552 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
starting-point. It would soon sweep aside his dogmas about "con- sciousness of kind." It would generalize coordinations rather than arbitrarily conceived cooperation.
In the same chapter that versatile factor "consciousness of kind" appears as " similar response to the same stimulus " and " perception by each that all have the same interest " (p. 78). But a moment later (p. 82) there is another lightning change, and "like-mindedness" or "con- sciousness of kind" reduces itself to its lowest terms, viz., "responsive- ness of the like nervous organizations of the cooperating animals or men to the same stimulus." If Professor Giddings means by this formula what it means to the physiologist, he has no right to insist that it is identical with any formula whatever in which consciousness is a term. In the examples that follow, however, it appears more plainly than ever that "consciousness of kind," which Professor Baldwin has referred to as "the climax of descriptive vagueness,"' is merely a prospector's claim to anything that may hereafter be discovered in the unexplored territory to which it asserts a title."
But there is another element in the book, of which a very different estimate is necessary. It is not so matured as to be suitable for use with undergraduates, but it suggests abundant problems for the research work of older students. It becomes prominent from the eighth chap- ter, where there is a beginning of analytical examination of concrete phenomena. It is never free from the glossing conceptualism above described, but it may well provoke to further analysis, and exclusion of the unwarranted assumptions. Beyond this incipient description there is a series of formulations,' which I frankly admire, although I am more than doubtful about their content. As mere speculations they are brilliant. If they are actual generalizations of pertinent data, they are masterly in form, whether thevAvill stand the test of larger induction or not. In these formulas Professor Giddings boldly but correctly illustrates the order of generality to which sociologists aspire to carry knowledge of society. In order to establish generalizations of that order, however, we must win the cooperation of the historians. They, with the eth- nologists, must gather and arrange suitable data for generalization. We are but little better furnished with competent evidence as yet than most of the philosophers of history have been. However brilliant our hypotheses, therefore, they must remain under suspicion until they can
^ Social and Ethical Interpretation!, p. 483.
'This is most curiously confirmed by the assertion (p. 341) that "the law of least effort" merely furnishes terms for "ultimate explanation " of consciousness of kind! 3Pp. 137, 139, 140, 154, 168, 171, 192, 215, 219, 221, 230.
