The English sociologist Herbert Spencer is considered the founder of two schools of sociology: organicism and evolutionism. One of the central ideas of his theory was the general theory of evolution, which was interpreted as a transition from incoherence to coherence, from uncertainty to certainty, from homogeneity to heterogeneity; this is a universal process that embraces all forms of existence, including society, which was thought to be its highest manifestation. As society develops, the structure of society becomes more complex, its components become more and more dissimilar from each other, and, consequently, more and more interdependent. The unsuccessful actions of one part of society can no longer be compensated by the actions of another, which means that complex societies are more vulnerable and fragile. This vulnerability requires the creation of some kind of regulatory system that would control the actions of the constituent parts and their regulation. According to the nature of this system, Spencer divided societies into two types: “militant”, regulated through strict coercion, and “industrial”, where control and centralization are weaker. Coordination of actions in society, according to Spencer, is similar to coordination in a living organism.
As for the individual and his position in society, Spencer viewed it in two ways. Although the individual is a part of the whole, it is not an ordinary part, but one that is characterized by many features of the whole and has relative freedom within the social organism. Society differs from an organism in that in it the whole (i.e., society) exists for the sake of the parts (i.e., individuals).
Spencer's first sociological work, “Social Statics,” was published in 1850. In the 60-90s, Spencer, creating a system of synthetic philosophy, tried to unite all the theoretical sciences of that time. During these years, the following were written: “Fundamentals”, “Fundamentals of Psychology”, “Fundamentals of Biology”, “Fundamentals of Sociology”, “Fundamentals of Ethics”, “Fundamentals of Sociology” were preceded by an independent book “Sociology as a Subject of Study”.
Spencer, like Comte, derived his sociological views by deduction from philosophical principles. Although Spencer was very critical of Comte, he still believed that the French thinker in understanding social phenomena significantly surpassed all previous approaches and called his philosophy “a plan full of greatness.
Spencer believed that the same mechanisms of natural selection operate in society as in nature. Therefore, any outside interference such as charity, government control, social assistance interferes with the normal course of natural selection, which means it is not worth doing.
Spencer's sociological theory is considered the predecessor of structural functionalism. Spencer was the first to apply the concepts of structure and function, system, and institution in sociology. In his works he devoted great attention to the problem of the objectivity of sociological knowledge.
Conclusion: Thus, Spencer stands for a psychological explanation of the “social mechanism,” although this is not associated with his analogy of society with a biological organism.
Let us highlight the following general features of the sociology of G. Spencer:
1. this is an extensive introduction of the historical-comparative method in the study and substantiation of one’s own sociological views;
2. the interpretation of society as an organism, under which he tried to provide certain logical foundations;
3. the idea of the natural evolution of public life. According to this idea, the process of social configurations occurs according to natural laws, regardless of the desires of people.
The idea of progress, initially developed in social philosophy, gradually receives confirmation from natural sciences. Of particular importance in this regard was the concept of evolutionary development in biology. After the publication of the works of Charles Darwin, the idea of evolutionism was firmly established in philosophy and science, stimulating the formation of new research programs and methodological guidelines. This idea also penetrates into sociology, determining the theoretical status of the emerging science, focusing the attention of researchers on the genetic explanation of the phenomena being studied. In this direction, sociology closely merged with historical disciplines aimed at the study of primitive formations, ethnography, folklore, etc. Therefore, not only pure sociologists, but also a number of prominent specialists in the field of auxiliary disciplines of history acted as representatives of this direction in sociology. But whatever preference the researchers gave to empirical material, they all adhered to a more or less unambiguous theoretical position, namely, they sought to establish the general laws of evolution, which allows them to be classified as supporters of evolutionism. These, in particular, are Lewis G. Morgan(1818-1881), John F. McLennon(1827-1881), Johann I. Bohoven(1815-1887), Edward B. Tylor(1832-1917), James Fraser(1854-1941). But the works of G. Spencer played a special role in promoting the ideas of evolutionism. Herbert Spencer(1820-1903) - an outstanding English philosopher and sociologist.
