CONCLUSION

263

view thought of sociology in terms of a general social psychology
 (Le Bon, Sighele), some in terms of a science of
social interactions (Gumplowicz, Giddings), some in terms
of a philosophy of history (Barth), some in terms of a social
philosophy (Stein), and some in terms of a philosophy of
the social sciences (Ratzenhofer, Small). Nor was there
any more agreement regarding the fundamental category
of this study of sociology; but here, at least, the fundamental
 differences were not quite so great as the discrepancies
 in terminology would seem to indicate. The essentially
social category was, for de Roberty, sociality; for de Greef
and Fouillée, contract; for Gumplowicz, conflict; for Tarde.
imitation; for Durkheim, coercion; for Giddings, consciousness
 of kind; for Ratzenhofer and Small, association;
and for Stuckenberg, sociation. These different terms connote
 very different concepts, but they indicate also the
gradual realization that the aim should be not so much a
philosophy of society as a whole as a study of the specific
phenomena of social interaction.
In this period of confusion appeared the work of Georg
Simmel. The fundamental points in his theory were formulated
 well before the end of the century, and he therefore
 definitely belongs to the nineties. His great contribution
 is a methodological foundation for a science of sociology
 distinct and separate from social psychology, the
social sciences, social philosophy, and the philosophy of
history. He defined the subject-matter of that science as
the forms of socialization, that is, as the purely social aspect
 of socialization or association as such. The value of
his work does not lie in its startling originality, but in the
careful methodological justification of its essential concepts.
 He owed a great deal to his predecessors, perhaps
more in particular to Gumplowicz, but his philosophic