Of course, the vital question is not this tracing of evolution. The
question is: Is "Civics" to be only the study of forms? If so, Sociology
is a dead science, and will effect little practical good until it is
vivified by such suggestions as Mr. Crane has put in his paper. Mr.
Walter Crane brought in a vital question when he said: "How are you
going to modify the values of your civic life unless you grapple with
political problems?" I am not forgetting that Prof. Geddes promises to
deal in another paper with the civics of the future; but I insist that
it will have to grapple with political questions. As he says, a city is
not a place, but "a drama in time." The question for the sociological
student of history is: How has this inequality of wealth and of service
arisen, and how is it to be prevented in the future? That is the problem
we have to study if we wish to make sociology a vital interest. A
definition of progress is really the first step in sociology. Prof.
Geddes' next paper should give us a definition of progress, and it is
better that we begin to fight over a definition of progress, in order to
get a dynamic agreement, than that we should multiply the archaeological
study of many towns. I admit that it is very interesting. In travelling
in South Africa, I often tried to gather how communities began; what,
for example, was the nucleus of this or that village. It was surprising
how very few had an idea of any nucleus at all. I deprecate the idea,
however, that [Page: 124] we are all to amass an enormous accumulation
of such researches. Mr. Booth's single compilation for London is a study
for years; but Mr. Booth's admirable investigation of the difficulties
of life among the poor of London does not of itself give any new impulse
to the solution of the problem of London. It merely gives exact
knowledge in place of general knowledge. The problem of sociology arose
on the general knowledge. I fear lest the work of sociology should run
to an extension of this admirable study instead of to the stimulation of