of the state. Then there is a school of writers, calling themselves, since the time of Comte, sociologists, who believe that the most significant fact about the life and conduct of man is that he does not act in isolation but in association with his fellows, in other words that in every phase of human activity the group life of man is the most fundamental element to be considered. They start from the assumption that a collective rather than a purely individualistic struggle for existence has from the beginning of human history been indispensable for the survival and progress of society, and they further assume the necessity and existence of the state as a most powerful and vital organ in this process of social development. From this point of view the state appears not as some metaphysical "ethical being" or as a purely legalistic entity emitting "commands of a determinate superior," but as a purely natural product of social evolution, more or less distinctly correlated in its development with the stages of group progress with which its growth is associated. Viewed in this sense it must be agreed that political institutions cannot be properly understood or profitably studied except in their relation to their broader foundations in the social or group life of mankind, and the only sound criterion for estimating the value and relative excellence of the state is its adaptability to the function of promoting the progress and basic interests of the group at any given time.

While this type of approach to political problems must be regarded as dating back to Aristotle and was revived in modern times by Hume, Ferguson, Calhoun, Comte, Spencer, and Schaeffle it has been only recently and reluctantly recognized as a legitimate method of investigation and a valid line of approach to political problems. Nevertheless, it has already made some most signal contributions to our understanding of the nature of political activities and institutions. To mention but a few of the more notable examples, this type of analysis has been evident in the studies of the historical evolution of the state by Spencer, Giddings, Hobhouse, and Oppenheimer; in the elaboration of the conception of political activity as a process of adjustment between different interest-groups by Gumplowicz, Ratzenhofer, Small, Bentley, and others; in Professor Michels' sociological study of

leadership in political parties; in the discussion of the relation of group psychology to political life by Tarde, Durkheim, LeBon, Sighele, Trotter, Wallas, Ross, Cooley, Ellwood, Giddings, and Sumner; and in Ward's monumental exposition of the relation of the state to social progress.

Believing that the sociological interpretation of the state is worthy of a more sympathetic reception and a more extensive study than it has hitherto received, the writer has aimed to contribute, however slightly, to this desirable end by presenting an analysis of the socio-political theories of two of the most distinguished of American sociologists. In order to avoid the charge of advocating any specific interpretation of political theory these writers have consciously been chosen as representing widely dif ferent points of view. The late Professor Sumner stands out as the great American exponent of the laissez faire doctrine so inseparably associated with the name of Herbert Spencer. Professor Ward represents, on the other hand, the most advanced views yet taken by an avowed sociologist in the advocacy of a comprehensive program of social reform through the medium of legislation. If one should be inclined to regard this divergence of opinion as an evidence of an innate weakness of sociology, it is but necessary to call attention to the diversity of the respectable types of economic theory, to the different lines of approach to the analysis of government, and to the some eight or ten different interpretations of historical material, to say nothing of the historians who deny the validity of any type of historical interpretation.1

PART I: WILLIAM GRAHAM SUMNER (1840-1910)

I. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HIS SOCIOLOGICAL THOUGHT

Among the sociologists of America there is little doubt that the late Professor William Graham Sumner, of Yale, was the most vigorous and striking personality. Probably the most inspiring The lack of total unanimity among the adherents to the other social sciences is a significant fact which seems to have escaped Professor Deslandres when he was preparing his vigorous indictment of sociologists for their divergent doctrines. See his La Crise de la science politique et le problème de la méthode, pp. 49-87, especially P. 74.

I

and popular teacher that Yale University or American social science has produced, Sumner's direct contact with thousands of students was, without doubt, more important for the development of sociology in the United States than his own published works upon the subject, or the published works of many another American sociologist. Consequently, in even a brief introduction to his contributions to sociology, an attempt to interpret his personality and methods, as revealed in his writings and in written and oral estimates from former students at Yale, is more essential than it would be in the case of any other American sociologist.

In spite of the fact that Sumner frequently emphasizes the necessity for an objective point of view in social science and decries any attempt upon the part of a sociologist to moralize,' it is impossible for a reader to emerge from a protracted examination of Sumner's economic, political, and sociological writings without becoming convinced that Sumner was primarily a preacher in the true sense of that term. Trained originally for the ministry and serving for a short time as an ordained curate of the Episcopal Church, Sumner tells his readers2 that he left the ministry because he wanted to be able to turn his attention to political, economic, and social questions rather than to the preparation of sermons on theological subjects. It is hard to escape the conviction that he employed his professorial career in these more fertile fields in developing an intellectual ministry which has been unexcelled for its success, influence, and inspiration by that of any other American teacher. Sumner was as subtle in his preaching as Jefferson was in his political epistolography, for he continually disclaimed any attempt to do more than set forth concrete facts in a candid manner. Yet his Social Classes is, above all, an exhortation to independent thought and action, self-reliance, and individual initiative, and the element of the preacher is not entirely absent even in Folkways.3 If one adds to this initial zeal the influence of a commanding personality, a wide I Cf. his What Social Classes Owe to Each Other (New York, 1883), p. 155.

