LIFE AND WORKS OF HERBERT SPENCER
HERBERT SPENCER (1820-1903)
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) is known as a pioneer of Social
Evolutionary Theory. Evolutionary views were adopted by Spencer
before Darwins The Origin of Species(1859). The British Sociologist-scientist, was a leading figure in the intellectual revolution of the nineteenth century.
Spencer in his own time was enormously influential and played a significant role in the development of biology psychology, sociology and anthropology. Spencer was born in a middle class family in Derby, England, on April 27, 1820. He was the oldest of nine children and the only one to survive. This was perhaps one of the reasons that he advocated the idea of the “survival of the fittest” in his theory of evolution. His father, William George Spencer, was a schoolmaster of progressive educational views. William George Spencer’s influence on his son’s attitudes and behaviour was considerable. Father’s non-authoritarian teaching methods strongly influenced Spencer’s educational theories and democratic discipline in the classroom. Spencer’s mother, Harriet, exerted comparatively little influence on his intellectual development. She was sweet-tempered, submissive, dutiful and selfless.
Spencer never went to a conventional school. Spencer was, in fact, taught at home by his father and uncle. At the age of thirteen, he moved to the home of an uncle Thomas, rector of Hinton Charterhouse Somerset, for his further study. His uncle, the Dissenting clergyman taught Spencer the principles of philosophical Radicalism and rigid code of dissenting Protestantism. The education Spencer receive from his father and uncle leaved heavily on the scientific side received no formal Instruction in English, and his knowledge of history was superficial, he had a good back once at the age of sixteen. In 1837 he began to work as a civil engineer for a railway till 1946. During this period Spencer continued to study on his own fix and political works. In 1848 Spencer tor of The Economist and his intellectual ideas Economical works. In yon his own and began to publish se was appointed an edirbegan to take shan with the economist, Spen advanced journalism essential to human harm was published in 1851. In his sociological theory and as the writing of this work, Spend take shape in a specific direction. During the naist, Spencer built up his relations in the world of diournalism in London. While Social Statics: the human happiness specified, and the first of them developed din 1851. In this work, he has presented the core ideas logical theory and a study in political philosophy. Draining of this work, Spencer began to suffer the problem of min mental and physical breakdown and a series of nervous sakdowns that was continued through of his life.
Seven years before Darwin’s Origin of Species, in 1852, he expounded and advocated a theory of evolution based on Lamarckian principles in his article entitled “The Development Hypothesis” in the journal Leader. It is a pre-Darwinian theory of evolution stressing the notion of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. After his uncle’s death in 1853, Spencer gave up his job with the Economist and lived the life as a private scholar and a lifelong bachelor.
In 1854, Spencer began writing his second book, The Principles of Psychology, was published in the next year. But this work did not get good recognition. Soon after he suffered from a nervous illness due to which he was unable to concentrate, unable to write, and even unable to read. In 1859, Spencer was influenced by Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species. He absorbed a lot of his ideas from Darwin regarding evolution. The ideas of “survival of the fittest” and the “natural selection” were basic to Spencer’s theory of evolution that was taken from Charles Darwin.
From 1860 and onwards, Spencer wrote several books on concepts, theories, and all-encompass theories, and all-encompassing universal laws. The unification of Spencer’s evolutionary theory in 1860 was the culmination of a long period of speculation and the integration of eyries of initially unrelated ideas. The perfect theory of evolution *pounded in First Principles called Synthetic Philosophy was lished in 1862. In this work, he synthesized a variety of scientific philosophical lines of thought. The several volumes of Principles of Biology were issued between 1864 and 1867. The Principles of Biology was prescribed as a university text-book. Thereafter, The Study of Sociology appeared in 1873. This work served Spencer as an introduction to the Principles of Sociology proper, and taught him a great deal about sociological method and objectivity.
