respect above pointed out proves rather to be fundamental, such as the difference between mechanical force and human will, between products of mechanical energy on the one hand and of individual human ingenuity on the other.

Moreover, that portion of social combinations with reference to which the analogy with natural organisms may actually come into consideration, presents the analogy at best only in certain respects. And even in these particulars the likenesses are only of a kind which to some extent must be characterized as vague, and the rest must be pronounced highly superficial and inexact.

3. On the methodological principles which follow from the incompleteness of the alleged analogies.—If, as many social philosophers assume, the above discussed analogies were complete, if social formations were in very truth organisms, this circumstance would without doubt be of decisive significance for the methodology of the social sciences. In that case the methods of those natural sciences which are concerned with investigation of the organic world, of anatomy and physiology in particular, would then at the same time be the methods of social sciences in general and of economics in particular.

The circumstance, however, that the analogy exists only in the case of a portion of social phenomena, and even with them only in a partial and superficial way, excludes the hypothetical conclusion entirely. On the other hand the cognitive principles which follow from the situation thus analyzed are the following:

1. The so-called organic interpretation of social phenomena can be adequate to a portion only of the same, namely to those which we find to be not the outcome of agreement, of legislation, or of any other kind of premeditated common will. The organic conception cannot be any sort of universal visualizing. The organic interpretation cannot be the universal aim of research among social phenomena. For understanding of social phenomena in their totality. the pragmatic interpretation is at all events as indispensable as the "organic." 2. Even in the case of social phenomena which do not hark back to a pragmatic origin, the analogy between them and natural organisms is not universal, it does not comprise the totality of their character. It is rather of a sort which touches certain sides of their character (their function and their origin), and accordingly the organic interpretation alone cannot procure for us all around comprehension of the same. To this end, therefore, other types of theoretical research are necessary, which are in a sort of partnership with the so-called organic conception.

The business of the theoretical social sciences is to expound the general character and the general correlation of social phenomena as such, and of particular ranges of the same (e.g., the phenomena of economics). They discharge this duty when, among other things, they exhibit fractional social phenomena in their significance and function with reference to the whole social combination. The problem now in question involves, meanwhile, neither the totality of the tasks of the theoretical social sciences nor the analogous problem in the realm of natural organisms, namely the totality of the scientific

tasks in the realm of nature. Even if the legitimacy of the so-called organic type of research is recognized to the extent above provided for, determination of the laws of coexistence and succession among social phenomena at large remains the task of the theoretical social sciences, determination of the laws of the reciprocal limitations of the same is merely a special branch of social research.

3. But even in those respects in which the analogies in question appear to superficial observation to be real, they are not precise, far less are they of a character which is based upon clear insight into the nature of the social phenomena on the one hand and of natural organisms on the other. Consequently such analogies cannot be either the basis of a methodology of the social sciences in general, or of any special department of social science. The mechanical carrying-over of the methods of anatomy and physiology into the social sciences is untenable even within the narrow boundaries above indicated.

The so-called "organic" interpretation could at the utmost be adequate only to a portion of social phenomena, and only with reference to certain of their aspects. Here again the interpretation must not be taken over literally from the natural sciences, but must be the outcome of independent research into the nature of the social phenomena guided by the peculiar aims of social investigation. The method of the social sciences in general, and of political economy in particular, cannot be literally anatomical or physiological. Moreover even in those cases in which the sociological problems are of a sort which manifest a certain similarity to those of physiology and anatomy, they are not really borrowings from anatomy and physiology. They are rather only sociological in the strictest sense of the term. The carrying over of physiological and anatomical discoveries by analogy into political economy is such nonsense that no trained methodologist would think it worthy of serious refutation.

The foregoing mistaken directions of research are obviously none other than those of a physiologist or anatomist who should uncritically carry over into his science the laws and methods of economics, or who should in particular try to interpret the functions of the human body by the current theories of economics-for instance the circulation of the blood by the current theories of the consumption of goods; or the functions of the nerves by a description of the telegraphic system; the function of special organs of the human body by the function of the various classes of the population, etc. Our physiologists and anatomists in the field of economics deserve the same condemnation to which an investigator in biology would be exposed if he should propose a "sociological school of biological research."

Moreover, whoever understands the highly incomplete character of the natural sciences, even today, so far as they are dealing with the organic world, will scarcely fail to be most impressed by the humorous side of the expenditure

'But the botanists now sometimes refer to "ecology" as plant sociology.

of so much ingenuity in trying to explain the unknown by that which is still less known.1

While we may dismiss the idea of treating the proposed analogical method seriously, it is not my purpose to deny that certain analogies between natural organisms and social phenomena may have their uses in exposition. As a method of investigation the analogical program is a chimera. As a means of exhibiting discovered facts and relations it may nevertheless for certain purposes, and for certain stages in the understanding of social phenomena, have a value. The most eminent minds have often tried to explain to their contemporaries the nature of social phenomena, by comparison with organic structures. This has occurred even in epochs in which people in general were less capable than we are of seeing the force of such comparison. We may waive the question whether in the present stage of development of the social sciences, such pictures, at least for purposes of scientific exhibition, are not already obsolete. At all events they are certainly to be thrown aside in cases where that which purports to be only a means of presentation assumes the rôle of a means of investigation; also in cases in which the analogy is drawn not alone when it corresponds with the actual relationships, but when analogy becomes a principle and a universal tendency of research. For the followers of this tendency the author of the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations has a fitting saying. He remarks: "Analogy, which offers to many an author stimulus for occasional witty comparisons, becomes with writers of the sort referred to the axis upon which everything turns."3

In these references to the relation between the Austrian School of Economics, as represented by Menger, and the Sociological School, as represented by Schäffle, it has been necessary to get decades ahead of the entire development, i.e., to 1883. We must now return to the fifties in order to pick up another important thread in the story.

