Article
Lester Ward and Patrick
Geddes in early American
and British sociology
History of the Human Sciences
26(2) 51–69
ª The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0952695113479788
hhs.sagepub.com
Eric Royal Lybeck
University of Cambridge, UK
Abstract
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, sociology was becoming established as a
discipline in the United States and Great Britain. This article looks closely at the lives and
work of two prominent sociologists at this time, Patrick Geddes and Lester F. Ward. As
sociology was becoming established in academic departments, neither Ward’s nor
Geddes’ thought managed to survive intact. A number of factors played into this process,
especially the overall broadness of their perspectives, as well as the incompatibility of
several of their key concerns, including gender, religion, race and education, with the
eventual trajectory of the sociology and the scholars who were involved in consolidating
the discipline as such.
Keywords
Patrick Geddes, history of sociology, organicism, social work, Lester Ward
Introduction
In the decades following the turn of the 20th century, two scholars of considerable prominence, Lester Ward in the United States and Patrick Geddes in Scotland, were shunted
from the centre of sociological discourse to the margins of posterity. Recently historians
of sociology have returned to the life and work of these founders in an effort to consider
‘paths not taken’ (Renwick and Gunn, 2008; Chriss, 2006; Studholme, 2008; Rafferty,
2003). While arguments have been made for recognition of these scholars’ broad
insights, which might contribute to our understanding of contemporary sociological
Corresponding author:
Eric Royal Lybeck, University of Cambridge, Department of Sociology, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RQ,
UK.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
52
History of the Human Sciences 26(2)
concerns, including the human–environment relationship, urban sociology and sociobiology, rarely are these two scholars considered together as part of the same discursive
field.
This isolation is, in part, the result of a relative ‘nationalization’ of disciplinary histories in which clearly demarcated trajectories of ‘British’, ‘American’, ‘German’ and
‘French’ sociologies are presumed to have conditioned historical developments. The
following article seeks to re-establish the transnational character of the ideas and worldviews that influenced these two prominent scholars, so that a range of similarities can be
identified, as well as differences that can only partially be explained by local context.
After reviewing these early sociologists’ biographies, I note common intellectual
influences which shaped their bio-social thought in similar ways, leading them to consider the topics of gender, race, religion and social reform. While some direct interpersonal connection between Ward and Geddes can be established in relation to the Paris
Exposition of 1900, much of the similarity of their approaches can be credited to the similar fund of knowledge each accessed, as well as the socio-political worldview which
emerged during their ascendance to prominence among early readers and practitioners
of sociology.
There are, of course, also substantive differences that can be drawn between the two,
which I argue are derivative of their different orientations to social reform. Ward promoted the progressive reform of society through the national state and a national university, while Geddes preferred to focus on civic reform of local cultural, social and natural
environments.
Though Ward and Geddes were both highly regarded and influential during the early
stages of the rise of the sociological movement, both were left behind during the institutionalization of academic sociology. The immediate causes for this exclusion were different in each case, but generally reflect an incompatibility between their broad,
synthetic social thought and the narrow, specialized sociology which gained a foothold
in the earliest sociology departments in the United States and Great Britain.
Lester Ward: Washington scientist
Lester F. Ward wrote one of the earliest sociological texts in America, Dynamic Sociology in 1883, and became the first president of the American Sociological Society in 1905
(Ward, 1897). His intellectual pedigree was unusual, insofar as he was largely self-taught
and did not take up an academic post until late in his life when he was offered a professorship at Brown University. His family origins in the Midwest contributed to a largely
egalitarian and democratic ethos, which grew in him following the American Civil War
(Chriss, 2006; Page, 1969; Rafferty, 2003). His service and commitment to the Union
instilled in him a notion of the equality of races and classes, whom he considered to
be socially inhibited only in terms of inequalities of opportunity. This perspective would
impact Ward’s sociological perspective especially in terms of race, gender, class and
education.
During the 1870s Ward established a minor career as a botanist and natural scientific
writer. In 1878, he was invited by John Wesley (Major) Powell to join an emerging
scientific community that would form the basis of the US Geological Survey, the Bureau
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
Lybeck
53
of Labor Statistics and the Smithsonian Institute. The particular location of Ward as a
Washington scientist contributed to his innovative autodidactic approach to sociology,
but would later prove to have led to isolation from currents in academic social science
after the turn of the century. Initially, Ward developed an interest in sociology that was
scarcely more than a hobby, since his professional career was as a trained botanist, geologist and palaeontologist. However, the Washington scientific community was broadly
interdisciplinary and he came into contact with leading figures in the anthropological,
geographical, economic and political sciences. Inspired by Auguste Comte and Herbert
Spencer, Ward developed an elaborate sociological scheme which positioned society
within a chain of cosmic principles. Ward argued that humans could rationally understand these sociological principles and could use this knowledge intentionally to adapt
society toward improved conditions.
Ward self-financed the publication of Dynamic Sociology in 1883 and sent copies to
fellow social scientists across the country. Initially, his impact on sociology was not
substantial, especially relative to his more well-known natural scientific writings. By the
end of the decade he had sold only 500 copies. However, during the 1890s a number of
scholars who would figure prominently in the establishment of sociology as an academic
discipline, including Albion Small, Simon Patten, Edward Ross, Franklin Giddings,
Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Richard Ely, incorporated Ward’s Dynamic Sociology
as the defining textbook of American sociology. As sociology departments became
established, beginning with Albion Small’s department at the University of Chicago,
Ward was incorporated within syllabuses and taught as the appropriate model for sociological thinking in the unique American social context.
Patrick Geddes: Scottish reformer
Like Ward, the Scottish sociologist Patrick Geddes was educated as a natural scientist,
having trained with Thomas Henry Huxley in a London seminar in 1874. Geddes eventually became Huxley’s lecture assistant, providing demonstrations of fossil and botanical specimens. However, Geddes soon shifted away from Huxley’s brand of evolutionary
theory and became more inclined to that of Herbert Spencer, who was one of Huxley’s
public nemeses (Meller, 1993; Renwick, 2009). Geddes, though proficient in the most
advanced theories and practices of embryology, became more interested in the direct
study of sociology and living, rather than fossilized, organisms.
