OC | - Pe —= fag SY Ve mn in ze 1s le An at iy ae ad ad IN sal he he Je er. rQ- AT} —- al r= m- oa" 1- 1s fT PREFACE 211i ricula, but it is not a science. It is not even a synthetic science. It is a more or less systematic presentation of the knowledge made available by different social sciences. As a consulting engineer for public or private enter- prises of social reform, the sociologist is supposed to de- sign policies and to advise on problems of technique. But the different fields of theoretic social science on which that advice must ultimately rest follow at present a method of their own, and their results cannot as yet be satisfactorily co-ordinated. As a scholar and “scientist,” he is supposed to advance his “science” of sociology, and he will therefore have to specialize on a small part of the general field. These demands are conflicting, and if anything is ac- complished at all, it is due to the caliber of the men, not to the conditions under which they work or the methods they apply. This confusion in the social sciences in general, and in sociology in particular, must be cleared up if a mastery over our social environment is ever to be obtained. Here also the work will have to be done on the basis of a differentiation and specialization in the field of theoretic inquiry and inte- gration and co-ordination in the field of practical applica- tion. To make that possible, the first prerequisites are a com- mon method and a consensus of opinion regarding the rela- tion of the “science” of sociology to the other social sciences. Neither exists, and the discussion about method, which was dropped at the beginning of the century, must there- fore be resumed. The social scientist must become fully conscious of the presuppositions of his inquiries and in- vestigations before he can hope for real progress in his work. The distinction between social philosophy and social science and between the social sciences and social engineering must be fully appreciated before the investi-