Spencer was distinguished by his extraordinary erudition and efficiency. The legacy he left is enormous. Fundamental ten-volume work,
Conceived as an encyclopedic synthesis of all sciences on the principles of evo
Visionism, was published in 1862-1896. This work included:
“Fundamentals” (1862), “Fundamentals of Biology” (1864-1867), “Foundation
research in psychology" (1870-1872), three-volume work "Foundations of Sociology"
(1876-1896), “Sociology as a Subject of Study” (1903), “Foundations
ethics" (1879-1893). "
Spencer's work most fully embodied the basic ideas of evolutionism and had a great influence on the intellectual atmosphere of that era. Spencer's theoretical views were formed mainly under the influence of the achievements of the natural sciences, which increasingly turned to the idea of evolution. Thus, in particular, Spencer highly appreciated Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species.” Spencer was also greatly influenced by the works of A. Smith and R. Malthus, English utilitarians who preached the ideas of radical bourgeois liberalism and individualism. Adhering to an extreme version of liberalism, Spencer passionately defended the principles of individual freedom and freedom of competition. Any interference in the natural course of events, especially social planning, according to Spencer, only leads to biological degeneration, the encouragement of “the worst at the expense of the best.” Spencer advocated limiting the role of the state in public life, even to the point of denying the poor assistance or care for raising children. He also criticized colonial expansion because it led to the strengthening of state bureaucracy.
The basic ideas of Spencer's "synthetic philosophy" sound like an anachronism now, but they were popular in their time. Among the evolutionists, only Spencer attempted to create a comprehensive philosophical system. Spencer formulates the fundamental principles in terms of mechanics: matter, motion, force. From these absolutely universal provisions (the law of constancy of matter and force) the law of evolution is derived. The idea of universal evolution is the central point of Spencer's worldview. All his efforts were aimed at substantiating this idea.
The evolution of any object is characterized by a transition from incoherence to coherence, from homogeneous to heterogeneous, from uncertainty to certainty. Spencer offers the following definition of the central concept of his philosophical system: “Evolution is the integration of matter, which is accompanied by the dispersion of motion and during which matter passes from a state of indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a state of definite coherent heterogeneity, and the motion preserved by the substance undergoes a similar transformation.” The limit beyond which evolution cannot go is the equilibrium of the system.
In case of imbalance, decay begins, which over time turns into a new evolutionary process. Everything that exists goes through this cycle of development and decay.
Spencer distinguishes three types of evolutionary processes: inorganic, organic and supraorganic. They all obey general laws. However, the specific laws of higher phases cannot be reduced to the laws of lower phases. Thus, in supraorganic evolution there appear phenomena that do not occur in the inorganic and organic world. Society is part of nature, and in this sense it is a natural object like any other; it is not created artificially, as a result of a “social contract” or divine will. Spencer shares Hobbes's view that man in the state of nature is “largely antisocial.” Man becomes a social being during the long evolution of primitive communities into supraorganic social systems. Like Malthus, he considers the main factor of sociogenesis to be the numerical growth of the population, which was required for the survival and adaptation of social organization, which in turn contributed to the development and development of social feelings, intelligence, and labor skills. The essence and content of this natural evolution is the socialization of man.
On this basis, he moves from a general consideration of the idea of evolution to a description of social development. Sociology completes Spencer's philosophical system.
Spencer's program of sociology is outlined in the Foundations of Sociology. Here, for the first time, a systematic presentation of the subject, tasks and problems of the new social science is given. This book was translated into many languages and contributed not only to the development, but also to the promotion of sociology.
Spencer pays considerable attention to substantiating the very possibility of sociology as a science and criticizes numerous arguments of its opponents. Sociology is possible because society is part of nature and is subject to the law of “natural causation.” Spencer refutes not only theological ideas about society, but also the theorists of “free will”, philosophers who attributed the decisive role in history to “outstanding thinkers”, the “social contract”, highlighted subjective factors or pointed out the lack of repetition in social life. “Comte proposes to describe the necessary and real filiation ideas,- writes Spencer. - I propose to describe the necessary and real filiation things. Comte claims to explain the genesis of our knowledge about nature. My goal is to explain... the genesis phenomena that make up nature. One is subjective, the other is objective."
Spencer emphasized not so much material similarity as the similarity of the principles of systemic organization; he sought to combine the organism that dissolves the individual in society with his extreme individualism
bourgeois liberal. This contradiction was the source of all his theoretical difficulties and compromises. Spencer was inclined to recognize society as a special being, pointing out that its basic properties are reproduced in time and space, despite the change of generations.
He spent a lot of effort defining the specific features of the "social organism" and identifying general systemic principles that make it similar to biological systems.