Geddes developed an elaborate approach to civics and sociology that drew upon cosmological, biological, environmental and cultural metaphors to approach societies as a
physician might a patient – with diagnosis and prescription. In the Edwardian era, scores
of charitable organizations sought to redress the most damaging effects of industrialization and urbanization. Geddes met his wife, Anna Morton, through these philanthropic
circles in Edinburgh, and became involved with the growing reform movements throughout Britain. In 1887, Geddes moved into a building that would later become Edinburgh
University Hall, inviting students to reside there voluntarily while providing research
and labour toward a new type of social reform. Geddes did not move into Old Town
Edinburgh to provide charity directly to the working classes along traditional philanthropic lines. Rather, his selection of location had as much to do with the low costs of real
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
54
History of the Human Sciences 26(2)
estate in the slum, and the opportunity the historic, yet rundown neighbourhood provided
as the perfect ‘laboratory’ for realizing his vision of total urban renewal – the intentional
reconstruction of the social environment (Meller, 1993: 73–9). Geddes would later
extend this form of sociological practice to his famous Outlook Tower which he acquired
in 1892. The Outlook Tower, which had a high roof with a view of much of the city and
surrounding area, would provide a regional museum to educate the local population in
their evolutionary past, present and future.
Throughout this period, Geddes drew together several sociologists, including Victor
Branford, F. C. Mears and J. A. Thomson, who could soon be identified as members of
an ‘Edinburgh School’. With Thomson, Geddes wrote his earliest influential book, The
Evolution of Sex, in which the authors developed an account of gender grounded in
biology (Geddes and Thomson, 1889). With Victor Branford, Geddes established the
first sociological journal in Great Britain, the Sociological Review. Branford became a
prominent member within urban planning commissions and was the guiding actor in the
development of the Sociological Society in London. By the turn of the century, the
cohort of sociologists surrounding Geddes had organized a general theoretical system
and practical approach for applied civic sociology.
Intellectual influences: Comte, Spencer, Ruskin and Le Play
Both Ward and Geddes were trained as natural scientists, and common intellectual references contributed to a similar set of ideas despite differences in national contexts. The
most important of these common inspirations were Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer,
who influenced both sociologists’ understanding of the relationship between biology
and sociology.
Ward was enticed by Comte’s declaration that sociology is the ‘queen of the
sciences’ – that is, the most advanced and complex science – because it is based on all
the other more abstract sciences, e.g. physics, chemistry, biology and psychology, and
yet remains irreducible to them. As a trained natural scientist, Ward saw an opportunity
to analyse society with analytical and theoretical tools similar to those he and his
associates were applying to geological strata and fossils. Much of the first volume
of Dynamic Sociology consisted of establishing the ‘cosmical principles’ of nature generally, beginning with the genesis of matter and celestial bodies, proceeding in a ‘great
chain of being’ through the genesis of ‘life’, then ‘mind’, and finally ‘Man’. Ward suggested that every science began with recognition of the basic paradox inherent in its
object of study. Thus, just as astronomy did not come into its own until it recognized
that the Sun revolved around the Earth despite its opposite appearance from our Earthly
position, sociology needed to recognize the paradox of the reign of ‘fixed laws’ in society. The sociological paradox, for Ward, required the ability to engage in second-order
observation of the generalized patterns society takes, which are difficult to examine
from the perspective of a social actor ‘on the ground’, who appears to have ample freedom and choice.
Comte outlined what he called a ‘system of positive politics’ which sought to determine the laws of human societies, in order to determine where and to what extent social
progress could be attained. He wrote:
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
Lybeck
55
In political philosophy from now on there can be no order or agreement possible, except by
subjecting social phenomena, like all other phenomena, to invariable natural laws that will
limit in each epoch . . . the extent and character of political action. (Comte, 1974: 144)
Comte distinguished between social ‘statics’ and social ‘dynamics’ to establish a basis
upon which social order could be maintained, while at the same time moving society
toward its higher progressive development within the ‘scientific’ stage of development.
It was precisely this distinction that attracted Lester Ward to sociology and provided
the scientific justification for his interest in what later scholars termed ‘Reform Darwinism’ (Hofstadter, 1992). As the notion of the ‘survival of the fittest’ grew in popularity in
American society between 1860 and 1890, Ward became an emphatic critic of laissezfaire economics. He criticized the ideological justification of capitalism via naturalistic
metaphors by indicating that (1) competition actually prevents the most fit from surviving, and that (2) Nature can, in fact, be incredibly inefficient when left to its own devices.
Ward distinguished two kinds of dynamic processes – natural and artificial, writing:
All progress is brought about by adaptation. Whatever view we may take of the cause of
progress, it must be the result of a correspondence between the organism and the changed
environment. This, in its widest sense, is adaptation. But adaptation is of two kinds: One
form of adaptation is passive or consensual, the other form is active or previsional. The former represents natural progress, the latter artificial progress. The former results in a growth,
the latter in a manufacture. The one is the genetic process, the other the teleological process.
In passive adaptation the means and the end are in immediate proximity, the variation takes
place by infinitesimal differences; it is a process of differentiation. In active adaptation, on
the contrary, the end is remote from the means; the latter are adjusted to secure the former
by the exercise of foresight. (Ward, 1897: 72)
The overall distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ evolution is also similar to
T. H. Huxley’s distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘cultural’ evolution. Ward said upon
reading Huxley’s Evolution and Ethics, ‘What struck me . . . was his thorough agreement with my own published conclusions, sounding, as they do, almost like my own
voice, using exactly the same arguments and to a large extent the same illustrations,
so that many passages from both placed in parallel columns would present a striking
resemblance’ (quoted in Rafferty, 2003: 232).
Prefiguring the progressive era’s faith in the adaptability of human individuals and
society, Ward argued that full understanding of the underlying natural sciences, especially psychology and its subject, ‘mind’, would enable humanity to artificially adapt
to its environment because individuals are capable of consciousness (Ward, 1893). He
wrote:
The inventions and discoveries that have thus far been made are, in one sense, the products
of natural selection as much as are the improved nests of certain birds, or the dams of beavers. True, they have all been due to the guiding force of the intellect applied in aid of the
propelling force of hunger and want. And if the world is left wholly to nature, these agencies
will continue for a great while to produce progress . . . Yet how long, under nature alone,
would it require to develop the wheat, the maize, and the apple, that human agency has
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
56
History of the Human Sciences 26(2)
brought forth? How long to produce the Ayreshire, the Devon, the Cheviot breeds of
animals? . . . The intellect alone cannot do this. It must be joined to facts. In short, what
is really required is knowledge. Knowledge is simply truth apprehended by the intellect.
Intelligent mind, fortified with knowledge, is the only reliable form of the directive force.