Early in1874. Spencer commenced work on The Principles of Society and published multi-volume of this work in 1896. In addition, a multi-volume work entitled, Principles of Psychology were published in 1872. He also wrote many volumes on Principles of Ethics and was published between the seventies and the nineties. The Man Versus the State appeared in 1884 and the Autobiography in 1904. “He published several volumes of essays and fragments as well as many volumes of Descriptive Sociology (1873-1894), mainly written by his secretaries and collaborators. Spencer also advocated the principle of Larissa faire or free market which was popularised by the English economists of his time. Sociologists in the twentieth century came to reject Spencer’s work because of the fact that he did not concentrate and read the works of other people.
In fact, he independently created ideas of his own. Finally, at the end of his life he died as a sad man because he believed that his life work has not achieved its goal as much as he expected. He died on December 8, 1903, at the age of eighty-three.
Important Sociological Works
– Social Statics, (1851)
– First Principles, (1862)
– The Study of Sociology, (1873)
– Descriptive Sociology, (1890)
Theory of Organic Analogy
Herbert Spencer is best known for his bio-organismic conception of society. According to him,” society is not merely a collection of individuals, it is more than that , just as an organism is more than a mere collection of cells”. Spencer came to Sociology via Biology .Therefore, he drew analogy between the society and the biological organism.” so completely is society organised on the same system as an individual”, he argued, “ that we may perceive something more than an analogy between them,the same definition of life applied to both biological and social organism. Spencer believed that the social structure is a living organism.It is made up of parts which can be distinguished but which cannot survive or exist except within the frame work of society.
Spencer wanted to explain clearly the nature of social structure by the help of this theory. He tried to point out certain striking similarities between the individual living organism and society on account of which the individual may be regarded as microcosmic society and society as macrocosmic individual:
The similarities between the society and individual organism as drawn by Herbert Spenser are as follow:
1-Difference from inanimate bodies:
The first similarity between a living Organism and society is their difference from inanimate bodies. None of them is Inanimate. in inanimate there is no growth and development, but on the other hand, There is continuous growth and development in both society and living organism., on Account of their common difference from the inanimate bodies, society and living Organism may be regarded to be similar.
2- Increase in quantity leads to change in structure:
The second similarity In society and living organism is that increase of quantity in both leads to change in Their structure. accordingly to spencer as there in increase in the quantity of their living organism there is change in it’s structure. the primitive living organism is a Unicellular creature: but with the increase in the cells differentiation of organs results.at the higher level of evolution structure of the body becomes quite, complex, similar is the case with society. in the beginning the structure of society is very simple. At this level each individual does all the work by himself and there is no differentiation of functions. Each man himself is a crafts man, hunter, sculptor etc. but with the quantities increase in society the structure becomes more and more complex and there is increasing differentiation of function in society. Like the organs of the society the functions in society become specialised.
3.Change in Structure Leads to change in Function:
With the change in the structure, organs and communities there results a change in their function. The function becomes more and more specialised. This applies to the body of a life creature. With the changes in the structure of organs, there is change in its functions.
4.Diffrentiation as well as harmony of organs :
While it is true that with the evolution there develops greater differentiation in the organs of society as also that of an individual, but side of this differentiation there is also harmony between various organs. Each organ is complementary of other and mot opposed. This holds true both in the body in the body of living organism and society.
5.Loss of an organs does not necessarily result in the loss of Organism-
The society as well as the individual is an organism. It is a fact common to both that a loss of some organ does not necessarily results in the death of an organism. If one individual loss his hand it is not necessary that this may result in his death. Similarly, in society loss a particular association does not necessarily mean death of the society.
6.Similar processes and methods of organisation-
There is another similarity between the society and living organism. According to Spencer as there are various systems, respiratory circulatory system etc. similarly various systems in the social organism responsible for its efficient functioning in society, transport system, production and distribution systems etc., fulfil their respective roles. Thus, Spencer has shown similarly between a living organism and the society.