1. Society, like a biological organism, increases its mass (population, material resources, etc.).
2. As in the case of biological evolution, an increase in mass leads to a more complex structure.
3. The complication of the structure is accompanied by differentiation of the functions performed by individual parts.
4. In both cases there is a gradual increase in the interdependence and interaction of the parts.
5. As in biological organisms, the whole is always more stable than the individual parts, stability is ensured by the preservation of functions and structures.
Spencer not only likened society to an organism, but also filled his biology with sociological analogies. Trying to avoid the crude reductionism to which many evolutionists were so inclined, Spencer uses the term “superorganism”, emphasizes the autonomy of the individual, unlike Comte, Spencer sharply criticizes organicism, draws attention to the significant differences between the social and biological organism:
1. Unlike a biological organism that forms a “body” that has a specific form, the elements of society are dispersed in space and have much greater autonomy.
2. This spatial dispersion of elements makes symbolic communication necessary.
3. In society there is no single organ that concentrates the ability to feel and think.
4. Society is distinguished by spatial mobility of structural elements.
5. But the main thing is that in a biological organism the parts serve the whole, while in society the whole exists for the sake of the parts. Society, according to Spencer, exists for the benefit of its members, and not its members exist for the benefit of society.
The peculiarity of Spencer's organicism was that he tried to preserve the autonomy of the individual without absorbing the person into the system. “This combination of organicism with nominalism constituted the greatest theoretical difficulty of Spencer's sociology. His sociology contained a dilemma that subsequently led to the formation of counter-
Positive orientations - Tarde and Durkheim. On the one hand, Spencer asserted the nominalist thesis that the properties of a social whole are inferred from the properties of its constituent parts. On the other hand, that... “when a society reaches a certain size and a high level of organization, it acquires such independence from individual efforts that it acquires its own character.”
Spencer did not fully realize that utilitarian anthropology was inconsistent with the organism. He proposed a compromise solution: in the early stages of evolution, the natural constitution of man determines the properties of the social aggregate; subsequently, the properties of the whole play a decisive role in social evolution. The problem of relations between the individual and society was solved by referring to their interaction. In Spencer's time, it was difficult to propose a more specific solution to the problem, since social psychology as a science did not yet exist.
Spencer criticized simplified unilinear development schemes, but, like other evolutionists, he considered the main task to be the study of the stages of development of society. Spencer's methodology includes a classification and typology of evolutionary processes. The classification places the entire society on a scale of complexity of structure and functional organization from “small simple aggregate” to “large aggregate.” At the initial stage, society is characterized by the predominance of direct connections between individuals, the absence of special governing bodies, etc. As development progresses, a complex structure and social hierarchy is formed; the inclusion of an individual in society is mediated by belonging to smaller communities (gens, caste, etc.).
The typology is based on the construction of two polar ideal types (models), with the help of which the direction and stages of evolution are clarified, and to a certain extent the problem of the preferred type of development is solved. Spencer distinguishes two types of societies, military and industrial. Spencer characterizes the military and industrial types of society with directly opposite social properties. Knowing the social structure, forms of political structure, features of the social organization of a military-type society, it is possible to predict the corresponding characteristics of the future industrial society. Spencer's typology of societies is less well known than his theory of evolution. Meanwhile, in Spencer’s creative heritage it is of the greatest historical interest. In terms of the depth of theoretical elaboration, Spencer's typology was inferior only to the well-known typology of Tocqueville, who divided societies into aristocratic and democratic.
Spencer uses the opposition of the social organism and the social mechanism, popular in the first half of the 19th century, although in reverse order. The content of the historical process thus describes -
sya as a gradual transition from mechanical coercion to organic unification based on a community of interests. A military society subordinates internal organization to the goals of the struggle for survival or aggression. Spencer considers Sparta to be a classic example of such a society. Military society is characterized by the dominance of collective goals over individual goals, a rigid organization and system of coercion, a hierarchical management structure, the dominance of the military caste, inheritance of power, a high level of cohesion, discipline, religiosity of consciousness, etc. Military institutions extend influence to all spheres of public life and encourage education patriotism, loyalty, conformism, readiness for self-sacrifice. Militarized societies create an efficiently functioning system, which, however, is poorly adapted to social change. Such societies are conservative, and this is the main reason for the death of powerful militaristic states and empires.