I This is really the fatal objection to the sociological use of biological analogies as a means of exposition. The other objections have force against the technique as a means of research, but less force than appears. They are all vitiated in a high degree by the fact that they insist on misunderstanding what is involved in analogies between physical organisms and what are conceived as psychical organisms.

Menger translates Wealth of Nations by the word Volkswohlstand.

3 Retranslated from the German quoted from Adam Smith, "History of Astronomy," in his Essays on Philosophical Subjects (edited by Dugald Stewart), p. 29. Basler Ausgabe von 1799.

[To be concluded]

STUDENTS' DISSERTATIONS IN

SOCIOLOGY

The following list of doctoral dissertations and masters' theses in preparation in American universities and colleges is a compilation of the returns from letters sent by the editors of the Journal to departments of sociology. The dates given indicate the probable year in which the degree will be conferred. The name of the college or university in italics designates the institutions where the dissertations are in progress.

LIST OF DOCTORAL DISSERTATIONS IN PROGRESS IN AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES

James E. K. Aggrey. A.B., M.A. Livingston. "The Basis of Inter-Racial
Comity in Africa." 1925. Columbia.

Nels Anderson. A.B. Young. "The Tramp." 1924. Chicago.
Robert C. Angell. A.B., A.M. Michigan. "The Student Mind: A Study
in the Social Organization of the American University." 1924. Michigan.
Gertrude B. Austin. B.S. Grinnell. "Leadership in the Woman Suffrage
Movement in New York City." 1924. Columbia.

Read Bain. A.B. Willamette; M.A. Oregon. "Revaluation of the Concept of Religion." 1925. Michigan.

Kenneth E. Barnhart. A.B. Southwestern; B.D. Southern Methodist University. "The Evolution of the Socialized Consciousness in Methodism." 1924. Chicago.

J. D. Becker. M.A. Catholic University. "The Problem Child in Home and School." 1924. Catholic University.

Arthur L. Beeley. A.B. Brigham Young; A.M. Chicago. "A Study of Unsentenced Jail Prisoners." 1924. Chicago.

Robert K. Bennett. A.B., A.M. Brown. (Sociology minor subject.) 1926. Brown.

Wilfred G. Binnewies. A.B. DePauw; A.M. Chicago. "Evidences of Social Pressure in the Ordinances of the City of Minneapolis." 1925. Minne

sota.

Leroy E. Bowman. A.B. Chicago. "Community Organization in New York City." 1925. Columbia.

Beulah B. Briley. S.B., M.S. Ames; M.A. Iowa. "The Experiments in Large Scale Housekeeping." 1924. Iowa.

L. G. Brown. A.B. Dakota Wesleyan. "Missions." 1926. Chicago. William F. Byron. B.S. Pennsylvania. "Case Studies of Juvenile Delinquents with Institutional Experience." 1924. Chicago.

Evelyn Buchan. A.B., M.A. Chicago. "Girl Delinquency." 1924. Chicago. William W. Burke. A.B. University of Denver. "Administration of Private Social Agencies in Chicago." 1925. Chicago.

L. J. Carr. A.B., A.M. Michigan. "Secondary Communication in Washtenaw County (Michigan) in Relation to Public Opinion." 1924. Michigan. Hugh Carter. A.B. Southwestern; M.A. Minnesota. "The Only Child." 1925. Columbia.

Edna Cers. A.B. Radcliffe. "Injunctions in Labor Disputes in the Clothing Trades." 1924. Columbia.

C. S. Chen. B.A. Nanking. "Phases of the Population Problems in China." 1925. Columbia.

John D. Connor. M.A. Catholic University. "Retail Grocers' Protective Associations." 1925. Catholic University.

Luther Cressman. A.B. Pennsylvania State; S.T.B. General Theological Seminary; M.A. Columbia. "The American Family: Rural and Urban." 1925. Columbia.

Harmon O. DeGraff. A.B., M.A. Iowa. "A Study of the Juvenile Court of Des Moines, Iowa." 1925. Chicago.

Omega D. Dutcher, A.B., M.A. Denver; B.D. Auburn. "Changes in Distribution of Negro Population in the U.S." 1925. Columbia.

J. A. Dickey. A.B. Elon College; M.A. North Carolina. "The Standard of Life in a Typical Section of Hill Dairy Farms." 1925. Cornell.

Z. T. Egardner. M.A. Cincinnati. "Assimilation and Social Efficiency." 1924. Chicago.

Herman Feldman. A.B. City College; M.A. Columbia. "Regularization of Employment." 1924. Columbia.

J. H. Foth. A.B., A.M. Oklahoma. "The Influence of Trade Association on Business." 1924. Chicago.

Luther C. Fry. A.B. Muhlenberg; M.A. Columbia. "Diagnosing the Rural Church: A Study in Method." 1924. Columbia.

Mrs. L. P. Fryer. A.B. Chattanooga; M.A. Clark. "Social Wastage." 1925. Columbia.

Sol S. Glueck. A.B. George Washington; LL.B. and LL.M. National University Law School; A.M. Harvard. "The Criminal Responsibility of the Insane: A Study in Sociological Jurisprudence." 1924. Harvard. Kenneth M. Gould. A.B. Pittsburgh. "A Sociometric Scale for American Cities." 1925. Columbia.

Julia C. Hallam. A.B., A.M. Wisconsin; A.M. Chicago. "Relation between Economic and Psychological Influences in the Development of Women." 1926. Chicago.

William T. Ham. A.B. College of the Pacific; A.M. Stanford. "Unionism in the Building Trades." 1925. Harvard.

Marius Hansome. B.Ed. Washington. "The Social Significance of Workers' Education." 1925. Columbia.