But to properly examine Spencer and his evolutionary thought, we must find out where he fit in with his contemporaries, more specifically Lamarck and Darwin. Even though it wasn’t until the 1870s that a division between Lamarckians and Darwinians became clearly evident, there were differences in thought well before that. Lamarck came first to the scene and believed that organic transformation resulted through the inheritance of environmental adaptations only. Darwin, on the other hand, arrived later, and with the Origin of Species held out that there was a high degree of spontaneous variation in heredity, regardless of the environment, and the struggle for existence continues. But where did Spencer with regards to these two great scientists. Initially, Spencer fell with the Lamarckian point of view which agreed with Spencer’s idea that natural selection and struggle was done in order for an ideal to be attained in a particular species. This came into direct conflict with Darwin who believed that evolution was the realization of an archetype, not an ideal. It is also unsurprising that Spencer sided with Lamarckian thought because, being a sociologist, Lamarckism had the ability to explain social customs and behavior in a way that could create laws and reasons. Through this, he was able to link biology with sociology, making it acceptable as a science that could be studied - more about this later. However, Spencer also found himself agreeing with Darwin with regards to natural selection. Spencer felt that if Lamarck is right and the organism only responds to the environmental changes, then evolution is subsidiary and not that important which would directly undermine his praising evolution for its contribution to sociological thought. Spencer and Darwin also found a common inspiration in Malthus and both shared the idea that population increase would promote evolutionary change for the better. The best way of fitting Spencer in among these men is to call him Lamarckian, but with definite Darwinian thoughts that would support his sociological thought. Even more interesting is that once Descent of Man was written in 1871, Darwin found himself hedging more Lamarckian in his thought and writing.
Spencer had to make evolutionary thought more acceptable to the masses than either Lamarck or Darwin could do if he wanted to apply it to many fields. This would also enable him to use evolution to explain sociology and political theory. Most importantly, Spencer was able to write in a clear, concrete, and progressive style that appealed to contemporary readers. This came mostly as a result of his being a “jack of all trades” in many scientific fields and is evidenced by the figure that his published books sold in excess of 400,000 showing him to be widely read by a public that did not have nearly the same literacy rates that we do today. Spencer also had an ability to make phrases instantly accessible to the public to deal with evolution; it is Spencer who coined the term “survival of the fittest” and applied it not just to the animal kingdom, but for all life in general. This is where Spencer’s next great accomplishment in evolutionary thought can be seen. Since he saw evolution and progress in the same light (he saw evolution as a necessary development of all things), he took steps to apply evolutionary thought to nearly every field in which he had a hand in, influencing his later works on sociology, political theory, and psychology. The more fields that a researcher is able to connect new discoveries in fact and theory to, the more the general public will hear about it and become interested in what is going on there; Spencer took this to heart.
The most influential thing that Spencer connected evolutionary thought to was sociology, and this is where his Lamarckian leanings show themselves up most obviously. Spencer connected the natural world with its “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” to more definite fields such as society and culture. He saw evolution as involving more than simple biology (though that helped his sociological thought); it involved social evolution and cultural evolution. He stated concisely in “Spontaneous Reform” that society has been on an evolutionary track. Not only did he see evolution in many fields of study, he saw a process of evolution in daily activities performed by the common man#, something that no doubt helped in his ability to be taken seriously by the lay public. The largest field he applied evolution to, however, was sociology. In sociology, he saw a great many connections between evolutionary theory and the progress of society at large.
Before entering what Spencer did for sociology, a study of what came before him seems necessary. Comte, in the 1830s, had laid out a methods for collecting data on sociology that included the testing of theories as a definite must because without theory, all you do is collect data that becomes harmful instead of helpful. Even with Comte’s helpful (and very true) guidance towards sociological methods, he was largely ignored by the public. In The Study of Sociology, Spencer cites an “intellectual anarchism” in the field of sociology. While people refuse to believe that the world reveals regularities that can be put into law-like form, they feel free to say “what is” and “what should be” in the world.# This double standard that Spencer found in the annals of sociology did not help the field at all. What Spencer saw when he got to sociology was something that had no method, no form, and no skills at collecting data. However, even if data had been collected, it is unlikely that it would do any good.