(Ward, 1897: 20–1)
Ward insisted that all humans were capable of understanding nature, society and their
relation to their environment. Education was, therefore, the most import precondition for
social progress and he recommended a strengthened national state which would create a
national university to achieve these goals. Via education, necessary sociological knowledge could be delivered to all members of modern society and, via collective organization, society could channel its own adaptation, achieving what Ward termed
‘sociocracy’.
A second important influence on Ward’s understanding of sociology as a more complex iteration of general cosmic laws was Herbert Spencer. Another autodidact, Spencer
developed his conception of evolution as a universal process based on two laws: one of
individuation, which moved from indefinite homogeneity to a coherent heterogeneity;
the second, of integration, which suggested that individuated entities eventually form
a cooperative system. Like Comte, Spencer applied his theory of evolutionary processes
to all manner of phenomena, beginning with the cosmos, and proceeding through biology, psychology, society and ethics. However, Spencer did not see societal evolution
proceeding in an inherently linear direction, as in Comte’s stage theory of history, since
society could just as easily revert and de-differentiate (Olsen, 2008: 207–76; Smith,
1997: 421–91). Spencer did, however, determine that industrial society should be left
to its own devices and that state interference in the process of industrial integration
would interfere in the logical unfolding of naturally efficient system formations
(Renwick, 2009).
Both Ward and Geddes drew inspiration from Spencer’s grand, synthetic vision,
though both emphatically rejected the laissez-faire conclusions of his theory of evolution. Patrick Geddes found in Spencer a theory of organisms as composed of functionally
independent parts. During the formative period in his education in the 1880s, Geddes
also attended a Positivist church in London and became familiar with Comte’s religion
of humanity. Geddes had developed similar background knowledge in evolutionary theory to that of Ward, and learned this primarily within the context of the natural sciences.
But Geddes was additionally exposed to other influences, especially the cultural criticism of John Ruskin and the French sociology of Frédéric Le Play. Ruskin inspired
Geddes to develop a disposition that emphasized a vital life, which ultimately contributed to his general overemphasis on ‘practice’ over ‘theory’. In 1884, Geddes wrote a
paper entitled ‘John Ruskin, Economist’, in which he interpreted Ruskin’s cultural criticism as a method through which social values embodied in economic prices could be
established. Classical political economy confined the vision of society and its members
to the narrowest of possibilities.
The orthodox economist appears to have science on his side, but let us pass to the consideration not only of the quantity but of the quality of production. What is production for? . . .
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
Lybeck
57
the only possible answer is for consumption . . . In short, production while primarily for
maintenance is mainly for aesthesis . . . Criticism of the aesthetic consumption thus
becomes the most needful of all conceivable contributions to production; and it is therefore
for the economist to become an art-critic, or, failing him, the art-critic must supply his place
and become an economist. (Geddes, 1884: 29–30)
From Ruskin, Geddes derived his lifelong appreciation for cities, civics, art and
education as the primary objects of study.
The other major influence on Geddes, Le Play, was the dominant figure within French
sociology at the time of Geddes’ introduction to him in the late 1870s. Le Play, like
Comte and Marx, considered the study of society to be one of concrete material forces.
However, finding Marx and socialism insufficient, Le Play insisted that, although labour
and its organization were fundamental determinants of society, the sociologist should
pay equal attention to geographical and environmental factors, as well as the cultural and
normative influences of the basic social unit, the family. Thus Le Play’s triad of Lieu,
Travail, et Famille suggested the basic units of social study. Geddes would fully adopt
these insights under his own terminology, ‘place’, ‘work’ and ‘folk’, or, alternatively
termed, ‘environment’, ‘function’ and ‘organism’ (Welter, 2002). Le Play had developed
a conservative, family-centred interpretation of social life, and Geddes’ protocommunitarian orientation to society maintained a similar normative valorization of the
family, evident, especially, in his perspectives on gender discussed below. However, this
political conservatism was also tempered by the left-anarchist influence of Petr Kropotkin, Henry George, and others. The most direct influence of Le Play was methodological,
as Geddes assimilated the ethnographic and social survey methods the French sociologist
had used to study traditional societies in Asia, Scandinavia and elsewhere (Porter,
2011a).
Through a broad synthesis of his primary influences – Spencer, Comte, Ruskin and Le
Play – Geddes developed a unique programme of regional surveys which understood
cities as components of a larger regional environment, like a nucleus within a mutually
interdependent cell. He would pore over cartographic, historical and literary documents,
while also sending his many assistants and co-researchers throughout the region in
search of local opinion and perspective. He ended up with a ‘colossal balance-sheet’,
organized around broad generalizations, while also accommodating ‘the most trivial
details of common life’ (Welter, 2002: 14). He sorted his thoughts around what he called
‘thinking machines’: pieces of paper folded in very particular ways allowing one to
unfold symbolic diagrams should one wish to move conceptually from the general to
the particular.
One such concept, ‘the valley plan of civilization’, indicated the manner in which the
basic forms and interactions of geography and labour (e.g. estuary/fisherman) ascended
in complexity to the higher forms (e.g. mountain/miner). These more complex place/
work iterations were dependent upon and coexisted with the original forms from which
they have developed. Though this symbolic representation was intended to be a metaphorical illustration, Geddes also intended his valley plan in a literal sense – as a diachronic and synchronic evolution of a region’s past, present and future based on the Le
Playian triad. In Cities in Evolution Geddes wrote:
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
58
History of the Human Sciences 26(2)
Observe first the mapping of London . . . with its vast population streaming out in all directions – east, west, north and south – flooding all the levels, flowing up the main Thames
valley and all the minor ones, filling them up, crowded and dark, and leaving only the intervening patches of high ground pale . . . This octopus of London, polypus rather, is something curious exceedingly, a vast irregular growth without previous parallel in the world
of life – perhaps likest to the spreadings of a great coral reef. Like this, it has a stony skeleton, and living polypes – call it, then, a ‘man-reef’ if you will . . . It is necessary to make a
historic survey of London – an embryology, as it were – of this colossal whole. (Geddes,
1968: 25–8)
Geddes would develop the term ‘conurbation’ to describe this novel metropolitan phenomenon evident in the modern British, Continental and American cities. He related the
emergence of these ‘megalopolitan’ places to the particular stages in which their growth
occurred, corresponding to novel forms of technology (labour) and culture (folk).
Through the sociological systems of Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer, Ward and
Geddes hoped to develop an understanding of both fixed and changeable social laws.
Each of them, however, rejected the laissez-faire conclusions of Spencer and much of
the utilitarian liberalism popular in the United States and Great Britain at the time.
