Unit II Herbert Spencer PDF

Unit II - Herbert Spencer: Evolutionary doctrine, Types of societies, Ethics and politics Source: Google image  Biographical sketch Born in Derby, England Schooled in technical fields – started his carrier as a civil engineer for a railway...

Unit II - Herbert Spencer: Evolutionary doctrine, Types of societies, Ethics and politics Source: Google image  Biographical sketch Born in Derby, England Schooled in technical fields – started his carrier as a civil engineer for a railway During this period, Spencer continued to study on his own and began to publish scientific and political works In 1848, appointed an editor of The Economist, and his intellectual ideas began to solidify. By 1850, he had completed his first major work, Social Statics. Suffer a series of nervous breakdowns throughout the rest of his life.  Biographical sketch Due to his illness, quit his job and live for the rest of his life as a gentleman scholar He never earned a university degree or held an academic position. As he grew more isolated, and physical and mental illness mounted, his productivity as a scholar increased. Eventually, Spencer began to achieve not only fame within England but also an international reputation.  Spencer & Comte In the theoretical ideas of Herbert Spencer (1820– 1903) - considerable advance over those of Auguste Comte Not only was Spencer’s work important in the development of sociological theory, but many of his theoretical ideas stand up well from the vantage point of contemporary sociological theory  Spencer & Comte Similarities exist between the works of the two men, but Spencer most often felt the need to distinguish his theories from those of Auguste Comte. Both derived the terms structure and function largely from biology, and they tended to use them in similar ways Both Spencer & Comte played key historic roles in the development of structural functionalism.  Spencer & Comte Spencer used social statics and social dynamics, but different from that of Comte. Although Spencer used the terms, he denied that they were drawn from or resembled Comte’s identical terms. For Comte, these terms referred to all types of societies, whereas Spencer related them specifically to his future ideal society  Spencer & Comte Spencer defined social statics as dealing with “the equilibrium of a perfect society” and social dynamics as relating to “the forces by which society is advanced toward perfection” Thus, in Spencer’s work the terms social statics and social dynamics are normative, and in Comte’s work they are descriptive. Although Spencer saw himself as a positivist, he did not accept Comte’s version of positivism  Spencer & Comte Spencer, like Comte, dealt with a wide range of sciences, but unlike Comte, he argued that “the sciences cannot be rightly placed in any linear order whatever” Rather, Spencer viewed the sciences as being interconnected and interdependent. Another major distinction made by Spencer is between Comte’s subjectivity (his concern with ideas) and Spencer’s objectivity (his concern with things)  Spencer & Comte Thus, although both Spencer and Comte were concerned with the evolution of the world, Comte was mainly interested in the evolution of ideas, whereas Spencer focused on structural (and functional) evolution.  Spencer & Comte Spencer believed that moral ideas emerge from individual action. In arriving at this conclusion, Spencer used here, a survival-of- the-fittest perspective.  Spencer & Comte In sum, although Spencer and Comte shared concerns with sociology, structures and functions, social statics and social dynamics, positivism, the relationships among the sciences, the evolution of the world, the future ideal society, and morality, … there are profound differences in their views on most of these topics as well as in their overall theories. General theoretical principles- Herbert Spencer Spencer’s thoughts on the social world- are based on a series of general theoretical principles. He argued that in the early history of humankind, religious thinkers and scientists were unified in their efforts to analyze and understand the world. Gradually, the two began to separate, with religion coming to focus on the unknowable and science on that which can be known  Contd. However, this differentiation is far from complete, even in the modern era, so religion and science continue to overlap and to conflict. In fact, Spencer saw his own work as involving elements of science (intelligence) and religion (morals). Spencer’s main concern was with the knowable world and was therefore much more scientific than it was religious. Science could never know the ultimate nature of things, but it could strive for the highest possible degree of knowledge  Evolutionary theory Spencer believed that all inorganic, organic, and superorganic (societal) phenomena undergo evolution and devolution, or dissolution i.e. phenomena undergo a process of evolution whereby matter becomes integrated and motion tends to dissipate (move Phenomena also undergo a process of devolution in which motion increases and matter moves toward disintegration  Evolutionary theory contd. Major elements of Spencer’s evolutionary theory: First, evolution involves progressive change from a less coherent to a more coherent form (it involves increasing integration) Second, accompanying increasing integration is the movement from homogeneity to more and more heterogeneity (evolution involves increasing differentiation)  Evolutionary theory contd. Third, movement from confusion to order, from indeterminacy to determined order, “an increase in the distinctness with which these parts are marked off from one another” in other words, evolution involves movement from the indefinite to the definite.  Spencer Thus, the three key elements of evolution are: increasing integration, heterogeneity, and definiteness. More specifically, his general theory of evolution apply to both structures and functions At the most general level, Spencer associated structures with “matter” and saw them growing more integrated, heterogeneous, and definite.  Spencer Functions are linked to “retained motion,” and they, too, are seen as growing increasingly integrated, heterogeneous, and definite.  