NOTE ON WARD'S "PURE SOCIOLOGY" 407
would be equally outside the view of pure sociology, because those actions are all conscious. In fact, they call for explanation no less than the actions of nature-men performing merely their instinctive motions. In practice, as we have said, Ward lifts his ban from conscious actions. This is shown at once by chap, iii, on the subject-matter of sociology. When Ward brings in the actions of our contemporaries for explanation, knowing them to be at least partially conscious, he throws away his limitations of pure sociology. The truth is that the unconscious and the conscious are subdivisions of the subject-matter of pure sociology; they are not lines of separation between pure and applied sociology.
Ward might have said : Pure sociology is distinguished by the purpose of explaining socialization at all stages : applied sociol- ogy is distinguished by the purpose of modifying socialization. That would not only have been self-consistent, as a principle of differentiation, but it would have corresponded with the actual contents of his system.
I can think of no sociologist who has ever consistently con- fined himself to the study of unconscious socialization. I can see no good reason why anyone should want to. The attempt to do so would be an abortion, if it succeeded. Unconscious and conscious socialization help to explain each other. Held apart from each other, both would be misunderstood.
ALBION W. SMALL. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.
