254 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
formation of institutions, and that we can interpret the indi- vidual only by the history of his institutional framework. Hence the state and not the individual is the starting-point, and is the necessary basis of a sound methodology. But Professor Gid- dings does not seem to attach more than an antiquarian interest to the statement and he bases his own sociological method upon the fact of like-mindedness. That is a characteristic of all species, and it is impossible to predicate anything from it as regards the behavior of a particular species. Animals belonging to the same species are like-minded, just as they are like-headed, like-bellied, likef-limbed. The like-mindedness is involved in the agreement of characteristics upon which specific classification is based. Gorillas are like-minded, as well as human beings, but gorillas are like-minded in favor of solitary habits while human beings are like-minded in favor of habitual association under certain conditions. The mere fact of like-mindedness has no deteiTninative value whatever as regards the relations of indi- viduals. Even as regards the human species it supplies no criterion as to conditions of association. Certain groups of individuals meet. In a particular case the encounter is followed by furious fighting ; in another it is followed by a joyous carouse. To say that they are all like-minded, or are all socii, explains nothing. But if we learn that in the one case a party of Musco- vites encountered a raiding party of Turcomans, and in the other case they met an allied party of Muscovites, the situation in each instance becomes at once intelligible, for the characteristics of their behavior are referable to the history and interests of the states to which the groups of individuals respectively belong.
Sociologists have continually to resort to the political hypo- thesis to explain historic facts, upon which the sociological hypothesis takes no hold whatever, and they may possibly con- tend that the scope of sociology gives them the right to use any hypothesis at their convenience. This implies that they may ignore logical consistency. They cannot claim that privilege and at the same time set up any claim to scientific rank for their specialty. The political hypothesis and the sociological hypothe- sis are logically incompatible. The major premise of the one