Geddes drew this conclusion from his incorporation of Ruskin’s art criticism, while
Ward drew more heavily upon Comte’s notion of ‘social dynamics’ to suggest that the
study of fixed laws provided the conditions for progressive social reform via the national
state. Both Geddes and Ward placed considerable focus on the role of education in channelling the insights of sociology toward social improvement. These were essentially
voluntaristic notions of reform, and direct and indirect connections to the similar pragmatist social philosophies of John Dewey and Jane Addams can be drawn in both
Geddes’ and Ward’s cases, as will be discussed below.
A substantive difference between the two, however, stems from their unit of analysis
and, by extension, their notions of reform. Ward considered the centralized national
state, which was still only in its early stages of development in the Reconstruction Era
United States, as the site of transformative change. Stemming from his experience as
a Washington intellectual, he saw an opportunity for the creation of a National University that would provide the preconditions for ‘sociocracy’ – the informed steering of
society via scientifically informed citizens. Geddes, however, saw the city and its outlying region as the most important focal point for the sociologist. In the context of Great
Britain, which had already heavily industrialized and urbanized without coherent direction, Geddes sought to educate local citizens in their geographical, historical and cultural
context. This would provide the basis for a new mode of social living that was more
humanely fulfilling than the narrow economic liberalism of his age.
Thus, while certain commonalities can be observed between the two authors, particularly with respect to the significance of biology for sociology, and while both recognized the importance of social reform through education, a key difference can be
derived from their different socio-political contexts and epistemic contexts. Geddes, who
emerged from the social reform movements in Edwardian Britain, developed a much
more practice-oriented approach to sociology, while Ward, whose life-experience led
him to the Washington scientific community, emphasized a more detached and
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
Lybeck
59
scholarly, if meritocratic, elite, which would steer the further extension of education
from a national capital.
Sociological concerns: Religion, race and gender
In addition to their primary differentiation in relation to the ideal mode of social reform,
another major distinction between the two was on the significance of religion. Ward was
raised in an evangelical Methodist family, but, later in life, became deeply anti-clerical
and antagonistic to all forms of religious orthodoxy (Rafferty, 2003: 13–40). Indeed,
insofar as the outlines of Dynamic Sociology first appeared within his anti-clerical treatise entitled ‘The Great Panacea’, written in 1869, one could argue that his stimulus for
establishing sociology was primarily motivated to replace religious values with social
scientific truths (Ross, 1992: 90). Ward lobbied consistently against the incorporation
of any theological or Christian underpinnings to sociology, which he conceived as a fully
scientific study.
Geddes, on the other hand, while not inclined to any particular form of religion,
recognized the fundamental importance of religion and ‘spirit’ within societies. He constructed elaborate symbolic systems that could communicate to Scots their natural, spiritual and social heritage in a simple, sentimental way. These symbolic structures were
incorporated directly into Geddes’ sociology, as in his academically unrecognizable
thinking machines, or in his grand schematic drawings including the ‘Arbor Saeculorum:
the Tree of Life’. In a 1906 pamphlet, Geddes described the figure:
The symbolic tree has its roots amid the fires of life, and is perpetually renewed from them.
But the spirals of smoke which curl among its branches blind the thinkers and workers of
each successive age to the thought and work of their precursors. Two sphinxes guard the
tree and gaze upward in eternal questioning, their lion bodies recalling man’s origin in the
animal world, their human faces the ascent of man. The branches symbolize the past and
passing developments of society, while the bud at the tree-top suggests the hope of the opening future. Issuing from the smoke-wreaths at the top, you can also see the phoenix of man’s
ever-renewed body and the butterfly or Psyche of the deathless soul of humanity. (Quoted in
Meller, 1993: 313)
Clearly, Geddes’ early experience with the Comtean Positivist Church of Humanity had
a considerable influence on his evaluation of religion as a means to social education and
reform. And, unlike the isolated Ward who associated in Washington with geologists,
geographers and other natural scientists, Geddes was integrated with the many spiritualist movements in fin-de-sie`cle Britain, especially the theosophist movement (King,
2005). Later in life, after travelling to Bombay, India and Jerusalem to engage in civic
development projects, Geddes became aware of Hindu religion and the melting pot of
monotheistic religions in Palestine. As the first chair of sociology in Bombay in 1918
and as a city planner involved in the construction of the Bara Bazar, Geddes applied his
established ‘Civic Reconstruction Doctrine’ by incorporating the nationalist and religious history of India into his plans – not that of Europe or Britain. And, like the contemporary theosophists also working in India, Geddes incorporated the swastika into
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
60
History of the Human Sciences 26(2)
his symbolic ‘Notation of Life’ completed in 1927 – perhaps his most elaborate thinking
machine (Welter, 2002: 31–3).
Other differences between Ward and Geddes could be explored including their perspectives on race, eugenics and war. Ward was influenced by the German thinkers
Ludwig Gumplowitz and Gustav Ratzenhoffer, who emphasized the role of militaries
and war on society. Gumplowitz was known for his evolutionary theories of racial war,
which suggested that human races evolved due to the overwhelming of lower races by
higher races during conquest, war and post-conflict assimilation and ethnic mixing
(Malešević, 2010: 35–6). Ward found Gumplowitz’s analysis historically valid, and
considered war to be a potentially synthesizing force. However, he differed with
Gumplowitz on the inherent racial inferiority of victims, seeing them as lacking only the
same opportunities. He eventually converted Gumplowitz himself to see the inadequacy
of his racial determinism. Following a letter from Ward containing the substance of this
critique, Gumplowitz wrote: ‘I was beaten, I stood there like a pupil who had been thoroughly whipped by his teacher’ (quoted in Rafferty, 2003: 252).
Geddes’ relationship to race was much more suspect and tainted by his affection for
Francis Galton’s eugenics school. Unlike Galton, Geddes felt that the biological inheritance of the individual via the ‘germplasm’ was less significant than the environmental
impact on the race. Yes, society would need to be encouraged to support the healthiest
members of the race – though not necessarily through sterilization. Rather, the primary
mechanism through which this would occur should be through radical transformation of
the environment in which individuals were educated, raised and lived. Thus, Geddes
suggested a programme of eugenics, eutechnics and eutopia – the concerted effort to
base modern society on a fundamentally new ground. He wrote:
We must seek the due correlation of the ideals of organic and of psychic selection. For this
needs above all some clearer vision of the ideals of evolution . . . in fact, an evolutionist
hopes and aims not only for the life of the individual, but increasingly for the uplift of the
race and of the community . . . Nor is social control a mere choice between Draconian
harshness on one hand and shallow philanthropy on the other, for these are but rival cruelties, that to the individual, this to the race. (Geddes and Thomson, 1911: 176)
From this perspective, Geddes actively promoted the development of healthy lifestyles,
encouraging youth and local communities to get in touch with Nature as well as their
historical, cultural heritage.
