1 Cf. Barnes, H. E., The History and Prospects of the Social Sciences (New York, 1925)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Hayes, E. C., Recent Developments in the Social Sciences (Philadelphia, 1927)Google Scholar, Ogburn, W. F. and Goldenweiser, A., The Social Sciences and Their Interrelations (Boston, 1927)Google Scholar, Gee, W., Research in the Social Sciences (New York, 1929)Google Scholar, and as a sort of summary in 1930, volume I of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.

2 Cf. the neat account of the development and affiliation of the different social and cultural disciplines in House, F. N., The Development of Sociology (New York, 1936).Google Scholar

3 The Proper Study of Mankind…: An Inquiry into the Science of Human Relations (New York, 1948).Google Scholar

4 Loc. cit., p. 49.Google Scholar

5 Ibid., p. 38.

6 Cf. Ibid., pp. 19 ff., 38 ff.

7 Cf. Dilthey, Wilhelm, Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften: Versuch einer Grundlegung für das Studium der Gesellschaft und Geschichte (Gesammelte Sckriften, vol. I, Leipzig, 1922)Google Scholar, and Der Aufbau der geschichtlichen Welt in den Geisteswissenschaften (Gesammelte Schriften, vol. VII, Leipzig, 1927)Google Scholar; Windelband, Wilhelm, Geschichte und Naturwissenschaft, Rede turn Antritt des Rectotats der Kaiser-Wilhelms Unirersität Strassburg (Strassburg, 1900)Google Scholar; Rickert, Heinrich, Kulturwissenschaft und Naturwissenschaft (1st ed., 1898)Google Scholar, and Die Grenzen der naturwissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung, eine logische Einleitung in die historischen Wissenschaften (Tübingen, 1902)Google Scholar; Simmel, Georg, Die Probleme der Geschichtsphilosophie, eine erkenntnistheoretische Studie (Leipzig, 1915)Google Scholar; Weber, Max, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftlehre (Tübingen, 1922)Google Scholar; Rothacker, Erich, Logik und Systematik der Geisteswissenschaften (Bonn, 1947)Google Scholar; also Croce, Benedetto, History: Its Theory and Practice (New York, 1921)Google Scholar, and the writings of Becher, Litt, Freyer, Bauch, and others. For a good summary see Abel, Theodore, Systematic Sociology in Germany (New York, 1929)Google Scholar, and particularly Goldenweiser, Alexander, “The Relations of the Natural Sciences to the Social Sciences,” in Barnes, Becker and Becker, (eds.), Contemporary Social Theory (New York, 1940).Google Scholar

8 Webers, MaxWissenschaftslehre: Das logische Problem der Kulturerkenntnis: Die Grenzen der Soziologie des Wissens (Tübingen, 1934).Google Scholar

9 The Logic of the Sciences and the Humanities (New York, 1947).Google Scholar

10 Cf. Znaniecki, Florian, The Method of Sociology (New York, 1934), pp. 23 ff.Google Scholar

11 The Fields and Methods of Sociology (New York, 1934), p. 262.Google Scholar

12 Most contemporary Catholic sociologists in America will probably have to be classed with the former (or synthetic) school; its foremost representatives are Fathers R. W. Murray and P. H. Furfey while Eva J. Ross seems to be inclined to a more intermediary position, at least on the point in question. The second viewpoint has been identified with the so-called sociationai school, represented by C. S. Mihanovich and Franz Mueller, although it does not seem neecssary to agree with this variation of the formalistic school of L. von Wiese in order to share their opinion in this respect. This controversy is well reflected in the earlier issues of the American Catholic Sociological Review, and has been rcently summed up by Williams, M. J., Catholic Social Thought: Its Approach to Contemporary Problems (New York, 1950)Google Scholar, where further bibliographic references also may be found.

13 “Sociology: What It is and What it Ought to Be; An Outline for a Nöo Sociology,” American Journal of Sociology LV (1949–1950): 178–193.Google Scholar

14 Social Research: A Study in Methods of Gathering Data (New York, 2nd ed., 1942), p. 45.Google Scholar

15 Loc. cit., p. 5.Google Scholar

16 Loc. cit., pp. 14–21.Google Scholar

17 Loc. cit., pp. 10–13.Google Scholar

18 Theory of History (New Haven, 1925), p. 71.Google Scholar

19 “The Sources and Methods of Historical Sociology,” in The Fields and Methods of Sociology, edited by Bernard, H. L. (New York, 1934), p. 262.Google Scholar

20 See for instance Sorokin, P. A., Contemporary Sociological Theories (New York, 1928)Google Scholar and Society, Culture and Personality: Their Structure and Dynamics (New York, 1947); also Florian Znaniecki, Op. cit.Google Scholar

21 Florian Znaniecki, op. cit.

22 Znaniecki, F., “Social Organization and Institutions,” in Twentieth Century Sociology, ed. by Gurvitch, G. and Moore, W. E. (New York, 1945), pp. 199 f.Google Scholar

23 Znaniecki, , Method of Sociology, p. 37.Google Scholar

24 Cf. the selection from Weber's methodological writings published by Shils, E. A. and Finch, Henry A. in English translation under the title Max Weber: The Methodology of the Social Sciences (Glencoe, 1949)Google Scholar; particularly the argument (picked quite at random) which appears on pp. 90 f. of that edition. Similarly, practically identical logical problems are treated in the first two chapters, whose titles refer to sociology, economics, social science and social policy. The remainder of the book is directly concerned with history and the writings of historians. It is rather significant that House, F. N., in his review of the book for the American Journal of Sociology (vol. 50, pp. 312ff.)Google Scholar, failed to understand why the latter articles had been included in the volume at all.

