|
& >]
=
NS
al
"=ad
Mm
1g
of
le
ce
nat
7e
=
eS
qy
at
wo
IM
cle
(0-re-
18
or
"Ow
1C-‘VV.
SOCIOLOGY
3"
In these cases there is a more or less clearly defined subjectmatter,
but the character of the problems precludes the
application of the method of science. Neither the existence
of these problems nor the fact that man is a social animal
is therefore a sufficient legitimation of a sociology which
shall be a science and not a philosophy. To be a science,
sociology must not only have a well-defined subject-matter,
but its specific problems must be capable of treatment
according to scientific methodology.!
This does not mean that sociology has to discover an
object which has previously been unknown. What is characterized
as an object in the most general sense is a complex
of definitions and relationships. Each of these complexes,
if discovered among a plurality of objects, may
become the subject-matter of a special science. Each science
rests upon an abstraction. It regards the actual totality
of any given thing from the viewpoint of some specific
concept. The totality as such cannot be grasped as a unity
by any science. Each science results, therefore, from a decomposition
of the unity of things and a corresponding
division of labor; and, by virtue of this decomposition, the
object is resolved into specific qualities and functions.
This differentiation and division of labor occur according
to a centralizing concept which makes possible the methodological
co-ordination into one subject-matter of the similar
factors and functions abstracted from different objects.
In the presence of the highly complex facts of historical
society, which cannot be interpreted from a single scientific
viewpoint, the concepts “politics,” “economics,” and
“culture” are indicative of such categories of cognition.
They may combine certain parts of the facts, with elimination
of or merely accidental co-operation with the other
+ For the distinction between sociology and social philosophy, see Book I,
chapter iv.