Industrial society is characterized by opposite characteristics. In reality, such societies are just beginning to form (England, etc.), but many of their features can be predicted. Spencer paints a picture of the future industrial society that is impressive in its depth of scientific foresight. In the new society, management is decentralized and built on the principles of self-organization and self-government, various informal associations are becoming widespread, the subordination of the individual to the state is replaced by the protection of human rights, positive management will give way to negative management (according to the principle “Everything that is not prohibited is permitted”), the unity of ideology will be replaced pluralism, work will be rewarded rather than position, societies will become open to international cooperation, receptive to innovation, class law will be replaced by civil law, the scope of public control will be limited, and the area of private life will become wider, etc.
Social thinkers of the 19th century keenly felt their time as a historical transition to a new civilization and tried to predict the shape of the future society. Social progress was usually associated with changes in public consciousness. Spencer, on the contrary, focused on objective factors of social development. The typology of societies he proposed went beyond the evolutionary style of thinking. Hence its lesser popularity compared to the popular ideas of “synthetic philosophy”.
In his attempts to uncover the driving forces of social evolution, Spencer was never able to overcome the dilemma of nominalism and realism. On the one hand, he constantly emphasized the important role of “human nature”; on the other hand, he also referred to the action of supra-individual forces, the “social organism”, and the “artificial environment”. As a result, the concept
Spencer's factors of evolution were distinguished by extreme eclecticism and served as a source for the development of directly opposite sociological directions.
Spencer divides the totality of evolutionary factors into “primary” and “secondary”. The first includes factors of the geographical environment, the biological and mental constitution of the individual. The second is what Hegel called “second nature.” Although the action of habitual factors persists throughout the evolution of society, as it progresses, the role of “second nature,” i.e., culture, increases and becomes decisive. To the primary (natural) properties of a person are added qualities associated with participation in public life. However, this fruitful idea was not developed, since it contradicted the ahistorical principles of evolutionism, according to which history as such does not exist at all, but there is only the logic of the eternal laws of evolution that do not allow volitional intervention.
His philosophical system turned out to be too closely connected with the spiritual and intellectual atmosphere of the Victorian era. Another reason for the decline in Spencer's popularity was that the intellectual structure he created was the last attempt to create an all-encompassing philosophical system. This form of intellectual creativity finally became obsolete by the end of the 19th century. The social soil on which such systems grew disappeared with the development of science and the industrial mode of production. Spencer relied on a huge amount of factual material, most of which quickly became outdated. Nevertheless, Spencer’s desire to go beyond abstract reasoning about society and to widely use data from the social and natural sciences contributed to the formation of new standards of scientific activity in sociology. Spencer was a follower of Comte, but his teaching was fundamentally different in its orientation toward individualism and sociological nominalism. In Spencer's sociology the naturalistic tendency is much more pronounced. His entire theoretical system was full of internal contradictions.
Spencer's sociology was subjected to sharp criticism, which was not difficult, since the entire system was based on the general principle of evolutionism. With the refutation of this principle, the entire theoretical structure collapsed. In the history of sociology, Spencer's creative legacy is often assessed one-sidedly. However, unlike many evolutionists, Spencer never adhered to extreme biological interpretations of social phenomena. The principles of systemic analysis of society that he developed were of great importance, despite the imperfect
conceptual apparatus. Spencer contributed to the growth of interest in the study of primitive society, the study of the history of social institutions and the development of culture. In modern Western sociology, the attitude towards Spencer is ambiguous. Basically, the principles of classical evolutionism are assessed negatively. But with growing interest in the problems of social development, there is a revival of interest in the very idea of social evolution, in the creative heritage of Spencer, which was expressed in the formation of a special direction of “neo-evolutionism” (J. Steward, Dm. Shimkin, L. Chaim, T. Chaikhd, etc. .).
Since the 50s, along with the development of systematic methods and the emergence of neo-evolutionism, interest in the work of Spencer and other evolutionists began to increase. Historical justice requires recognizing that classical evolutionism had a significant impact on the spiritual and scientific life of its era, contributed to the introduction of social change issues into the social sciences, brought the social and natural sciences closer together, gave sociology the status of a science, and stimulated the development of a number of sociological schools and directions. Along with Marxism, this was the first experience of combining historical-evolutionary and structural-functional approaches to the analysis of social phenomena.
In the second half of the 19th century, a number of trends in social thought sought criteria for social life outside of it, in natural, biological factors of development. This was actively promoted by the achievements of natural science. The so-called naturalism in sociology arose. He relied on the methods and cognitive means of the natural sciences and on ideas about the unity of the laws of the history of nature and man.