On the issue of gender and sexuality, Geddes and Ward were most compatible, and
both were well established as leaders within the emerging feminist discourse (Hawkins,
1997: 249–71). With J. A. Thomson, Geddes wrote his earliest influential book, The Evolution of Sex, in which the authors elaborated on the development of sexual selection in
biological and social terms based on the opposed functional relations between ‘anabolic’
and ‘katabolic’ forces (Geddes and Thomson, 1889). In Evolution, they wrote:
Living implies two great processes – of repairing and wasting, of building up and breaking
down, of construction and disruption – more technically, of anabolism and katabolism . . .
The deep constitutional difference between the male and the female organism, which makes
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
Lybeck
61
of the one a sperm-producer and of the other an egg-producer, is due to an initial difference
in the balance of chemical changes. The female seems to be relatively the more constructive, whence her greater capacity for organic sacrifices in maternity; the male relatively the
more disruptive, whence his usually more vivid life, his explosive energies in action. In
short, the sexes express a fundamental difference in the rhythm of metabolism. (Geddes and
Thomson, 1911: 82–91)
This perspective on biological sex, and the implications for understanding modern gender forms, became quite popular with a number of women sociologists, especially those
connected to the ‘new woman’ movement, promoting the idea that women should be
proud of their roles as maternal figures. Women were, in fact, the true carriers and defenders of civilization (Hawkins, 1997: 249–71).
Though Geddes’ and Thomson’s naturalistic equation of biological ‘sex’ with cultural
‘gender’ is out of sync with contemporary understandings of gender, elsewhere the
authors insisted that evolutionary theory was always a social construction reflective of
the age one lived in (Geddes and Thomson, 1911: 107–12). While their interpretations
were grounded in biology, the Edinburgh School maintained a reflexive orientation to
their naturalistic metaphors and deferred to the authority of science in a critical, deconstructive sense. Geddes was most sceptical of those theories which purported to find
direct parallels in the social and natural world, as in, for example, the usage of the word
‘parasites’ to describe different classes, often made by writers who had never, in fact,
seen or studied an actual parasite under a microscope. Since ‘we cannot but project our
human thought, our social progress, upon Nature’, Geddes cautioned dogmatic adherence to a single theory of evolution or society (ibid.: 228). This critical scientific orientation is distinguishable from the eugenic tradition of Francis Galton which blurred the
boundary between science and nature to reify and justify existing hierarchies (Renwick,
2012).1
Ward, similarly, insisted that a full understanding of human societies depended on
attention paid to the role of women in society. His 1888 essay in Forum, ‘Our Better
Halves’, introduced his concept ‘gynocracy’ and the ‘gynaecocentric’ theory which he
further elaborated in Pure Sociology (Ward, 1925: 296–373). Ward wrote:
The gynaecocentric theory is the view that the female sex is primary and the male secondary
in the organic scheme, that originally and normally all things center, as it were, about the
female, and that the male, though not necessary in carrying out the scheme, was developed
under the operation of the principle of advantage to secure organic progress through the
crossing of strains. (Ward, 1925: 296)
Both Ward’s and Geddes’ theories of gender were influential among the suffragette
movements. For example, Charlotte Perkins Gilman recalled the moment she decided
to write a bibliography for her influential book, Women and Economics. She told Edward
Ross, ‘I had meant to, but when it came to making a list of books I had read bearing on
the subject, there were only two! One was Geddes’ and Thomson’s Evolution of Sex, the
only other article, Lester F. Ward’s, in that 1888 Forum’ (Gilman, 1898, 1997). Similarly, Jane Addams developed her feminist sage persona based on her interpretation of
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
62
History of the Human Sciences 26(2)
Spencer, Ward and Geddes, which suggested to her that a passive, maternal, caring role
for woman was grounded in biological Nature (Conway, 1971: 172).
Ward’s and Geddes’ legacy for early sociology
Ward and Geddes contributed considerably to the emergent feminist discourse in the late
19th century, and grew in prominence among other intellectual circles. Geddes’ notion
of laboratory influenced the Chicago school of sociology, where Geddes was invited to
give lectures in 1899. Conference proceedings a few years later document the attendance
of W. I. Thomas, Charles Zueblin and other American sociologists curious about the
applicability of the Scotsman’s civics programme to newer, younger cities like Chicago
(Geddes, 1904).
Scholars have similarly suggested that Ward can be positioned as an early
proto-activist for the modern welfare state having inspired many early 20th-century progressives, including John Dewey, Jane Addams, Walter Lippmann and Herbert Croly
(Hofstadter, 1992; Rafferty, 2003; Therborn, 1976). Dorothy Ross suggests that Ward
was the first major spokesman for the new American liberalism, ‘a revision of classical
liberalism that expanded its conception of individual liberty, social conscience, and public powers’. She quotes the progressive reformer Frederic C. Howe who wrote to Ward in
1912: ‘the whole social philosophy of the present day is a formative expression of what
you have said to be true’ (Ross, 1992: 91).
John Dewey reviewed Ward’s Psychic Factors of Civilization as a young academic
psychologist developing his reflex-arc model of consciousness (Dewey, 1894). Dewey,
like many other critics of Psychic Factors, noted the outdatedness of Ward’s faculty psychology and his utilitarian assumptions relating to pleasure/pain. Though Ward had read
William James’ Principles of Psychology, which established the foundations of pragmatist psychology, he did not incorporate the cutting-edge notions of ‘mind’ in a state of
adaptive flux. And yet, Dewey commended Ward for asserting that ‘a psychological theory must recognize the change in the conditions of evolution wrought by the development of the non-personal, objective power of intelligence’ (ibid.: 406). Politically, he
further concurred that ‘true legislation is simply the application in the sphere of social
forces of the principle of invention – of objective coordination with a view to increase
of efficiency, and preventing needless waste and friction’ (ibid.). Dewey was pleased
to see that Ward provided a model for social ‘control’ that was not of the socialist variety, which would have to rely on the coercive legislation related to wealth redistribution.
Rather, in Ward, Dewey saw a voluntaristic model of democracy centred on the promotion of education as a facilitator of an informed democratic citizenry. Dewey clearly held
an affinity to Ward’s thought, especially in relation to education, the progressive steering
of society based on experimental intelligence, and the importance of a non-laissez-faire
vision of liberal autonomy (Lybeck, 2011).
