that sociology pro- poses only a new way for all these sciences, a method of science, which, for the very reason that it is applicable to the totality of the problems, is not a peculiar science in and of itself.^
- It would have been more felicitous, as well as more convincing, if the
dumping-in-the-pot discussion had been suppressed, and this way of putting the case had been made the point of departure.
- Between this paragraph and the following Simmel begs a fundamental
methodological question and proceeds as though the alternative which he pre- fers were no longer debatable. That is, he dismisses the idea of sociology as a method, and assumes that there is a place for sociology only as a particular science of some hitherto neglected material. I simply decline to accept this conclusion. In this, of course, I differ with many, perhaps most of the sociolo- gists. It is not necessary to settle that question here. Either way, the point with reference to Simmel's jump at a conclusion in the present passage remains. It seems to me as clear as daylight that our traditional social sciences are pitiable abortions, and that they can be vitalized only by reconstruction accord- ing to a method which psychologists and sociologists are more interested than anyone else in perfecting. Whether the name sociology will be used for this
