448 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
occasionally possible to apply sociological principles to the cur- rent problems of the day. These are usually only special cases of some large class that comes under some broad principle, and about all that can be done is to make the application of the principle to the class. If this is understood the special cases will take care of themselves. There is therefore very little danger that the teacher of sociology will take sides on current questions and defend this or that public policy. He cares little for such questions because he sees that if the underlying prin- ciples are understood they will settle themselves. But if it chance that public questions arise that are broad enough to come directly under any sociological law there is no reason why he should hesitate in such cases any more than in any other to make the application. Still, if he finds that deep stu- dents of sociology differ as to the application, this should be a warning to him to refrain from hastily deciding what the prin- ciple really teaches in the particular case. The sociologist always sees the application of laws to current questions. They are all grouped in his mind under the laws, and may be used as illustrations, but they are usually so superficial that he can make little use of them. He prefers to take his illustrations from past history and from the various special social and even phys- ical sciences that furnish the data of sociology.
The distinction of the two schools as pure and applied sociology, therefore, would be convenient if it were not that the dynamic school accepts the pure stage as fully as the static school. The real difference is that the former carries the sci- ence farther than the latter. From a merely passive science it pushes it forward into an active science. It renders it con- structive.
In addition to the above reasons for introducing into this series a paper on the purpose of sociology, there is a personal one which it seems necessary to state in order to make my own position clear. In Dynamic Sociology I of course placed myself squarely upon the constructive ground. The advanced position there taken was open to criticism, as I expected it to