However, Ward’s out-of-date usage of faculty psychology reflected his broader
isolation from traditional academia which had led him to neglect several cutting-edge
insights, while also encouraging his misinterpretation of the role of constructive criticism in the university. In the several instances of his books receiving negative reviews,
Ward could not contain his outrage at the audacity of lesser minds reviewing his
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
Lybeck
63
achievements without taking into account the overall ambition of his work. Since many
of these reviews ultimately went through Albion Small, the first editor of the American
Sociological Review, this led to a considerable falling-out between the two just as the
first American Sociological Society (ASS) meetings were convening in 1905. Following
a negative review of Pure Sociology, Ward alleged a conspiracy was afoot between
Small and ‘Rockefeller’ intending to censor his work. He wrote a nasty letter to Small,
calling him a ‘mule’, ‘intellectually color-blind’ and ‘incapable of clear thinking’
(Rafferty, 2003: 259). Later, when Small wrote his history of the Origins of Sociology
in America, he emphasized the influence of German sociology as the basis of American
sociology, reflecting his and his colleagues’ early training at German universities, rather
than the home-grown brand of sociology derived from Ward (Small and Ward, 1933;
Small, 1924). This was all the more troubling considering the role Small played in initially commending Ward as the originator of the discipline in the USA. Though Ward
eventually secured a position at Brown University in 1906 teaching a course entitled
‘A Survey of All Knowledge’, and despite his theoretical assertions regarding the importance of university education, the autodidact was ultimately unsuited to actual participation in the ivory tower.
Patrick Geddes suffered a similar fate following the first meeting of the British Sociological Society in 1904. As editor of the Sociological Review and a key member in the
Edinburgh civics school, Victor Branford organized a meeting in London which was to contain three camps. One was the eugenics school of Francis Galton and Karl Pearson; another
the ethical school, dominated by L. T. Hobhouse; and, finally, the civics school of Patrick
Geddes (Halliday, 1968; Renwick, 2012). Branford lobbied heavily to elect Geddes as first
chairman of the association, though the position eventually went to Charles Booth.
At the proceedings, Geddes presented the most thorough, yet concise description of his
overall project in a paper entitled ‘Civics: as Applied Sociology’ (Geddes, 1904). Though
the paper received interest and acclaim from the press in attendance, many witnesses noted
Geddes’ mumbled delivery and found his speech to move from one direction to another in
an incoherent manner. The strangest part of his presentation was certainly his illustrations
of his ‘thinking machines’ – three by three tables containing different combinations of Le
Play’s ‘work–play–folk’ schema along with recommendations of how the division of
labour between the various social sciences would need to be set in order to touch all of the
necessary bases of relevant information (Meller, 1993).
The event would be dominated, not by Geddes, but by Galton’s protégé Karl Pearson,
who suggested that sociology had not established its own basis of study within Britain.
Further statistical and demographic work would need to be undertaken to reach this
higher stage (Porter, 2011b). Hobhouse agreed, arguing that biologistic notions of society were fundamentally flawed – a recognition of ‘man’s ethical nature was necessary
(Renwick, 2012). Hobhouse would become the first Martin White Professor of Sociology in London, at the expense of Geddes, who expected the position himself.
Hobhouse’s reform school, along with the Fabian brand of sociology established by
Beatrice and Sidney Webb and others at the London School of Economics, would eventually push both the eugenicist school and the Edinburgh civics school out of the discipline (Renwick, 2012). The eugenicists found their niche in medicine and hygiene, and
eventually established their own journal, Eugenics Review. Meanwhile, Hobhouse took
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
64
History of the Human Sciences 26(2)
over the editorship of the Sociological Review, the journal founded by Geddes and
Branford several years prior. Much ado has been made regarding the significance of the
Hobhouse appointment and whether this was a fateful, contingent moment impacting the
subsequent history of British sociology (Halliday, 1968). However, Chris Renwick’s
recent scholarship has shown that it was, in fact, Branford himself who contributed to
the isolation of Geddes from the sociological mainstream (Renwick, 2012).
As we have seen, Geddes did not lack a complex and total social philosophy – but he
did not dedicate as much effort to writing down and publishing his idiosyncratic sociological perspectives. In 1921, Geddes asked his young acolyte, Lewis Mumford, to
provide a synopsis of what he thought the merits and weaknesses of the Edinburgh
School were. Mumford replied:
What seems to me the great thing about the school . . . is (1) the fact that it is comprehensive, whereas the other sociologies are partial . . . the ‘Edinburgh’ sociology makes a point
for point contact with life itself in every aspect. To say the obvious it is synthetic. (2) Its
basis is in concrete observation and factual analysis, as over against the ‘systems’ of sociology, which use facts in order to bolster up rationalizations, projections, wish-fulfilments and
myths. (Mumford and Geddes, 1995: 108)
Mumford, however, pointed out that the greatest weakness in Geddes’ programme was
the lack of publications outlining the basic principles of his sociological approach. This
was evident in the relative disorganization of the Sociological Review, which did not
have a consistent thematic or editorial focus. Geddes would soon turn to Mumford in
an attempt to write his missing magnum opus. However, after a considerable delay during which Mumford began carving out his own unique brand of literary and architectural
criticism in the 1920s, and following a minor falling-out between the two during Geddes’
New York lecture tour in 1923, the synthetic Geddesian sociological textbook was never
produced (Miller, 2002).
In both Ward’s and Geddes’ cases, their earliest and most devoted adherents were
among those who contributed to their isolation from the academic sociological mainstreams in Britain and the United States. In Ward’s case, Small shifted from enthusiastic
promoter to resentful gatekeeper, as he promoted the specialization and professionalization of the discipline in a direction that moved away from Ward’s grand systematic theorizing (Scott, 2007). Similarly, Geddes undermined the several opportunities Branford
had arranged for him to prove himself as a standard-bearer for the sociological movement in Britain. Ultimately, his overemphasis on sociological practice rather than attention to the requirements of academic publishing pushed him into obscurity. Though both
he and Ward had done much to promote the cause of education and its essential role in
progressive social reform at both the national and local levels, neither was ultimately
suited for the academy as it really existed.
Geddes and Ward: Fellow travellers?
