THE SCOPE OF SOCIOLOGY 645
too are largely, of course, dependent upon historical processes. The general kimtic^ question about societies is: What influ- ences operate, and in accordance with what formulas, to change the equilibrium or type of societary status ? The general tele- ological question about associations is : "What ends or systems of ends are indicated by the foregoing exhibits of human resources ? What is the apparent goal toward which human cooperation tends, and toward which it may be directed ?" This is a ques- tion of valuations, to be answered in accordance with logical and psychological principles which have a competence of their own in sociology, but always dependent upon recognition of principles of knowledge involved in the antecedent stages of analysis and synthesis. The methodologist consequently has to detect the relations between problems that arise, primarily in one of these divisions of inquiry, and evidence which other divisions of investi- gation are alone competent to furnish. The methodologist has to show the fundamental relations of one portion of societary inquiry with other portions, and so far as possible to organize corresponding cooperation among sociologists.
The second procedure is not logically coordinate with nor entirely separable from the first. Its practical value is so great, however, that it deserves distinct and prominent rank. It is determination of the relative significance of different orders of knowledge about society, and also of the proportionate stress to be laid at a given time upon different lines of inquiry. No knowl- edge is trivial that helps to complete the whole system of knowl- edge, yet untold energies are wasted in the name of science upon minutiae that are morally certain to remain so unrelated to the developing organon of knowledge about society that they are,
■ In a later paper additional reasons will appear for following the physicists in use of the terms "dynamics," "statics," and "kinetics." Although the present appli- cation of the terms is not precisely parallel with their use in physics, they may be made more serviceable than any alternatives in sight ; i. e., " dynamics " including the theory of the social forces in general, while " statics " is the theory of the correlating, and "kinetics" of the evolving activities; or of "order" and "progress." This variation from the usage which Ward has so forcibly recommended (Outlines of Sociology, pp. 167 sq., and elsewhere) is merely a difference in terms, but it seems better adapted to the demand for clear discrimination than the usage which has pre- vailed of late.