The naturalistic orientation in sociology is primarily associated with the English sociologist and positivist Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). His teaching was called “social Darwinism.” It is based on two principles borrowed from Charles Darwin: the understanding of society as an organism and the idea of social evolution. Society essentially copies and reproduces a living organism, hence it is characterized by biological laws. Spencer tries to apply the latter to society. Darwin's law of the struggle for existence, derived for the biological environment, is considered in its social manifestation as the law of class struggle.
The identification of society with a biological organism led Spencer to a unique characterization of the elements of the structure of the social system. Thus, agriculture and industry, in his opinion, perform the function of nutrition, trade - blood circulation. The army is the skin (protective) cover, transport is the vessels, etc. The more developed such an organism is, the more complex it is. Each of its subsystems and structures performs specific functions. Thus, Spencer laid the foundations of structural functionalism and systems analysis.
Such concepts as system, functions, structure, institution were first introduced into sociology by Spencer. He also identified the types of social institutions, their integration and differentiation, and used evolutionism as a method of sociology. For the English sociologist, evolution is a universal process. It allows us to explain all changes in both nature, society, and individuals.
Based on the degree of integration, Spencer distinguished between simple and complex societies. He positioned societies between two poles: military societies and industrial societies. In military societies, brutal coercion is exercised, while in industrial societies, control and centralization are weaker. Development is moving along the path from military to industrial societies.
Spencer identified three phases of the “great evolution”: inorganic, organic and supraorganic. They smoothly transition into each other. Social evolution is part of supraorganic evolution, which involves the interaction of many individuals and coordinated collective activity. Such activity exceeds the capabilities of any individual action. At first, the social grows out of the simple addition of individual efforts, but then, as societies grow in size and complexity, it acquires its own character.
Naturalism in sociology helped to overcome unscientific religious interpretations of social problems, but identified the social and the natural. Spencer saw similarities between nature and society, but not differences between them. The presence of consciousness in an individual does not allow us to consider society simply as an organism. The idea of social Darwinism about the struggle for existence as the driving force of development is also not applicable to society. Society differs from nature in that it transforms the biological struggle for existence into its social security through production.
rationalistic theory concept cont
During Comte's lifetime, his ideas had no noticeable influence. Positivism in France existed not so much as a socio-philosophical movement, but rather as a sectarian-religious movement. Comte's recognition came from England, from J. Stuart Mill (1806-1873). It was in England that sociology found its second home. Because the spirit of positivism, with its focus on the methods of the exact sciences, “fit” perfectly into the traditions of English empiricism.
Of course, the transfer of Comte's sociology to English soil required certain changes in a number of provisions of his theory. The ideas of O. Comte, which grew out of Saint-Simonism, were imbued with the spirit of social messianism, alien to the sober English mind. O. Comte dreamed of reorganizing society in the spirit of his moral and religious principles, while English society of the mid-19th century was completely satisfied with the existing order.
The ideas associated with the naturalistic (organic) concept are most fully and widely presented and developed in the works of the English sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). G. Spencer shared Comte's basic view, according to which sociology, directly adjacent to biology, forms with it the “physics of organized bodies” and considers society as a kind of organism. True, Spencer places psychology between biology and sociology, but this did not have a noticeable impact on his idea of society. Spencer did not agree with Comte's idea that the entire social mechanism rests on opinions and that ideas rule the world and bring revolutions into the world.
In the tradition of positivist sociology, Spencer, based on the research of Charles Darwin, proposed using evolutionary theory to explain social change. However, in contrast to Comte, he focused not on what changes in society at different periods of human history, but on why social changes occur and why conflicts and disasters arise in society. In his opinion, all elements of the Universe - inorganic, organic and supraorganic (social) - evolve in unity. Sociology is called upon to study, first of all, supraorganic evolution, which is manifested in the number and nature of various kinds of social structures, their functions, what the activities of society are actually aimed at and what products it produces. In this regard, Spencer substantiates the postulate according to which changes occur in society as its members adapt either to the natural environment or to the social environment. As evidence and validity of his postulate, the scientist gives numerous examples of the dependence of the nature of human activity on the geography of the area, climatic conditions, population size, etc.