Differences between Social and Individual Organism
Along with pointing the similarities between the individual organism and the society, Herbert Spencer spelled the differences between them. He said, “the parts of animal from a concrete whole, but the parts of society from a whole which is discrete. While the living units composing the other are bound together in close contact, the living units composing the other are free, are not in contact, and are more or less widely dispersed.” In other words, the organism is a concrete, integrated whole whereas society is a whole composed of discrete and dispersed elements. “In the biological organism consciousness is small part of the aggregate. In the social organism it is diffused throughout the aggregate: all the units possess the capacity for happiness and misery, if not in equal degree, still in degrees that approximate. As, then, there is no social sensorium the welfare of the aggregate, considered apart from that of the units, is not end to be sought. The society exists for the benefit of its members; not its members for the benefits of society.”
Thus there are certain crucial difference between the society and living organism which cannot be overlooked. these are :
- The parts of body are incapable of independent existence but parts of societies can exist independently.
Explaining the difference between a living organism and society, Spencer observes that whereas the various organs of the body are incapable of independent existence same is not the case with society. The various parts of society can exist independently. whereas the limbs of body like hand, leg etc., Cannot be conceived to exist outside of body there is no such difficulty in conceiving the independent existence of family association etc., apart from society.
- Difference regarding centrality of consciousness.
There is another difference between the society and a living organism. the difference pertains to consciousness. In a living organism there is one central consciousness which is conscious of the whole body. there is no separate consciousness and thinking power in the various part of the body on the other hand in society there is no central consciousness, only individual possesses consciousness.
- Difference regarding dependence of Organs on Organism.
Both the society and the individual are the organisms. The organs of society are individuals, Family, group etc., and the parts of body are its various organs. According to Spencer parts of the body are dependent upon the body. Their existence is for the sake of body. On the other hand, in society its parts are more significant than the society. indeed society exits for the good of its constituents. Spencer was a thinker, he had affinity with individualist philosophy, according to which the state and society exist for the good of the individual and not vice versa.
Spencer maintains that we can understand society best, if we compare it with an organism. He thinks that society is like a biological system. a greater organism, alike in its structure and its functions. Like an organism, society is also subject to the same process of gradual growth or development from a simple to complex state. Like any organism, society also exhibits differentiation in functions, and integration of structure. In this connection, it must be noted that Spencer does not subscribe to the view that society is an organism; he maintains it only as an analogy. Spencer indicates that society resembles an organism in the following important respects:
(1) both grow or develop gradually;
(2) both begin as germs:
(3) both exhibit differentiation in structure and functions:
(4) in both there also exists close integration or inter-dependence of parts:
(5) both are composed of units (cells in case of organism and individuals in case of society):
(6) in both cases individual units have no existence apart from the whole;
(7) both have a special sustaining distributive system (circulation of blood through veins in an organism, and circulation of goods through transport and commercial services in a society), and a special regulating system (nervous system in an mental system in a society);
(8) both as an or alimentary system, a special circulatory or organism and govern complex in they grow, become more structure.
With the above-mentioned similarities, there are, however, certain points of dis-similarities also. Society is also unlike organism in the following important respects: (1) In organic growth, nature plays a dominant role: ‘an organism naturally grows. On the other hand, social growth may be checked, or stimulated by cells, but they lose their identity when integrated with in the organic whole. They have no separate life or existence. But within a society an individual can
be fitted as a constituent part of the social whole, while maintaining its own distinctive character and its separate individual life. (3) The discrete character of the social organism and the concrete nature of the animal organism is another fundamental difference. (4) In an organism, consciousness is concentrated in the small part of the aggregate, that is, in the nervous system, while in a society is diffused throughout the whole aggregate.
In brief, Spencer made a fruitful attempt to establish a theory of organic analogy on the basis of evolutionary principles by making a detailed analysis of similarities and differences between human society and biological organism. And in later writings, Spencer used the organic analogy and continued to build his theory of evolution.
Social Evolution
This theory of social evolution is described in First principles, the most important contribution of Herbert Spencer to sociology, however, is the theory of evolution. “Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion; during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity; and during which the retained notion undergoes a parallel transformation.” Within this framework of universal evolution, Spencer developed his “three basic laws” and his “four secondary propositions” catch building upon each and all upon the doctrine of evolution.