But, to what extent were Ward and Geddes directly connected? Since many of Ward’s
writings predated those of Geddes, the intellectual influence, such as it was, moved from
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
Lybeck
65
Ward, as the ‘father’ of American sociology, to Geddes – although Ward noted that he
considered The Evolution of Sex as a landmark text (Ward, 1925: 313–14). In a letter to
Mumford in 1920, Geddes noted that the last worthwhile American books he had read
included Ward and Simon Patten (Mumford and Geddes, 1995: 61). Earlier, Geddes’
could be found among the many letters of condolence sent to Rosamund Ward following
her husband’s death in 1913 (Rafferty, 2003: 1). Other correspondents during this time of
mourning included Émile Durkheim, Ferdinand Tönnies, Edward Ross, Albion Small
and Thorstein Veblen.
On the other hand, in a letter from Charles Zueblin to Geddes in 1917, Zueblin was
surprised to find a lack of Ward’s theories in Geddes’ synthetic sociology, noting that
‘Ward . . . still holds his own as the master of American Sociology. As omnivorous
as Comte, but stimulating’ (Zueblin, 1917). Geddes referred much more often to Henri
Bergson, Thorstein Veblen, William Morris and Edvard Westermarck, than to Ward – to
say nothing of his dominant influences Le Play, Ruskin, Comte and Spencer (Renwick
and Gunn, 2008). Ultimately, whatever influence Geddes derived from Ward must be
largely imputed as based on their similar sociological themes and interests. In this sense,
the similarity of their insights would have been largely derived from their mutual interaction with a similar social fund of knowledge including Spencer and Comte especially
(Hughes, 1958; Elias, 1987).
And yet, we can identify a key site of direct connection between the two: when Patrick
Geddes invited Ward to speak at the Exposition Universelle of 1900. Geddes had met
Ward during his lecture tour through the USA in 1899, and, following a series of correspondences, Ward accepted the invitation to attend the exposition, offering to speak for
‘45 or 50 minutes on the Dependence of Social Science upon Physical Science’ (Ward,
1900a). This international event, celebrating a ‘world of iron’, was the biggest yet of its
kind (Geppert, 2010). Ward prepared a 1,000-page report on the exposition for the US
Department of Education, providing a comparative assessment of the social sciences
across Europe noting the successful institutionalization of political economy, civics,
sociology, political science and education studies in France, England, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Austria and elsewhere (Ward, 1900b).
In his lecture, he presented in French to a new European audience – which included
Émile Durkheim, Sidney Webb, Paul Barth and Geddes – his withering critique of
laissez-faire, stating:
The time has now arrived when an old school economist who holds to the irremediable
character of social evils is looked upon much as would be a physician who should reiterate
the view . . . that plagues and pestilences are wholly beyond the reach of human art to arrest,
remove, or prevent. Those who perceive these deeper truths of society, whatever they may
call themselves, are sociologists and their number and importance are increasing very
rapidly. (Ward, 1900b: 1453)
Ward proceeded to outline the principles which would underlie his next two major
volumes, Pure Sociology and Applied Sociology. After spending too long a time
expounding on ‘social statics’ he felt compelled to stop before speaking on ‘social
dynamics’, only to find a vocal audience shouting ‘Non! non!’ and entreating him to
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
66
History of the Human Sciences 26(2)
proceed (Ward, 1906, 1925). In 1903, Ward was elected as the president of the Institut
International de Sociologie (IIS), the organization that hosted the social scientific conferences within the exposition.
And yet, the Paris Exposition – whose programme committee explicitly sought to
memorialize the achievements and progress of the 19th century – was ultimately the high
watermark for both Geddes and Ward (Geppert, 2010). Though Ward would go on to
become the first president of the American Sociological Society in 1905, by that time
he was already considered ‘over the hill’. Similarly, Geddes’ influence would wane
considerably after the establishment of the Sociological Society in Britain.
While I have drawn attention to a number of these early sociologists’ personal habits
and practices, including those which produced interpersonal conflicts with influential
gatekeepers, one must also consider the incompatibility of the overall broadness of their
bio-sociological approaches. In the initial stages of academization of sociology, such
broad, holistic and, ultimately, uncompromising visions did not make it through the gates
of the modern research university intact. Though both influenced the Chicago School for
a time, the default mode of academic criticism, exemplified by Small and his reviewers
at the American Journal of Sociology (Abbott, 1999), as well as Karl Pearson’s statistical
standards which discounted Geddes’ ‘impressionistic’ scientism (Porter, 2011b), was
representative of the 20th-century positivistic mode of ‘social science’ (Steinmetz,
2005). Furthermore, Ward’s and Geddes’ most vocal adherents were often women and
social reformers, both of whom were shunted into social work programmes and isolated
from the ‘pure’ social scientific centre seeking professional recognition (Deegan, 1981).
As contemporary scholars continue the work of reintroducing the insights of these
complicated, synthetic thinkers, we should be mindful of the constraints academic institutionalization imposed at the time, and observe that, in many ways, these disciplinary
practices are still with us today. Indeed, the most striking aspect of Patrick Geddes’ and
Lester Ward’s sociology is its unrecognizability in what we call sociology today. Yet,
when considered within the open context at the time of their practice and research, their
oeuvres were not predestined to fall out of favour as out of date or amateurish. Indeed,
they represented some of the most cutting-edge approaches within an, as yet, unconcretized disciplinary field. Their cases illuminate as much about their relatively ‘lost’
perspectives as they do of the discourses that eventually did come down to us in our day
as the clearly delineated brand we call ‘sociology’.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Denise Phillips, Alex Law, Harry F. Dahms, David Loner and three anonymous
reviewers for reading this article in various stages of development. I am also thankful to the
Cambridge University graduate student seminar series and the University of Tennessee-Knoxville
Department of History for allowing me to present and discuss the project with them.
Note
1. This nature/social divide in Geddes’ sociology is the subject of a debate between Steve Fuller
(2007) and Maggie Studholme, John Scott and Christopher Husbands (2007). Raising the spectre of Nazism, Fuller misrepresents Geddes to make his own preconceived argument about
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
Lybeck
67
contemporary environmentalism. Studholme et al. were correct in characterizing Fuller’s
ahistorical interpretation as having been constructed in an alternate universe.
References
Abbott, A. (1999) Department and Discipline: Chicago Sociology at One Hundred, 1st edn.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Chriss, J. J. (2006) ‘The Place of Lester Ward among the Sociological Classics’, Journal of
Classical Sociology 6(1): 5–21.
Comte, A. (1974) The Essential Comte: Selected from Cours de Philosophie Positive, ed. S. Andreski.
London: Croom Helm; New York: Barnes & Noble.
Conway, J. (1971) ‘Women Reformers and American Culture, 1870–1930’, Journal of Social
History 5(2): 164–77.