Spencer Spencer- the reasons for the occurrence of evolution. First, Spencer argued that homogeneous phenomena are inherently unstable Reason for this instability- different parts of a homogeneous system are constantly subjected to different forces, which tend to differentiate them from one another Changes in one part of the once homogeneous system will inevitably result in changes in other parts, leading, in turn, to greater multiformity.  Spencer Second factor- the multiplication of effects- proceeds in a geometric manner. In other words, a small change in a once homogeneous system has increasingly ramifying effects. Thus, over time, the once homogeneous system grows increasingly heterogeneous  Spencer Third, Spencer discussed the effects of segregation on evolution. A sector becomes segregated from the others because of a likeness among its components, which are different from the components of other sectors. This segregation serves to maintain differences among the sectors, and this, in turn, furthers the multiplication of effects when one sector is exposed to and incorporates the distinguishing characteristics of other sectors.  Spencer Devolution process (Undoing) likely to occur when evolution has ended and the evolved phenomenon has begun to decay His main concern is with the evolution of human societies in terms of their growth and with the evolution of structures and functions.  Spencer Spencer’s rationale for devoting so much attention to the evolution of society (and its institutions) is his view that a fully adequate understanding of human social relations requires an understanding of their evolution (as well as their cycles and dissolution).  Spencer- The science of sociology he defined “the study of Sociology as the study of Evolution in its most complex form”. Sociology is “the natural history of societies” or, more specifically, “an order among those structural and functional changes which societies pass through”. Spencer’s sociology concentrates largely on macro- level social phenomena (social aggregates)— societies, social structures, social institutions—as well as the functions of each.  Spencer Spencer shared with Comte the view that sociology should deal wit social questions in the same scientific manner in which we address issues in the natural sciences. Furthermore, Spencer, like Comte, saw sociology, especially in its evolutionary concerns, as the most complex of sciences.  Spencer Although Spencer saw sociology as a (complex) science, he recognized that it is not an exact science To be a science, in Spencer’s view, a field of study need only consist of generalizations (laws) and interpretations based on those generalizations. Sociology seeks laws of social phenomena in the same way that the natural sciences seek the laws of natural phenomena.  SOC223 Classical Sociological Thinkers 11  Sociology and Biology Spencer saw three basic linkages between biology and sociology. First, he believed that all social actions are determined by the actions of individuals and that those actions conform to the basic laws of life in general. Thus, to understand social actions, the sociologist must know the basic laws of life, and it is biology that helps us comprehend those laws.  Contd. Second, there are powerful analogies between sociology and biology. That is, society as a whole, like the living body, is characterized by, among other things, growth, structure, and function. Thus, an understanding of the biology of the living organism, (which after all is far easier to study than the social organism), offers many keys to understanding society.  Contd. Spencer felt that survival of the fittest occurs in both the biological and the social realms and that the lessons of biology from the natural world are that there should be no interference with this process in the social world.  Exercise Q. 1.Spencer’s approach is _________ a. Micro b. Macro c. Mini Q.2. Spencer looks society through ______ perspective a. Concentric b. Evolutionary c. Devolutionary  The evolution of society Focus on the evolutions of society and its major institutions – using his three dimensions: increasing integration, heterogeneity and definiteness (clearly demarcated social institutions) In addition, fourth dimensions he employed: coherence of social groups His formula of social progress: Progress is toward- greater size, coherence, multiformity and definiteness  The evolution of society Not based on unilinear view of social evolution - Societies are constantly changing in light of changes in their environs, but these changes are not necessarily evolutionary. - these stage do not necessarily occur in serial order Made a distinction of society into- - nominalism (society is nothing more than its component parts) - realism (distinct and separable)  Saw society as an organic bodies (characterized by permanent relations among the components parts) Spencer’s ‘organicism’ - number of parallelism between society and organic entities Other similarities, both entities increase in size and are subject to structural and functional differentiation Both are characterized by an increasing division of labor, the development of interrelated differentiations that make still other differentiations possible  The component parts of both society and an organism are interconnected and in need of each other. If the whole of society or an organism dies, parts can live on; conversely, the whole can live on even if parts die  Spencer saw society as a gathering of people forming a group in which there is cooperation to seek common ends. Cooperation in society implies some form of organization. In his view, there are 2 basic types of cooperation: the division of labor, - which is a spontaneously and unconsciously developed system that directly serves the interests of individuals and indirectly serves the interests of society.  The second cooperative system is the one for defense and government, that is, the political organization - which is a consciously and purposefully created system that directly serves the interests of society and indirectly those of the individual.  