Chapter Info (Click Here)
Book No. – 25 (Sociology)
Book Name – Masters of Sociological Thought
What’s Inside the Chapter? (After Subscription)
1. THE WORK
1.1. GROWTH. STRUCTURE, AND DIFFERENTIATION
1.2. SOCIAL TYPES: MILITANT AND INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES
1.3. EVOLUTION-UNILINEAR OR MULTILINEAR
1.4. FUNCTIONALISM
1.5. INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS ORGANICISM
1.6. NONINTERVENTION AND THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST
1.7. OBSTACLES TO OBJECTIVITY
2. THE MAN
2.1. THE LONDON YEARS
2.2. THE SUCCESSFUL AUTHOR
3. THE INTELLECTUAL CONTEXT
3.1. ANTECEDENTS
3.2. INFLUENCE OF CONTEMPORARIES
4. THE SOCIAL CONTEXT
4.1. THE GENERAL SCENE
4.2. BACKGROUND
4.3. FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES
4.4. THE SOCIAL SETTING
4.5. AUDIENCE AND DEMAND
Note: The first chapter of every book is free.
Access this chapter with any subscription below:
- Half Yearly Plan (All Subject)
- Annual Plan (All Subject)
- Sociology (Single Subject)
- CUET PG + Sociology
LANGUAGE
Herbert Spencer
Chapter – 3
Table of Contents
THE WORK
- Herbert Spencer was a theorist whose insights have often been overshadowed by irrelevant reasoning.
- The relevant parts of Spencer’s work should be selected and refined, cutting out what is wrong and emphasizing what is viable, as suggested by Richard Hofstadter regarding historical thinkers.
- Only Spencer’s sociological contributions, particularly the central ones, will be focused on, with his general metaphysics or anti-metaphysics addressed only tangentially.
- Some historians of sociology view Spencer as a continuator of Comte’s organicist and evolutionary approach, although Spencer himself downplayed any deep influence from Comte.
- Spencer’s approach differed significantly from Comte’s: Comte aimed to explain the progress of human conceptions, while Spencer sought to explain the progress of the external world.
- Comte was concerned with the genesis of ideas and social organization, while Spencer was more focused on evolutionary changes in social structures and institutions.
- Spencer believed ideas were epiphenomenal, shaped by the social structure of the time and place.
- Evolution for Spencer was a process of moving from indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to definite, coherent heterogeneity, which he saw as a universal process.
- Spencer viewed the evolution of human societies as a special case of the same natural law that governs the universe, suggesting sociology can only become a science if it adheres to this natural, evolutionary law.
- Spencer argued that all aspects of the universe, whether organic, inorganic, social, or nonsocial, are subject to the laws of evolution.
- His sociological reflections focused on the parallels between organic and social evolution, using biological analogiesto explain societal processes.
- Spencer acknowledged the limitations of biological analogies but still relied on them heavily in his sociological reasoning.
- As a radical individualist, Spencer faced philosophical difficulties with organic analogies, which were more suited to collectivist philosophies like Comte’s.
- Spencer’s key insight was that with evolutionary growth, changes occur in the structure and functions of any unit, and size increases lead to differentiation in structure.
- Spencer’s example of humans growing to the size of elephants illustrates how such growth would require major modifications in bodily structure for survival.
GROWTH, STRUCTURE, AND DIFFERENTIATION
- Both organic and social aggregates grow through progressive increases in size.
- Spencer compares the growth of societies to living bodies, starting from minute origins and expanding over time.
- Societal growth occurs through two processes: increase in population (simple multiplication of units) and union of groups (joining previously unrelated units).
- As units increase in size, there is an inevitable increase in the complexity of their structure.
- Spencer defines growth as a process of integration, requiring differentiation of structures and functions for survival in the struggle for existence.
- Early organisms and societies are relatively homogeneous, but as they grow, differentiation increases, with parts becoming more distinct.
- As societies grow, parts become unlike and interdependent, leading to mutual dependence and integration.
- In early societies, all parts fulfill similar functions (e.g., warriors, hunters), but as societies evolve, parts specialize in different activities, making them dependent on each other.
- Division of labor is central in both social aggregates and living bodies, and is essential for the functioning of the whole system.
- In primitive societies, specialization of functions is underdeveloped, with individuals fulfilling multiple roles. As societies become more complex, roles become more distinct, as seen in the emergence of agricultural societies and political units.
- Differentiation leads to the creation of new roles, such as a “chief of chiefs” in larger societies.
- As societal parts become more differentiated, their mutual dependence increases, and the consensus of functionsbecomes closer.
- In simple societies, parts are similar and can perform each other’s functions, but in complex societies, parts can no longer easily substitute for one another.
- Complex societies are more vulnerable and fragile due to their increased specialization and interdependence.
- Spencer compares American society to Vietnamese agrarian society to illustrate the greater complexity and fragility of modern societies.
- The increased mutual dependence in complex societies necessitates the emergence of a regulating system to coordinate and control the actions of different parts.
- In both living bodies and societies, regulating systems emerge to manage external and internal functions, with supreme centers for regulation becoming more complex over time.
- Early regulating systems manage external concerns (e.g., enemies, prey), but later, as societies evolve, they also regulate internal functions and social control.
- Spencer classified societies based on the scope of internal regulation and evolutionary complexity, though these two criteria were somewhat independent, leading to difficulties in his overall classification scheme.