of sociology is psychic, and the study of this principle has shown that social phenomena are produced by the action of true natural forces, which, when abstraction is made of all perturbing elements, are found to be as regular and reliable as are the forces of gravitation, chemical affinity, or organic growth.

As a result of this it has been possible to establish the subscience of social mechanics and to work it out with something like the completeness that has been attained in the mechanics of physical nature. At least it has been possible to distinguish clearly between static and dynamic phenomena in society. This distinction, dimly seen by Comte, and still more dimly by Spencer, when fully and clearly apprehended, throws a flood of light over the whole field of social phenomena. Social statics is found to constitute the domain of social construction, and to explain the origin of all social structures and human institutions. It underlies the social order. Social dynamics, on the other hand, is the domain of social transformation, and explains all change in social structures and human institutions. It is the science of social progress. The laws of both these sciences have been to a large extent dicovered and formulated, and their workings described.

All this has been accomplished by a careful study of the social energy alone. But sociology has not stopped here. It has plunged boldly into the far more difficult and recondite field of social control. The social energy is so powerful as to exceed its proper bounds and threaten the overthrow of the social order, and would do so but for some effective curb to its action. The motor power of society has to be guided into channels through which it can flow in harmony with the safety of society. This guidance has been furnished by the higher mind or intellect of man. This guiding or directing agent is a far more subtle element than the motor force itself, and one much more difficult to understand. But sociology has not shrunk from the task of studying it and unfolding its laws and operations, and these have been sufficiently mastered to be in large part formulated and described. This fairly complete mastery of the dynamic and directive agents of society has placed sociology in position to deal in a thoroughly

scientific way with all the facts and phenomena of society-with its origin, its history, and its present condition.

Finally, with the light shed by social dynamics on the spontaneous modification of social structures and the consequent progress of society in the past, and further guided by the established law of social uniformitarianism, which enables us to judge the future by the past, sociology has now begun, not only in some degree to forecast the future of society, but to venture suggestions at least as to how the established principles of the science may be applied to the future advantageous modification of existing social structures. In other words, sociology, established as a pure science, is now entering upon its applied stage, which is the great practical object for which it exists.

HOW SHOULD SOCIOLOGY BE TAUGHT AS A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY SUBJECT?

PROFESSOR CHARLES A. ELLWOOD
University of Missouri

Sociology may be defined, in the narrow sense, as the theory, on the one hand, of social organization, and, on the other, of social evolution. In other words, it is the biology and psychology of the associational process. But I assume that in a department of sociology in a college or university closely related subjects, other than sociology in this narrow sense, will and should be taught, such as demography, including social statistics, philanthropy, and social psychology. In one sense all of these subjects are sociology. Some, indeed, would prefer to call demography "descriptive sociology;" and some would name the applied science of social betterment "applied or practical sociology" rather than "philanthropy;" while personally I would prefer the term "psychological sociology" instead of "social psychology." At any rate, they are all closely related subjects, and there can be no doubt that they should be taught together in any college or university where the work in sociology is well organized. My problem, therefore, becomes: How should sociology and the subjects immediately connected with it, either as its preliminary data or as its applications, be taught in a college or university?

Another difficulty presents itself in the question of the teaching force available for the teaching of these subjects; for it is manifest that they must be taught differently according as one or several men, or only one-half or one-fourth of one man, are engaged in teaching them. In most colleges and universities at the present time sociology is but a mere appendix or addendum to the department of political economy, or perhaps history or philosophy; and usually only the part of the time of one man is devoted to teaching subjects which may with any strictness be called sociological. For the purposes of this paper, however, I

ΙΟ

shall assume that such important subjects as sociology, demography, and philanthropy cannot be properly taught in a college or university of any size without practically the whole time of at least one man being devoted to their teaching. What I shall say, therefore, about methods of teaching sociology presupposes that at least one man is giving practically all of his time to work in sociology and closely allied subjects; but, of course, the ideals set up may be, in part, adapted to conditions where only half of the time of one man can be given to those subjects.

I must disclaim at the outset any intention of laying down dogmatic rules as to how sociology and allied subjects should be taught. I have not sufficiently reflected upon the matter, nor is my experience sufficiently wide, to warrant my laying down such rules. Again, I do not believe that one teacher can make rigid rules for the guidance of another, even in the same field; the most that can be done is that a certain order and method can be indicated, and suggestions as to details given. For these reasons, and also for the sake of concreteness, I shall limit myself, in this paper, to telling what methods and organization of work I have found on the whole successful in a six-years' teaching experience at the University of Missouri.

At the University of Missouri-where a free elective system prevails-there is no course in sociology open to freshmen. During the first two years of my experience I admitted them to my elementary course, but I soon found that in general they were not mature enough to take the work with profit as I had it organized. Hence freshmen are now advised to take a general course in European history or in physiography as preparation for the courses in sociology. This is not saying, of course, that a suitable course in sociology, or rather in the descriptive study of social organization, could not be organized for freshmen. Such a course might easily be arranged, and in my opinion it would be a valuable introduction to the more intensive study of the problems of the social life attempted in the following courses. It should include, among other things, a careful study of local conditions and institutions and of neighborhood organization, a

descriptive analysis of present American society, based largely upon the census, and a study of the relations of social institutions to physiographic conditions. Such an elementary course in social analysis has not been organized at the University of Missouri, partly on account of lack of sufficient teaching force, but chiefly because the curriculum is already crowded and it seems wiser to direct the attention of students to the courses in history and physiography.

As the work in sociology has been organized at the University of Missouri, there have been three chief courses open to undergraduates. These courses are all arranged on the three-houra-week plan, and continue each through a year. In a college or university where the classes meet five times a week, each of these courses would be condensed to a single semester, and they could all, then, come in the junior and senior years, which, I think, would be advantageous. The three courses referred to are: (1) an introduction to the scientific study of social problems; (2) a study of the abnormal classes of society-the dependent, defective, and delinquent classes-and of the methods of scientific philanthropy in dealing with them; (3) a critical study of sociological theory.

The first course, as the name implies, is an introduction to all of the social sciences as well as to sociology. Its aim is to show the student how scientific methods may be applied to the study of social problems. The course opens with a survey of the field of the social sciences and of their relations to each other, especially to sociology, whose character as a synthetic and fundamental science of the whole field of social phenomena is emphasized. Scientific methods of studying social problems are then considered the method of personal observation, the statistical method, the historical method, the comparative method, the evolutionary method, and the method of deduction from biology and psychology. The whole purpose of the course is to illustrate the concrete application of these methods to the problems of the social life in such a way that the essential factors in social organization and evolution will stand clearly forth. Accordingly the main part of the course is spent in examining certain typical or