2

Cf. "A Sketch of William Graham Sumner," in Pop. Sci. Mo., June, 1889, pp. 261-68, reprinted in the Challenge of Facts and Other Essays. Yale University Press, 1914.

learning, a splendid, if not entirely accurate or consistent, dogmatism, and a mastery of incisive English which makes his essays models of terse nineteenth-century critical prose, it is not difficult to understand Sumner's reputation as a teacher or his dominating influence at Yale.

Sumner's writings are intensely dogmatic and he was an uncompromising foe of all the unscientific sentimentality which has permeated so many of the pseudosociological writings and movements of the last quarter of a century. His basic message to his students and readers in this respect has been concisely epitomized by one of his students as "Don't be a damn fool!" Sumner's dogmatism, however, was not entirely logical or consistent. For example, he stated' that he did not believe in either metaphysics or psychology and that he had always tried to prevent sociology from being infected by them. Nevertheless, he continually indulged in a rather crude type of metaphysics of his own, and his Folkways is unquestionably the most important objective treatment of a very essential portion of social psychology which has ever been written.

As Professor Small remarks,3 Sumner's position in the development of sociology in the United States has not been definitely determined. While it may be true that, as Professor Keller asserts, Sumner was always primarily a sociologist in method and point of view, there can be no doubt that he built up his academic and literary reputation in the fields of economics and political science as an exceedingly vigorous advocate of "hard money,” free trade, and laissez faire. Again, while Sumner may claim a priority of practically a decade over any other American teacher in introducing a serious course in sociology into the university curriculum, he never published a systematic exposition of sociology, and his great monograph, Folkways, did not appear until 1 War and Other Essays, ed. by A. G. Keller, Introduction, p. xxiii.

2 American Journal of Sociology, XV, 209.

3 Ibid., XXI, 732.

4 Introduction to War and Other Essays, pp. xv, xvii.

5 Cf. Small, Amer. Jour. Sociol., XXI, 729-48; C. H. Walker, Amer. Jour. Sociol., XX, 829-30; Giddings and Tenney in article "Sociology" in Monroe's Cyclopedia of Education.

three years before his death. These facts doubtless account for the fact that few persons who have not been Yale students, or who have not been intimately acquainted with Sumner's academic work, are aware that Sumner may be accurately classed as a sociologist, and one need not be surprised that Professor Small was "shocked" in 1907 by the proposal of Sumner as president of the American Sociological Society. Further, it is doubtful if Sumner's views upon, and contributions to, sociology can ever be accurately determined unless Professor Keller completes from notes and publishes Sumner's unfinished systematic treatment of sociology. At present Sumner's published works on sociology, aside from several brief essays, are almost entirely limited to his Folkways. Of this work it is not inaccurate to say that it is unsurpassed as a sociological monograph in any language and that it has made the sociological treatment of "usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals" practically a completed task.

As far as one can judge from his essays and lectures upon sociology, from his autobiographical sketches, and from Professor Keller's comments, Sumner's sociological views were colored by his economic and political predispositions and were inspired by the general thought and methods of procedure of Darwin, Spencer, and Lippert. An evolutionary view of social life and development, a slight predilection for the use of biological concepts, and a firm conviction of the preeminent value of ethnography as the "data" and to a large extent the substance of sociology are the dominant features of Sumner's sociological thought. He seems to have been little influenced by, or acquainted with, the recent systematic sociological literature of America or Europe, and Professor Keller states3 that he had little respect for such works. On the whole it was probably fortunate that Sumner specialized in the descriptive and ethnographic, rather than the theoretical, phase of sociology, as his power of that sustained and logical 'Cf. Small, Amer. Jour. Sociol., XXI, 732-33.

* Cf. "Sociology" in War and Other Essays, pp. 167-93; "Introductory Lecture to Courses in Political and Social Science" in The Challenge of Facts and Other Essays, pp. 391-403; "Sociology as a College Subject," Amer. Jour. Sociol., XII, 597-99; ibid., XV, 209; and Professor Keller's Introduction to War and Other Essays.

3 War and Other Essays, pp. xxiii–xxiv.