The Three Basic Laws are:
(1) the law of persistence of force (some ultimate cause that transcends knowledge);
(2) the law of the indestructibility of matter (disproved by modern physics); and
(3) the Law of the continuity of motion (cncrgy passes from one form to another but always persists). And the
Four Secondary Propositions are :
(1) persistence of the relationship between the force (uniformity of law).
(2) transformation and equivalence of forces,
(3) tendency of everything to move along the line of least resistance and greatest attraction, and
(4) the principle of the alternation or rhythm of motion.
The following is the further explanation of these laws:
- Force tends to persist.
According to the first law of energy there is no diminution or increase in the energy in the course of evolutionary change. The quantum of energy is persistent. It undergoes change. The energy is the cause of evolution but is itself unaffected by the evolutionary process.
- The matter is indestructible.
According to spencer matter which is one form or aspect of energy is never destroyed. It may undergo formal changes but i: cannot wither away or vanish from the world. The changes in the form of matter are but the fundamental nature of matter never changes. Therefore matter is indestructible.
- Motion is Indestructible.
The third primary law is the law of motion. Like matter, motion also is never destroyed. The motion is continuous and it is never wholly dissipated. There are, of course, changes in the form of motion. It is on account of these changes in form that there are stages in the evolutionary process.
Secondary Laws
Besides the above-mentioned three primary laws of physical evolution, Spencer has enumerated four secondary laws of evolution. These are:
- Uniformity of all laws.
According to Spencer there must be harmony among the various laws of evolution. No two laws should contradict each other.
- Principle of Formal Changes and Uniformity
According to this law neither matter nor motion are ever completely destroyed. These undergo changes in form only. Of course even quantum of matter or motion remains static.
- Principle of Least Resistance or Great Attraction.
According to this third law of evolution the direction of evolution is always towards the link of least resistance or greatest attraction
- Principle of Continuty of Motion.
For evolution motion is essential, it is not required that motion should be atone level all the time. lt may speed up or slow down.
According to Herbert Spencer, the knowable universe consists of material aggregates which are always in a condition of incessant change. There is an universal tendency for elements to move from a condition of unstable equilibrium to a stable state of equilibrium. The homogeneous is a condition of unstable equilibrium and must become heterogeneous; correspondingly, the simple must become compound and doubly compound and so on. Thus change involves transition from homogeneity to heterogeneity, and uniform to multiform. Spencer noted: “Social organization is at first vague; advance brings settled arrangements which grow slowly more which, while gaining fixity, also become more specific in their application to varieties of actions; and all institutions, at first confusedly intermingled, slowly separate, at the same time that each within itself marks off more distinctly its component structures. Thus in all respects is fulfilled the formula of evolution. There is progress towards greater size, coherence, multiformity, and definiteness.”
Sociology as a Science
Herbert Spencer, in fact, several books on sociology, such as, Social Statics (1850), the Study of Sociology (1873), Principles of Sociology (1876-96), but he did not give a formal definition of the discipline, According to him, the social process is unique and therefore, sociology, as a science, must explain to present situation of society by explaining initial stages of evolution and applying to them the laws of evolution. Spencer mainly tried to establish a comparative science of society based on evolutionary principles.
Herbert Spencer was influence by Comte. Spencer has taken the idea of science of sociology from Augusta Comte during his lifetime according to his critics and therefore he was indebted to Comte. But Spencer denied such allegations and affirmed that he had not read Comte.
Like Comte, Spencer believed that science of society were characterised by an order of coexistence and progress. In this sense, Spencer observed that in individual and social organism “progress from low types to high types is progress from uniformity of structure to mulitiformity of structures”. Spencer had divided all phenomena in the universe into three-categories-inorganic, organic, and super organic (Social) based on evolutionary framework. This social science, i.e, sociology, according to Spencer, is based on the super organic, i.e., social evolution.