Deegan, M. J. (1981) ‘Early Women Sociologists and the Sociological Society: The Patterns of
Exclusion and Participation’, The American Sociologist 16 (February): 14–24.
Dewey, J. (1894) ‘Social Psychology’, Psychological Review I: 400–9.
Elias, N. (1987) Involvement and Detachment. Oxford and New York: Blackwell.
Fuller, S. (2007) ‘A Path Better Not to Have Been Taken’, The Sociological Review 55(4): 807–15.
Geddes, P. (1884) ‘John Ruskin, Economist’, accessed 5 April 2012 @: http://archive.org/details/
johnruskineconom00geddrich
Geddes, P. (1904) ‘Civics: as Applied Sociology’, paper presented to the Sociological Society.
University of London, Project Gutenberg.
Geddes, P. (1968) Cities in Evolution: An Introduction to the Town Planning Movement and to the
Study of Civics. New York: H. Fertig.
Geddes, P. and Thomson, J. A. (1889) The Evolution of Sex. London: W. Scott.
Geddes, P. and Thomson, J. A. (1911) Evolution. New York: H. Holt.
Geppert, A. C. T. (2010) Fleeting Cities: Imperial Expositions in Fin-de-Sie`cle Europe, 1st edn.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gilman, C. P. (1898) Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relation Between Men and
Women as a Factor in Social Evolution. Boston, MA: Small, Maynard.
Gilman, C. P. (1997) With Her in Ourland: Sequel to Herland. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Halliday, R. J. (1968) ‘The Sociological Movement, the Sociological Society and the Genesis of
Academic Sociology in Britain’, Sociological Review 16: 377–98.
Hawkins, M. (1997) Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860–1945:
Nature as Model and Nature as Threat. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Hofstadter, R. (1992) Social Darwinism in American Thought. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Hughes, H. S. (1958) Consciousness and Society: The Reorientation of European Social Thought,
1890–1930. New York: Knopf.
King, G. (2005) ‘Patrick Geddes in India: From Synthesis to Integration’, Journal of Generalism
and Civics (VI), accessed 16 December 2011 @: http://www.hodgers.com/mike/patrickgeddes/
feature/html
Lybeck, E. R. (2011) ‘For Pragmatic Public Sociology: Theory and Practice after the Pragmatic
Turn’, Current Perspectives in Social Theory 29: 169–85.
Malešević, S. (2010) The Sociology of War and Violence. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
68
History of the Human Sciences 26(2)
Meller, H. E. (1993) Patrick Geddes: Social Evolutionist and City Planner. London and
New York: Routledge.
Miller, D. L. (2002) Lewis Mumford, a Life. New York: Grove Press; distributed Berkeley, CA:
Publishers Group West.
Mumford, L. and Geddes, P. (1995) Lewis Mumford and Patrick Geddes: The Correspondence.
London and New York: Routledge.
Olsen, R. G. (2008) Science and Scientism in Nineteenth Century Europe. Chicago, IL: University
of Illinois Press.
Page, C. H. (1969) Class and American Sociology, from Ward to Ross. New York: Schocken Books.
Porter, T. (2011a) ‘Reforming Vision: The Engineer Le Play Learns to Observe Society Sagely’, in
L. Daston and E. Lunbeck (eds) Histories of Scientific Observation. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press, pp. 281–302.
Porter, T. (2011b) ‘Statistics and the Career of Public Reason: Engagement and Detachment in a
Quantified World’, in T. Crook and G. O’Hara (eds) Statistics and the Public Sphere: Numbers
and People in Modern Britain, c. 1800–2000. New York: Routledge, pp. 19–36.
Rafferty, E. C. (2003) Apostle of Human Progress: Lester Frank Ward and American Political
Thought, 1841–1913. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Renwick, C. (2009) ‘The Practice of Spencerian Science: Patrick Geddes’s Biosocial Program,
1876–1889’, Isis 100(1): 36–57.
Renwick, C. (2012) British Sociology’s Lost Biological Roots: A History of Futures Past. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Renwick, C. and Gunn, R. C. (2008) ‘Demythologizing the Machine: Patrick Geddes, Lewis
Mumford, and Classical Sociological Theory’, Journal of the History of the Behavioral
Sciences 44(1): 59–76.
Ross, D. (1992) The Origins of American Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, J. (2007) 50 Key Sociologists: The Formative Theorists. New York: Routledge.
Small, A. W. (1924) Origins of Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Small, A. and Ward, L. F. (1933) ‘The Letters of Albion W. Small to Lester F. Ward’, Social
Forces 12(2): 163–73.
Smith, R. (1997) The Norton History of the Human Sciences. New York: W. W. Norton.
Steinmetz, G. (2005) The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism and its
Epistemological Others. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Studholme, M. (2008) ‘Patrick Geddes and the History of Environmental Sociology in Britain: a
Cautionary Tale’, Journal of Classical Sociology 8(3): 367–91.
Studholme, M., Scott, J. and Husbands, C. T. (2007) ‘Doppelgängers and Racists: On Inhabiting
Alternative Universes. A Reply to Steve Fuller’s ‘‘A Path Better Not to Have Been Taken’’’,
The Sociological Review 55(4): 816–22.
Therborn, G. (1976) Science, Class, and Society: On the Formation of Sociology and Historical
Materialism. London: NLB.
Ward, L. F. (1893) The Psychic Factors of Civilization. Boston, MA: Ginn.
Ward, L. F. (1897) Dynamic Sociology. New York: D. Appleton.
Ward, L. F. (1900a) Lester F. Ward to Mr. Marr, 4 August 1900. Relating to the Paris Exposition of
1900. Strathclyde University Archives, T-GED 6/1/5.
Ward, L. F. (1900b) Sociology at the Paris Exposition of 1900. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
Lybeck
69
Ward, L. F. (1906) Applied Sociology: A Treatise on the Conscious Improvement of Society by
Society. Boston, MA: Ginn.
Ward, L. F. (1925) Pure Sociology: A Treatise on the Origin and Spontaneous Development of
Society. London: Macmillan.
Welter, V. (2002) Biopolis: Patrick Geddes and the City of Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zueblin, C. (1917) Charles Zueblin to Patrick Geddes, Cincinnati, 25 July [c.1917–1918].
Strathclyde University Archives, T-GED 9/1392.
Author biography
Eric Royal Lybeck is currently a PhD candidate in Sociology at the University of Cambridge. His
dissertation research focuses on the ‘academization process’ and the institutionalization of the
modern research university in Germany and the United States since 1800. He has also published
research in the fields of general social theory and the history of sociology.
Downloaded from hhs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016