25 The phrase einfühlendes Nacherleben has been variously translated as empathy, sympathetic introspection, vicarious personal experience of somebody else's action, or ideational reproduction of a system. The term verstehen is usually simply rendered with the English “understand” which has caused considerable confusion. Cf. particularly footnote 2 on page 87 of Henderson, A. M.'s and Parsons, Talcott' translation of Max Weber: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (New York, 1947).Google Scholar

26 “The Operation Called Verstehen,” American Journal of Sociology, 54 (1948): 211 n.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Ibid., pp. 217 f.

28 “Interpretive Sociology and Constructive Typology,” in Twentieth Century Sociology, op. cit., p. 93 (Italics supplied).Google Scholar

29 For instance, E. W. Burgess writes in “The Sources and Methods of Family Study” (Bernard, L. L. (ed.), The Fields and Methods of Sociology, p. 456Google Scholar): “What ever method … will advance the frontiers of knowledge is to be welcomed upon its own merits.”

30 Redfield, Robert, in American Journal of Sociology 54 (1948–1949): 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Ibid., p. 184.

32 Ibid., p. 185.

33 Ibid., p. 190.

34 Op. cit., particularly pp. 94 f.Google Scholar

35 Cohen, Morris R., Reason and Nature: An Essay on the Meaning of Scientific Method (New York, 1931), p. 58.Google Scholar

36 See also Bernard, Jessie, “The Art of Science: a Reply to Redfield,” American Journal of Sociology, 55 (1949–1950): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

37 Op. cit., pp. 9 fGoogle Scholar. See also his Prolegomena to History: The Relation of History Literature, Philosophy and Science (Berkeley, 1916).Google Scholar

38 Theory of History, p. 22.Google Scholar

39 Cf. Op. cit., p. 42.Google Scholar

40 “History and Sociology,” in The Social Sciences and Their Interrelations, ed. by Ogburn, and Goldenweiser, (Boston, 1927), pp. 227 f.Google Scholar

41 Cf. also Robinson, J. H., The New History: Essays Illustrating the Modern Historical Outlook (New York, 1912)Google Scholar, and Barnes, H. E., “The New History, Archeology, and Cultural Evolution,” in Contemporary Social Theory, ed. by Barnes, , Becker, and Becker, (New York, 1940) with further bibliographical references.Google Scholar

42 “What are Historians Trying to Do?” in Methods in Social Science: A Case Book, ed. by Rice, S. A. (Chicago, 1931), p. 438.Google Scholar

43 Ibid., p. 441.

44 Ibid., p. 442. Here Pirenne is obviously grappling with the old philosophical problem of contingency without quite knowing what to do with it.

45 Ibid., p. 444.

46 History of the Sociological Movement in the United States (Syllabus for Sociology 317, University of Chicago, 1923) p. 46Google Scholar; quoted by Bernard, Jessie, “The History and Prospects of Sociology in the United States,” in Trends in American Sociology, ed.by Lundberg, G. A., Bain, R., and Anderson, N. (New York, 1929), p. 35Google Scholar. See also Small, , “Fifty Years of Sociology in the United States, 1865–1915,” American Journal of Sociology 21 (1916): 808 f.Google Scholar

47 Introduction to the Science of Sociology (ChicagoGoogle Scholar, 2nd ed., 1924), p. 11.Google Scholar

48 Op. cit., p. 12.Google Scholar

49 Op. cit., p. 8.Google Scholar

50 La sociologie est l'histoire entendue d'une certaine façon, as quoted by Bouthoul, Gaston, Traitéde Sociologie (Paris, 1946), p. 96.Google Scholar

51 Spring, David, “History and Sociology: A Plea for Humility,” Canadian Historical Review, 30 (1949): 222CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the author takes exception to an article by the Toronto sociologist, Clark, S. D., “Sociology and Canadian History,” Canadian journal of Economics and Political Science, August, 1939Google Scholar, and another contribution by Clark, to the Canadian Historical Review of March, 1949.Google Scholar

52 “History and Sociology: A Comparison of Their Methods,” American Journal of Sociology 32 (1926–1927): 379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53 History, Psychology and Culture (New York, 1933), p. 10.-An analysis of Eduard Meyer's method is also contained in Max Weber, “Critical Studies in the Logic of the Cultural Sciences: A Critique of Eduard Meyer's Methodological Views” (ch. 2, The Methodology of the Social Sciences).Google Scholar

54 Cf. Rice, S. A. (ed.) Methods in Social Science (Chicago, 1931)Google Scholar; also Mayer, Joseph, Social Science Principles in the Light of the Scientific Method (Durham, 1941).Google Scholar

55 See also Znaniecki's pertinent remarks on this point: “Unless … historical investigation is satisfied with results whose scientific value must remain forever doubtful, or unless it is willing to apply aesthetic or moral, instead of theoretic, standards and thus resign all claims to be a science, it must appeal for help to classificatory and nomothetic research…. Whenever historical knowledge is separated from generalizing knowledge, it is because the merely practical division of labor between scientists is unduly treated as equivalent to a logical distinction between sciences.” (Op. cit., pp. 23 ff.)Google Scholar

56 The Meaning of Social Science (Chicago, 1910)Google Scholar; quoted by Bernard, Jessie, loc. cit., pp. 47 f.Google Scholar