First elements in his evolution of society: growth in size - “Superorganic” (social) phenomena, like organisms, grow through both the multiplication of individuals and the union (compounding) of groups (e.g., tribes), both of which may go on simultaneously.  The increase in the size of society is accompanied by an increase in structure. - structure as “an organization” - greater size requires more differentiation, a greater unlikeness of parts. The first differentiation is the emergence of one or more people claiming and/or exercising authority.  SOC223 Classical Sociological Thinkers  Revision/Explain 1) The analogies between biology and sociology 2) Spencer employed _______ dimensions in his theory of evolutionary. - two/three/four? 3) What are they? 4) Formula of social progress is towards ________ - greater size, coherence, multiformity and definiteness  Revision/Explain 1) Spencer made a distinction of society into- i) nominalism and realism ii) Idealism and nominalism iii) Evolutionary and devolutionary 2) According to Spencer, there are 2 basic types of cooperation, what are they? - Division of labour & defense and government  Then the division between the regulative and the sustaining structures of society. e.g. like military activities and economic activities respectively -At first, this differentiation is closely linked to the division of labor among the sexes, with men handling the regulative structure (the military) and women the sustaining structures. - As society evolves, each of these structures undergoes further differentiation  The increasing differentiation of structures is accompanied by increasingly differentiated functions. Spencer argued that “changes of structures cannot occur without changes of functions” The third one is distributive system – internal matters Finally, the distributive system links the sustaining and regulative organs and systems.  Herbert Spencer Types of Societies  Simple and compound societies  Militant and Industrial Societies  Simple and compound societies Identified 4 types of societies on the basis of their degree of compounding: Primary system of classifying societies by their degree of compounding i. Simple societies ii. Compound societies iii. Doubly compound societies iv. Trebly compound societies  Simple and compound societies  Simple Societies  constitute single working entities that are not connected with any other entities  Relatively homogeneous and uncivilized societies  have not gone through a compounding process  Simple and compound societies  Compound Societies  Some increase in heterogeneity - E.g. emergence of a supreme chief who rules over the chiefs of several simple groups.  some compounding has occurred either by conquest or by peaceful means  as a result of increasing heterogeneity, an increase in the division of economic labor and in organization  Simple and compound societies  Doubly Compound Societies formed on the basis of the re-compounding of compound groups. more heterogeneity and further advances in civilization Thus, in the political realm we find even more developed and stable governments. Many advances in these societies- a more complex division of economic labor, law emerging from custom, more towns and roads, and more advanced knowledge and arts  Simple and compound societies  Trebly Compound Societies the great nations of the world, which are even more advanced in the areas just mentioned, as well as in many others. Included in this category are both older societies, like the Roman Empire, and modern nations.  Militant and Industrial Societies Secondary system of classifying (better known than from his primary system of classification) Famous distinction between militant and industrial societies Militant societies tend to be dominated by the regulative system, whereas industrial societies are characterized by their more highly developed sustaining systems.  Militant and Industrial Societies Spencer saw a long-term evolutionary trend from militant to industrial societies, although he was clear that this trend is not unilinear. mentioned the possibility of a future, “higher” type of society characterized by intellectual and aesthetic concerns but he had little to say of a substantive nature about the possibility of this third type of society.  Militant and Industrial Societies  Militant Societies characterized by highly structured organizations for offensive and defensive warfare the army and the nation are one dominated by its regulative system, with centralized and despotic government control unlimited political control over personal conduct  Militant Societies rigidly controlled, disciplined, and regimented population. cooperation that exists in society is a result of compulsion The individual exists for the good of the collectively Under the militant type the individual is owned by the state  Militant Societies There is a rigid status hierarchy, and individual positions are fixed as to rank, occupation, and locality. Industry, such as it is, exists largely to fill the needs of the government-military. Spencer believed that war is useful in militant societies in producing social aggregation (by, e.g., military conquest).  Militant and Industrial Societies  Industrial society dominated by the sustaining system, and its industrial system is more developed and diverse. The regulative control that continues to exist tends to be negative (people shall not do certain things) rather than positive (people must do certain things). No/rare despotic control, and the government tends to be democratic, with representatives of the people exercising power  Industrial Societies The control that remains tends to be much more decentralized There is voluntary cooperation among people, and collectivity exists to serve the welfare of the people Individuality is protected and permitted to flourish.  Industrial Societies The military system is subordinated to the needs of the industrial system. Control is exercised by contracts voluntarily entered into by individuals. Harmony, rather than conflict and warfare, characterizes industrial societies.  Industrial Societies Although militant societies are forced to be economically autonomous because of the hostility from and toward their neighbors, industrial societies are much more interdependent economically. Whereas militant societies tend to be rather inflexible, industrial societies are much more changeable and adaptable.  