In such ways, then, I would justify the thesis that civics is no
abstract study, but fundamentally a matter of concrete and descriptive
sociology--perhaps the greatest field of this. Next, that such orderly
study is in line with the preliminary sciences, and with the general
doctrine of evolution from simple to complex; and finally with the
general inquiry into the influence of geographical conditions on social
development. [Page: 60] In short, the student of civics must be first of
all an observer of cities; and, if so, of their origins and
developments, from the small and simple beginnings of which the tiniest
hamlet is but an arrested germ. The productive sociologist should thus
be of all investigators a wandering student _par excellence_; in the
first place, as far as possible, a literal tourist and traveller--and
this although like the homely Gilbert White or the world voyaging
Darwin, he may do his best work around his own home.


B--INITIAL METHODS OF CONCRETE SURVEY

Hence our civic studies began (vol. 1, p. 105) with the survey of a
valley region inhabited by its characteristic types--hunter and
shepherd, peasant and fisher--each on his own level, each evolving or
degenerating within his own region. Hence the concrete picture of such a
typical valley section with its types of occupation cannot be brought
too clearly before our minds.[3]

[3] Fig. 1.

What now of the causes of progress or decay? Are not these first of all
the qualities and defects inherent in that particular social