Spencer attempted to make sociology more serious by turning it into something people could regard as an “exact” science. In order to do this, Spencer had to remind people what “exact” meant and sorting out the problems of collecting data for sociological purposes. To begin with, Spencer had to remind people that the “exact” sciences of biology, physics, and chemistry were only exact in certain portions and that whatever is assumed to be exact may be found to be inexact when new discoveries are made or better theories/data has been collected. The fact that this happens in mathematics all the time, Spencer argues, does not mean that math is inexact, nor does it mean that sociological study would be perfectly exact all the time. Spencer also recognized that there were problems inherent in collecting data for sociological studies. With regards to what should be researched, he warned people against studying what was in vogue at the time or what was fashionable. He believed that this would lead to a bias that would be difficult, if not impossible, to surmount with regards to the conclusions arrived at when data collection was finished. Also, the very act of collecting data could be a problem if many different methods are used or if one is not open to trying new methods and then there is the problem of personal bias on an intellectual or emotional level.# In his studies, Spencer would attempt to overcome these obvious problems and get results. Ironically enough, man himself was the biggest obstacle to understanding sociology, and thus, social evolution.
Sociology and evolution were intimately connected and similar, according to Spencer. He saw both as a progress from homogeneity to heterogeneity, the seed to the tree and the ovum to the animal used as examples. Spencer saw this on an individual basis, in fact he was strongly individual (something that would come back to classify him as Conservative), but he also applied it to a societal basis. In a passage of his “Spontaneous Reform”, Spencer talks of pasture once marshlands made possible through private enterprise, means of transportation made by want for profit, enormous organizations such as shops and warehouses rising without government planning. This shows his belief in the power of individualism as well as his motives for political theory which will be shown in more depth later. Simple society was thus, a collection of individuals with similar powers; the only separation would be based on gender: men would hunt and gather, women would tend to the children. However, quite quickly, a difference based on those in power and the powerless would come to rear its head. Progress would then come through the state that these people would set up which would be the development of a larger quantity of mans’ wants like security and widening freedoms of action. As seen, Spencer’s views on sociology was one in which people had to band together to progress. Seeing as he equated evolution with progress, this connection is very simple to tie to evolution. Spencer saw the “law of organic process” as being equitable with being the law of all progress, including societal progress. As an interesting side note to show how relevant Spencer’s sociological thought is to today’s world, he believed that the more developed a species shown by a heightened power of defense and an ability to get food, the less would be their potential to reproduce. Looking at the zero population growth of Europe and comparing the low growth of industrialized nations to the rapid, exponential growth of developing nations, this can be seen to have great relevance.
If Spencer’s views on sociology seem rather stagnant and unfeeling, then one must consider is ideas on feeling and rationality with respect to mankind. Spencer saw man at his base to be an animal controlled by feelings and thus, a society would evolve best without hindrance from artificial impositions. In “Feeling Vs. Intellect”, Spencer states equivocally that “the chief component of the mind is feeling.” The most intense of feelings might have the ability to overwhelm senses like the power of speech or the ability to act. What Spencer shows is a leaning away from rationalism; he suggests that when we think about our actions, we most often do so after that fact of doing them, which has no result on the action itself. In fact, Spencer disregards rationalism by stating that in consciousness, the mind must take a back seat to sensation and feeling. This is not to suggest that Spencer was amoral. Though he spoke often against the church and religious practices, he considered himself agnostic, not atheist. In fact, in writing against state schooling, he claimed that mischief may result when intellectualism advances before morality. Spencer embraced feeling and sensation over rationalization in people, and thus the societies they would have to create.
But how did other people react to Spencer’s achievements and links in sociology to evolution. Most, like Spencer, were evenly divided between using Lamarck or Darwin to advance their claims, they did not use the interesting synthesis that Spencer used. Bagehot, a Lamarckian, saw man as having the ability to impress his character on the national character at large which was in strict defiance to Spencer’s views that man was an obstacle in this field. Bagehot used Lamarck and the field of sociology to adopt the emergence of a national character, something, no doubt that would not please Spencer as this would be the surfacing of collecting data for something in the public eye but not worth much scientific value. Bagehot attempted to show how national respects for something carried over to their system of government (I.e. the French’s love of rationalization meant they would respect and adhere to a constitutional form of government that could be ever-changing). Sociologists that were to immune to the idea of Lamarckian use-inheritance factors in their field included Stephen and Pollock. They preferred the determinism of man in taking what he wants from those before him - a form of moral volunteerism, if you will. This system of thought predominated France and England and even if there was minor disagreement with Spencer, there was at least some common ground. In Russia, however, virtually all connection to Darwin or Lamarck with regard to society was not seen as something positive. Most Russians appreciated Darwin’s connection of competition to societal progress, but most thought it be morally bankrupt. They believed that one of Specer’s ideas that competition was a reason for progress, and thus, beneficial, to be outright false. Even the Russian conservatives saw it as a strictly British political thought that had a lack of community, and thus, couldn’t be used to inform Russia. The big blow to Spencer, however, was the research of Weismann. His research in the 1880s blew use-inheritance theory out of the water by showing no correlation between use-inheritance and heredity, pulling the rug out from under Spencer’s foundation. Spencer, and his contemporaries who were unable to change their theories suffered from this. He attempted to change his theories to call use-inheritance a minor part of the facts, but the damage had been done.
