Sociology and Modern Social Problems | Page 5

distinct science.
Sociology is not so easily distinguished from the special social sciences
like politics, economics, and others, as it is from the other general
sciences. These sciences occupy the same field as sociology, that is,
they have to do with social phenomena. But in general, as has already
been pointed out, they are concerned chiefly with certain very special

aspects or phases of the social life and not with its most general
problems. If sociology, then, is dependent upon the other general
sciences, particularly upon biology and psychology, it is obvious that
its relation to the special sciences is the reverse, namely, these sciences
are dependent upon sociology. This is only saying practically the same
thing as was said above when we pointed out that industry, government,
and religion are but expressions of human social life. In other words,
sociology deals with the more general biological and psychological
aspects of human association, while the special sciences of economics,
politics, and the like, generally deal with certain products or highly
specialized phases of society.
(B) _Relations to History._ [Footnote: For a discussion of the practical
relations between the teaching of history and of sociology, see my
paper on "How History can be taught from a Sociological Point of
View," in Education for January, 1910.] A word may be said about the
relation of sociology to another science which also deals with human
society in a general way, and that is history. History is a concrete,
descriptive science of society which attempts to construct a picture of
the social past. Sociology, however, is an abstract, theoretical science
of society concerned with the laws and principles which govern social
organization and social change. In a sense, sociology is narrower than
history inasmuch as it is an abstract science, and in another sense it is
wider than history because it concerns itself not only with the social
past but also with the social present. The facts of contemporary social
life are indeed even more important to the sociologist than the facts of
history, although it is impossible to construct a theory of social
evolution without taking into full account all the facts available in
human history, and in this sense history becomes one of the very
important methods of sociology. Upon its evolutionary or dynamic side
sociology may be considered a sort of philosophy of history; at least it
attempts to give a scientific theory which will explain the social
changes which history describes concretely.
(C) Relations to Economics. Economics is that special social science
which deals with the wealth-getting and wealth-using activities of man.
In other words, it is concerned with the commercial and industrial

activities of man. As has already been implied, economics must be
considered one of the most important of the special social sciences, if
not the most important. Yet it is evident that the wealth-getting and
wealth-using activities of man are strictly an outgrowth of his social
life, and that economics as a science of human industry must rest upon
sociology. Sometimes in the past the mistake has been made of
supposing that economics dealt with the most fundamental social
phenomena, and even at times economists have spoken of their science
as alone sufficient to explain all social phenomena. It cannot be
admitted, however, that we can explain social organization in general
or social progress in terms of economic development. A theory of
progress, for example, in which the sole causes of human progress were
found in economic conditions would neglect political, religious,
educational, and many other conditions. Only a very one-sided theory
of society can be built upon such a basis. Economics should keep to its
own sphere of explaining the commercial and industrial activities of
man and not attempt to become a general science dealing with social
evolution. This is now recognized by practically all economists of
standing, and the only question which remains is whether economics is
independent of sociology or whether it rests upon sociology.
The view which has been presented thus far and which will be adhered
to is that economics should rest upon sociology. That economics does
rest upon sociology is shown by many considerations. The chief
problem of theoretical economics is the problem of economic value.
But economic value is but one sort of value which is recognized in
society, moral and aesthetic values being other examples of the valuing
process, and all values must express the collective judgment of some
human group or other. The problem of economic value, in other words,
reduces itself to a problem in social psychology, and when this is said it
is equivalent to making economics dependent upon sociology, for
social psychology is simply the psychological aspect of sociology.
Again, industrial organization and industrial evolution are but parts or
phases of social evolution in general, and it