THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF SOCIOLOGY 291
pride and the center of attraction in an ethnological museum. It would have no value at all for sociology. If, however, it could be made to yield never so slight evidence about the facts, or the forms, or the forces, or the conditions, or the laws of the social process, to just that extent it would come to be the common material of sociology and of the science which exhibits it in the museum.
In the same way we may distinguish between the object of attention in sociology and the subject-matter beyond which cer- tain types of mind do not pry in studying history. 4 Let us refer to one of the most respected among English historians. In his Constitutional History of England, Vol. I, chap, ix, "The Norman Conquest," Bishop Stubbs presents the subject under the following minor titles : " Complex Results of the Conquest ; " " State of Normandy; " " Growth of Feudalism; " " Feudal Ideas
- As I have implied above, the point of view which we are explaining assumes
that when studies of the social reality are properly centered, we shall no longer speak as though the ethnologists were studying one thing, the historians another, the economists another, the sociologists another, etc., etc. We shall perceive that, if we are using a valid method, so far as we are actually contributing to real knowledge, rather than practicing an art, or indulging in play, we are in fact all studying the same thing. Our particular task will require primary attention to certain fragments or aspects of the one thing. It will always be understood, however, that our results have to be completed by assimilating, within the entire report, the whole made up by correlation of the results of all research. Accord- ingly I am trying to avoid a use of language which carries the old implications. I do not want to say, " ethnology deals with this subject-matter, history with that, economics with the other, etc." I want to say rather that certain material with which historians concern themselves may be treated by the historians in such a way that it satisfies no general human interest, and for that reason has no value for the sociologist. That same material may be treated by other historians in such a way that, so far as it goes, it both explains and is explained by the whole social process. If the former occurs, there is no fellowship between such nis- torians and the sociologists. If the latter is the case, the names " historian " and " sociologist " would be appropriate merely as indicating where the two types of scholars respectively place the primary emphasis in their work. The historian would be he who puts most stress upon discovering the facts of past situations. The sociologist would be he who puts most stress upon the correlation of these facts with knowledge of the social process in general. This line of cleavage between types of historians was brought out very clearly in a discussion at the joint meeting of the American Economic Association and the American Historical Association at New Orleans, December, 1903 (vide Proceedings of the American Economic Association, Third Series, Vol. V, No. i, Part II).
