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



rm-


 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 enterprises
 of social reform, the sociologist is supposed to design
 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 accomplished
 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 integration
 and co-ordination in the field of practical application.
 To make that possible, the first prerequisites are a common
 method and a consensus of opinion regarding the relation
 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 therefore
 be resumed. The social scientist must become fully
conscious of the presuppositions of his inquiries and investigations
 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-