Herbert Spencer discussed on the possibility of a science of sociology in The Study of Sociology (1873) and accepted that sociology is true science based on the positive principles of natural phenomena. “There can be no complete acceptance of sociology as a science”, wrote Spencer on the possibility of a science of sociology, “so long as the belief in a social order not conforming to natural law, survives” Here, Spencer emphasised on the belief in the social order that has to be discussed on the basis of all other natural laws. Social laws, he insisted, are like all other natural laws. In this way, he maintained that causation operates in human behaviour just as it does in other spheres of nature.
Spencer, also accepted the role of history in the new science, sociology. He argues, “the only history that is of practical value, is what may be called Descriptive Sociology. And the highest office which the historian can discharge, is that of so narrating the lives of nations, as to furnish materials for a comparative sociology; and for the subsequent determination of the ultimate laws to which social phenomena conform.” History. Then, according to Spencer, is essentially sociology it done well Sociology, therefore, is a careful description of social phenomena in evolution. And so the historian and the sociologist can work together in the analysis of the origin, present structure, and future prognoses of social evolution.
In fact, all phenomena have a tendency to improve and advance and at this juncture historian and sociologist have greater role to play in the observation, description, and comparison of the nature of social phenomena in evolutionary change. “The seeds of civilisation existing in the aboriginal man and distributed over the earth were certain in the lapse of time to fall here and there into circumstances fit for their development.” It seems, according to Spencer’s analysis, that sociology is deeply rooted in the historical analysis of the process of social evolution and hence social evolution is the key to understand sociology.
Militant and Industrial Societies
Spencer has also discussed two types of society, militant and industrial. The distinction between these. Spencer insists is never absolute, but is relative to many social factors operating in a particular society at a particular time. In the militant society, the sustaining system is directed in such a way as to achieve benefits for its armies. Such a society is characterized by militant activities.
On the other hand. In the industrial society military, strength is used only to maintain internal peace and order and to defend society against outside invasion. Furthermore, in the military society, the military chief also assumes the post of the head of the state, rigid discipline and precise gradation of ranks are readily enforced. Private ownership of wealth or property or means of production is not tolerated, industry and wealth are nationalized, the individual and the press are not granted full liberty, the behaviour and the relationships of the people are brought under military code and thus, are limited. Not only that in the militant society, religion assumers a military character, the individual is not so much for himself as for the society, and therefore, co-operation is compulsory in such a society.
On the other hand, in the industrial society the principle of individual freedom is fully recognized, governmental interference decreases, concept of self-government assumes more importance, government in religious matters is recognized, competition in the field of trade and industry is fully allowed, adverse beliefs or criticisms against the government by the public and they are tolerated. ”without making this summary too long, it should be quite evident that the ideas initially elaborated by Conte find further amplification and utility in Spence’s system of thought,”
Super-Organic Concept
Spencer’s concept of the “super-organic” is very important , which got wide attention from social thinkers. After inorganic evolution, i.e, orderly change in astronomical, and geological phenomena, comes organic evolution, or orderly change in the vegetable and animal worlds. Super-organic evolution behinds with “all those processes and products which imply the co-ordinate actions of many individuals” The dividing line between organic and super-organic evolution is necessarily indistinct, since the latter developed in an evolutionary way out of the former.
Super-organic evolution implies co-operation between classes of living forms which have unlike structures and consequent unlike functions, In the with this thread of analysis, A.L. Kroeber makes the super-organic concept a fourth order of phenomena. His classification of order of phenomena is as follows:
(1) Inorganic phenomena,
(2) Vital organic phenomena,
(3) Mental organic phenomena, and
(4) Super- organic phenomena. In the domain of super-organic phenomena falls culture and history.
Spencer pointed out that as a result of super-organic evolution a tremendous amount of super-organic products,like, material appliances, language, knowledge, customs, mythologies, theologies, cosmologies, literature and histories has accumulated in course of time, and which exert an immensely voluminous, immensely complicated, and immensely powerful set of influences on human-beings. Modifying both individuals and societies.” In the thread of analysis of society in terms of bio-organismic concept spencer’s theory delineates the grand evolutionary philosophy where super –organic evolution reached a culminating point passing through the processes of inorganic evolution and then organic evolution stage by stage super organic concept holds good in every aspect of societary processes. Thus Giddings has aptly stated. “Societies are organisms or they are super-organic aggregates.”