One aspect of Spencer’s sociology that deserves mention is his political theory. Spencer thought that the only reason government emerged was because the people wanted it to. They wanted government to get the things they could not get on their own; they needed a group in order to get it. This shows how uniquely connected sociology and political theory were to Spencer’s mindset; the society is ultimately more important because it is able to do more. War is also necessary to Spencer because it would force governments to consolidate their power and become stronger if they want to win. Government, no matter where, could be looked at as a three-party system: A head of government, a small group of leaders who are subordinate to the head, but there to delegate tasks, and the common people. Unfortunately, this kind of government (and thus, all kinds of government) was bound to be conservative and always afraid to lose its grip on their power. Seemingly contradictory, though, was Spencer’s belief that the government should ask very little from its people, because it was the people who had founded it. For example, he felt that in getting money (in the form of taxes and tariffs) from citizens, that principle would reverse the citizens’ liberty to exercise. As a staunch individualist and laissez-faire economist, Spencer could not allow this to happen. His individualism is shown in his economic theory that “if supply and demand are allowed free play (they) must conduce to social stability.” In other words, letting the markets do whatever they want will not injure society; in fact, it will help its stability. Spencer saw this as his political theory, but what he saw in practice was wrong with regards to government control and social reform/welfare.
While Spencer was glad that the era of kings was over, he feared that the “divine right of parliaments” had replaced that divine right of kings. He felt that state government should not be responsible for the evolution of man and his necessities. Spencer also didn’t think the state should get involved in matters of church or schooling. As an agnostic, it would be easy to believe he wanted the destruction of religion, but in letters to a friend in the 1840s, he rejected the idea that Church property be taken under contribution to the state because this would allow the state to manufacture society. One senses a recurring theme with regards to the state. Spencer saw politics as created by the people as a necessity and that people should not ask so much from such a necessity
With regards to social welfare and reform, he tows the usual liberal line of the mid 19th Century that his contemporaries did. In fact, he uses Malthusian theories (again showing his connection to Darwin) of the poverty level simply rising and never going away to condone his dislike of poor laws. He viewed social ills not being corrected by the government intervening, anyway. Instead, only the small changes, after an ill trend would reverse itself, would be done by officials, and of course those would be duly and uselessly noted. His views were very similar to those of Galton and Stephen. Galton believe that society was divided between the morally fit and unfit; the unfit were clearly those in the working classes who caused disastrous effects on evolution due to their high birth rates. More to the point, Stephen argued that there were some moral actions that had disastrous social consequences, and one of those was an excess of philanthropic spirit which would cause more begging and a feeble population; evolution would not take its true place as leader of natural selection. Thus for Spencer and his liberal contemporaries, moral evolution did not imply any kind of social reform, collectivism, or equality.
Spencer, through his unique combination in evolutionary thought of Lamarck and Darwin was able to make great advancements in the field of sociology that his contemporaries agreed with for the most part. Through this advancement in sociology, he was able to cast a definite light on political theory and social welfare that his liberal contemporaries agreed with and definitively used. But why does history then remember Spencer as a conservative? A possible answer is the link between socialism and liberalism during the German unification of the 1870s and the link in other western European areas afterwards. This liberal-socialist block thought it would be a good idea to tax high incomes for the poor. Invariably this caused a reaction from the rich Conservatives which could be taken as a rejection of helping the poor. There is then, the foundation for modern conservatism in Spencer’s own work. His individualism is a staunch facet of conservatism today and his idea that totalitarianism is an inescapable result of a system that becomes infected by socialism and state interference. Then, there is Spencer’s own words late in his life that reflected how he had become conservative. Once, a reform-minded man, he let his sense of morality get in his way as he denounced electoral reform and land nationalization because they were being in done in advance of people’s bettering of their characters. Ultimately, his own ideas would begin to flicker out as they were replaced by genetics, Durkheim’s sense of sociology, and democratic programs of welfare
