ditions of the phenomena which he seeks to explain, but their own explanation is left to the antecedent sciences.
Among sociologists there has been too little criticism and assimilation of each other's work. In general, each has spun away in his own corner, but little disturbed by other spiders in other corners. Discussion is necessary to the development of an authoritative and consistent body of doctrine. Therefore one may venture to refer, in this connection, to the work of one of the most eminent writers upon sociology. Some time after the original presentation of the foregoing sections, which treat of the social process, Professor Edward Alsworth Ross contributed to the American Journal of Sociology[1] an article, which recently has been reprinted,[2] the thesis of which is that the chief objects of sociological investigation are processes. Professor Ross does not state either of the three views just summarized. He does not hold that the social phenomena—whether permanent or changing—are in essence activities, but instead he regards "groups, relations, institutions, imperatives, uniformities," the "products" of the "actions and interactions" of men, as the phenomena which sociology is to explain, and turns to processes only as the means of explaining them.
From our point of view, the five "products" which he enumerates do not all belong to the one category of products. "Institutions and imperatives" are activities, and "uniformities" are similar activities. All these belong to the social processes, but groups and relations do not. It is hardly necessary to say groups and relations, for the chief meaning of "group" is a set of established relations. "Groups and relations," in so far as they are incidents or "products" of the social activities, admit of sociological explanation; but their explanation is only a step in the explanation of the activities which such relations condition, and which are the ultimate objects of sociological explanation.
Since Professor Ross does not identify the ultimate objects of sociological explanation as processes, but turns to processes only as the means of explaining "products," the word "process" is used by him to designate whatever is necessary to explain products. Our discussion of what constitutes scientific explana-