Functionalism and individualism
Herbert Spencer is considered as both functionalist as well as evolutionist. Function, for Spencer, is inevitable for society and this School became centre stage for theoretical orientation in sociology. He wrote in 1876 in volume 3rd of his principles of Sociology on the utility and usefulness of function. In his words, “there can be no true conception of a structure without a true conceptions its function.” At the same time, society has greater role to play for the benefit of its members. Spencer stats the society exits for the benefit of its members; not its members for the benefit of society. The claims of the body politic are nothing in themselves and become something only in so far as the embody the claims of its competent individual. The individual in spencerian theory thus, get maximum freedom and self –determination for the interests, of societal progress.
In spencers’s analysis, structure and function are interdependent and interlinked to each-other, Spencer emphasized that a change in the profile of structure occurred with the change its function. He rightly points out.
Changes of structure cannot occur without changes in functions… If organisation consists in such construction of the whole that its parts can carry on Mutually-Dependent actions, then in proportion as organization is high there must go a dependence of each part upon the rest so great that separation is fatal; and conversely, this truth is equally well shown in the individual organism and in the social organism.
Spencer was, by nature, not only functionalist but also a individualist. There many essential components are necessary for the determination of characteristics of the whole of society, and that fundamental characteristic is the individual. In this regard, spencer conceived that society would work as a vehicle for the enhancement of individual purposes. Spencer stated, “Just the kind of individuality well be acquired which finds in the most highly-organised community the fittest sphere for its manifestation…. The ultimate man will be one whose private requirements coincide with public ones. He will be that manner of man who, in spontaneously fulfilling his own nature, incidently performs the functions of a social unit”
The best society therefore is a society that applies least controls on the individual for functionalist approach of spencer if society is to evolve into higher and more advanced social structures and functions, it must move from the simple to the complex activities of a society which is related to the movement from the lesser military stage to the more industrial societies are problematic and difficult, however, the construction of his functional approach gives a broader understanding of various parts of society in brief, the relation between man (or animal) and his constituent cells is the equivalent of the relation between society and its constituent cells men this is an analogy of scale, and strongly suggestes the continually of all phenomena.
CONCLUSION
Herbert spencer is the father of social evolution. He was a leading figure in the intellectual revolution of the nineteenth century. Spencer was considered as the second founding father of sociology only after Auguste Comte. Spencer in his own time was enormously influential and played a significant role in the development of biology, psychology, sociology, and anthropology.
Unlike Comte, who wanted to guide man in the construction of a better society, spencer, instead desired to show to people through sociology that human being should not interfere with the natural processes which is going on in societies. Spencer’s thought, in fact, was evolutionary in approach and had a strong belief on the nation of “the survival of the fittest”.in this sense he was influenced by Darwin Spencer argues that the fittest people are those who are healthy and more intelligent.
His evolutionary approach provided the solution for many of the dilemmas faced by the intellectual at the time. Spencer, here discussed both with social evolution as well as natural evolution. In the social evolution, he described the involvement of two process. first, the movement from simple society to various levels of compound societies in the term of four evolutionary stage-simple Compound, doubly compound and trebly compound. Second, the change from military (or militant) to industrial society. natural evolution, to him, is the subject of all universal phenomenon-inorganic, organic and super-organic.
Organic analogy is one of the important works of Spencer. Spencer, here, tries to establish a relationship between human society and biological organism by making comparison and outlining the difference between the two. He considered society as a super-organic entity, that is, an organisational entity over and above the level of the organism. But his understanding about super-organic nature of society has created several problems. he was unable to see culture as part of an integrated whole. his explanation regarding the social evolution of societies from simple to compound, and so on, is also considered as faulty. Timasheff acccepts his theory as a philosophical theory rather than sociological.