The San Francisco call., 1908-08-09
''Tke ProJess CT GsyGrneat

b Artaur g. Brutier- I-uhlislsei ~ the Uni-
Fc-S-rg ~ CAiczso r-ess. CalezE0-
The Process OF Government by Ar
thur F. Bentley. described by the
author as "a studr of social pressures. ''
IS an attempt TO outline a new method
Tor t1e study rf sociology. Taxing the
works q the most eminent socinIo=gists
IS his text the author devotes the FIST
psr- of his book lcoltaininE sSs pages
a1e an sppen6iXl 70 an analysis of the
methods u Interpretation 0f societT
which have ohtaine6 up 70 the present
lu-e and reduces ire findings OF the
authors he studies 70 three sets of
causes Tor social phenomena Feelings
end Faculties as Causes. Ideas and
Ideals IS Causes and Social VIII" as
cause
These three sets % causes he con-
siders unLrr separate headings ana At
rempts 10 reduee then 70 absu-dities as
explanations of social facts Taking
TIE feeling sympathy for Instance.
Rlich as cause is assigned rauch I'M
portsncs hT Herbert Spencer. the
authors argument IN hric[ IS that
when Spencer attempts 70 explain such
socisl events as the aboIishnent Of
slavery by gH0w1h O. sympathy
among mankind be simply restates the
social 1ac-. IN new words that s.. that
the use Cf the word sympathy is
simply q sort OF shorthand method q
grouping the social facts which In6i-
Gates and is not an explanation ot
those Facts
IN the same manner considering
Ideas end deals as causes. he argues
rhat when Ho5be. Locke. CsiddinEs. etc.
set out 10 explain the d5EeTe-ice be-
tween present and past conditions By
means q the growth cf the Ideal Of
Liberty theE nave simply inferred
Ideals existed. and then set Ep these
tuferences as ca uSes OF the facts them
selves.
He crlticises IN detail Small Spencer.
Enr IherInE. Morgan. CssEdEugs- Dicev
and others The spirit q his criticisms
may he gathered from the following
quotation from q tootnore 70 the section
devoted 70 Spencer
In crftscising Spencsr-s theory OF
feelings as the forces OF society hope
7 shall not be understood as meaning
20 critiCise his work as whole 1
have o1lT TOO much admiration for Il il
many q its phases and I recognize
that many sociological reputation has
heen made With crumbs from his pages
Z may seem that when I discard his
Psychology. his ethics and his theorv
o. the relation Of the Individual 70 the
state I discard everything 0f import
ance. on tae contrary. the massive
work he has achieved with so poor q
mechanism marks the way most rsefullv
tor further Work with z better mecha-
nism-
/ wish % make noE. Just as I have
already made y cr5ttcisfnE Snail q
somewhat similar svowai with regard
20 the other writers whose methods Of
social Interpretation am about to
analvzs in detail and reject I can IN
almost every case say that the men I
49,
out Of proportion % the evil n their
works which feel Il necessary tn
point out rs means Il safezuardEnz
myself against niisuntl erstandfng Of rhe
method ~ Interpretation I shall later
advocate
The object OF Beltiev-s criticism viii
se seen from the next quotation taken
from the section on EOn Ihering-
Won 1hering saw before him q world
il which given masses OF men we're dotng Z
given things In given ways an quite
confident that he never saw OF studied
o. came into any kind Of contact with
any social phenomena that were rot Of
this kind. Close under his vision were
phenomena OF law. AMI especially OF
Roman law. But he never learned TO
post the simple znswerzble question:
How are these masses and groups OF
men doing these things II these ways
which Is the only scientific question
Ee always asked ~ nat Is there MD
den IN these men and in other men
which makes them be doing these
things which I. or somebody else. can
easily think they ought not 10 be want
ing 20 dor He asked Why are these
men doing these things and not some
other thingsT and not. How are these
processes OF man workinEE he asked.
Why does q society OF men set Up Ger
tain laws and then why do these men
obey these laws and not. How do
these socially and legally organized
men function zlouEs What are the
various elements OF their functi0nings
Ard how do these elements IT into one
-s.other and condition one another
He might as well have asked why Is
- roid and not silver. and why Is
silver silver and not gold. instead Of
simply studying all the gold and silver
phenomena under as many conditions as
possible and trying scientifically 10
make out their siTnil1riues as distin-
Euished from their differences
In part II the author untoids more
compietslv his ideas for the interprets-
ton of al social phenomena He wishes
70 frrerpret social facts. not II terms
of feelings. ideas. etc. but IN terms OF
Interest groups BY interest groups
meaning not groups Of interests con-
sfdered as ~ they were abstract things
nor yer groups of individual men. but
rsther xroups OF activities as such,
ore nan IN MS individual capacity con
trfbutfnr q portion 70 many OF these
activity groups
In developing his method OF tnterpre-
tsxion he applies X 20 several features
Of present day government. merely as
al illustration OF the way IL ia 70 be