Exercise: Explain 1) According to Spencer, sociology is an exact science 1) True/false 4. Simple and compound societies 5. Militant and industrial societies  Summary of yesterday ‘s class Herbert Spencer’s Secondary system of classification of society Militant and industrial society – regulative and sustaining system of society long term evolutionary: from militant to industrial But not in unilinear manner  Ethics and politics Spencer’s ethical and political ideas “Social Statics” (1850/1954); “The Principles of Ethics (1897/1978). Spencer’s moral and political ideas are derived, to a large extent, from his methodological individualism Focused on macro-level phenomena, but he did so with the view that the basis for these phenomena was individual “units.” For him, ‘all social phenomena are consequences of the natures of individual men’  Ethics and politics human happiness comes from the satisfaction of desires and that gratification can come only from an exercise of human faculties Thus, people must be free to exercise their faculties; that is, they must have liberty Limits on personal liberty - an individual, in exercising his or her liberty, cannot be allowed to infringe on the liberty of others  Ethics and politics “The properties of the units determine the properties of the aggregate.” Spencer believed that individuals are provided with a moral sense that dictates their actions and ultimately the structure and functioning of society. Although individuals are the proximate cause of social morality, the more distant cause is God argued that “human happiness is the divine will”.  Ethics and politics Thus, society is seen as evolving toward an increasing state of perfection and happiness. Another factor in this evolution to a perfect moral state is that evil, in Spencer’s view, progressively disappears. But why this disappearance? Spencer employed the survival-of-the-fittest argument.  Ethics and politics evil is a result of nonadaptation to external conditions, or “unfitness to the conditions of existence Spencer argued that “all excess and all deficiency must disappear; that is, all unfitness must disappear; i.e., all imperfection must disappear  Ethics and politics However, because individuals are not endowed with the capacity to prevent their actions from infringing on the rights of others, society is needed to perform this function. This leads to Spencer’s libertarian political position that there is a role for the state but it is a highly limited one. In his view, the state must protect the liberty of individuals, but “it ought to do nothing more than protect”  Ethics and politics The state, as well as private philanthropists, is enjoined from preventing misery because to do so would cause greater misery for future generations. That is, if the unfit are allowed to survive, they will produce only similarly unfit offspring and that will only increase the magnitude of the problem for societies of the future.  Ethics and politics Those individuals, both in and out of the government, who think of themselves as doing good are in fact doing great harm to society. Interference by the state (and other agencies) serves only to encourage the multiplication of the unfit, to discourage the multiplication of the fit, and to stop the “purifying” process of natural evolution.”  Ethics and politics Spencer often returned to the theme of the evils of state intervention. In the end, the government is to refrain from intervention not only because such interference hampers the natural process of evolution but also because it curtails individual rights. As he opposed state intervention, he also opposed to any radical (communist) alteration of society.  Ethics and politics Spencer’s fears about the controls exercised by the capitalist state were nothing in comparison to his fears about socialistic control, which he equated with slavery and tyranny. As a result of this view, Spencer associated socialism with militant societies and argued that it would “cease to be normal as fast as the society becomes predominantly industrial in its type’  Ethics and politics Spencer differentiated his own ideal society from that of socialists and communists argue that he was not in favour of giving people equal shares of things but rather of giving “each an opportunity of acquiring the objects he desires”. Spencer’s opposition to socialism and communism is also related to his opposition to any abrupt or revolutionary change  Ethics and politics Criticisms: Contemporary, often liberal or radical, sociological theorists rejects the kind of conservative morality and politics preached by Spencer Question on how fit between Spencer’s “scientific” sociology and his moral and political views Spencer’s claim to being scientific is runied by the fact that his work is biased by his moral and political proclivities  Ethics and politics Criticisms: Spencer’s theories also are limited because the version of evolutionary theory that drives much of his work is outdated. Nevertheless, it is worth taking note of contemporary developments that carry forward Spencer’s important interest in evolution  Ethics and politics For example, Sanderson developed an approach called “evolutionary materialism” in which he details the “role of economic, demographic, technological and economic factors as the principle causes of social evolution.” He distinguishes three great evolutionary changes in human history: “the Neolithic Revolution, the rise of civilization and the state, and the transition to modern capitalism.”  Ethics and politics- summary Spencer articulated a series of ethical and political ideals. Consistent with his methodological individualism, Spencer argued that people must be free to exercise their abilities; they must have liberty. The only role for the state is the protection of individual liberty.  Ethics and politics- summary Such a laissez-faire political perspective fits well with Spencer’s ideas on evolution and survival of the fittest. Given his perspective on the gradual evolution of society, Spencer also rejected the idea of any radical solution (e.g., communism) to society’s problems.  That’s all for now