In his “Outlines of Sociology,” Emile Waxweiler, who is a professor of the University of Brussels, treats, in the first part, of sociology (adaptation to environment, living ''milieu'' and social ''milieu'', sociological phenomena in comparative sociology) and, in the second, sociological analysis (sources and method, social formation, social aptitudes, activities and synergies). Professor Waxweiler defines “social ethology,” or “sociology,” since that term already exists, as “the science, or rather, the physiology of the reactional phenomena due to the mutual excitations of individuals of the same species without distinction of sex.” The basis of social affinity is the “impression of organic likeness (similitude),” and the evolution of man’s nervous system has determined characteristic phenomena from the sociological point of view,—”the faculty of perceiving inter-individually specific likeness of organization proceeds on a par with what is called the manifestations of intelligence, ''i''. ''e''., with the complexity of the nervous system” (p. 74). More and more has man become “the animal formed by the other individuals of his species.” () The only activities of the individual which interest the sociologist are his external activities, and those only in so far as they “produce effectively in another individual of the same species, without distinction of sex, a certain reaction” (p. 169). Activities are distinguished as conjunctive, protective, injurious, competitive, divulgative, gregarious, repetitive, initiative, acquisitive, selective; the social synergies a() conformity, interdependence, cephalization, co-ordination, conscience, etc. There is much interesting matter in this volume and the bibliography (pages 297–306, 2 cols. to page) proves the author’s wide reading,—he has made good use of the ''Pedagogical Seminary'' and the writings of American devotees of “child study.” But for all this his book is, as he terms it, properly enough, “a sketch.” A useful feature is the “sociological dictionary” (pages 281–295) containing some 2,200 terms without definitions, of more or less sociological import, gleaned from the vocabulary of the French language (Chamberlain 1907: 261–262).

There is a curious appearance of something short of precision in the “Lexique sociologique,” appended to the volume. This glossary contains upwards of 2,400 words witthout definition or explanation, “Susceptibles de suggérer directement un phénomène sociologique c’est-à-dire un phénomène réactionnel entre deux ou plusieurs individus de la même espèce, sans distinction de sex” (!). Why the invidious distinction in favor of these 2,400 terms, and against the remaining thousands in the vocabulary? Whether a syllable of human speech suggests a sociological reaction to our mind does not depend upon the syllable, but upon our knowledge of its history. As phenomena of human association words are of one common origin, and if they do not suggest sociological relations it is our fault. Such a list would be absolutely useless, except as a measure of the sociological suggestibility of a given individual (Small 1906: 425).