The central concept of Spencer's entire ideological concept is evolutionism. According to his definition, evolution is the integration of matter; it is evolution that transfers matter from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity into a definite connected homogeneity, that is, a social whole, where, however, this whole society cannot and should not absorb an individual. Hence, Spencer considers an essential dimension of social progress to be the transition from a society in which the individual is entirely subordinate to the social whole, to a state in which the social organism or society “serves” its constituent individuals. As he wrote:
“...The ideal to which we are moving is a society in which control will be brought to the smallest possible limits, and freedom will reach the greatest possible breadth.” No. 5 Kapitonov E. A. History of sociology, Rostov-on-Don, 2002
The main difference in social structures, according to Spencer, is whether the cooperation of people in achieving a common goal is voluntary or forced. He divides society into two types: “military” and “industrial”, to which these two types of human relations correspond.
“Spencer did not give a formal definition of sociology and its relationship to other social sciences. In general, he saw in sociology the science of “supraorganic” development, which simultaneously describes this process and formulates its laws. Moreover, he does not at all doubt the need for sociology as an independent science - a science free from various, including class, prejudices.
His work “Foundations of Sociology” (1877) was one of the first in terms of building an integral sociological system based on ethnographic material. He tries to theoretically reconstruct the physical, intellectual and especially religious life of primitive man, to find out the origin of his basic ideas and concepts.
Spencer paid much attention to clarifying and developing the conceptual apparatus of sociology. So he analyzes the concepts of society, social growth, social structure, social functions of various systems and organs of social life. We can say that he laid the foundation for the formation of the conceptual system of sociology, as well as the structural-functional method. This was largely facilitated by the analogies he drew between human society and a biological organism. Of course, he made a distinction between the biological organism and the processes of social life. Spencer saw the main meaning of the difference in the fact that in a living organism elements exist for the sake of the whole, in society - vice versa. As he noted: “Society exists for the benefit of its members, and it is not the members who exist for the benefit of society.”
An analysis of Spencer's "Principles of Sociology" shows that he sometimes in a purely external way combines views inspired by organic analogy with the results of comparative study, ethnographic and historical data, which are considered from an evolutionary point of view. This gives grounds to say that in reality Spencer’s sociology, its content and meaning are characterized not so much by organic analogy as by the application of the comparative method to the study of social phenomena. It is this that is Spencer’s initial basis for the development of his sociological concept.
It is impossible not to note the important point that the English thinker did not doubt the reality of the process of evolution. He considered the degree of differentiation and integration of a particular phenomenon to be an objective criterion of this process. The idea of identifying an objective criterion for the transition from lower to higher certainly had a positive meaning, since the development of any system presupposes the differentiation of its elements and at the same time their integration in a certain structure.
He saw the main factor of social development in the division of labor, which, according to Spencer, leads to the highest type of social structure - “industrial society”. In this regard, Spencer repeats the general scheme for the development of society expressed by Saint-Simon and Comte. However, Spencer’s idea of the paths and stages of development of society is much richer than Comte’s “social dynamics”, for they are based on a theoretical generalization of a very large socioethnographic material. Here Spencer was unsurpassed for a long time. He clearly showed how, under the influence of specific socio-natural conditions, namely: racial characteristics, historical background, specific customs, etc., the forms of individual societies and their social structures diversify.
Spencer scrupulously traces the evolution from simple societies to more complex ones and brings forward the idea of increasing differentiation and integration of social functions in the process of social development. Every developed society, according to Spencer, has three organ systems: productive, distributive and regulatory. The regulatory system, represented by the state, ensures the subordination of the component parts to the whole. He identified institutions (social institutions) as specific parts of society: domestic, ritual, political, church, professional and industrial. They are all the product of slow evolution.
Paradoxically, many considered Spencer a reactionary and an opponent of liberals. Spencer had his reasons for opposing the liberals. Here's what he wrote: “I don’t want to be counted among those who are now called liberals. At that time, when this word came into use, liberals were those who stood for the expansion of individual freedom in relation to the state. Whereas now liberals are consistently expanding the power of the state and limiting individual freedom.” And this, according to Spencer, inevitably leads back to a military (totalitarian, in modern language) type of society.
Spencer was an implacable opponent of socialism. He denied it both from the point of view of justice and from the point of view of benefit. In his work From Freedom to Slavery (1891), he wrote that “nothing but the slow improvement of human nature through the organization of social life can produce a favorable change. And my rejection of socialism is based on the conviction that socialism will stop the development of a highly developed state and reverse the development of a less developed one.”
Spencer was convinced that socialism in any form implied slavery. He considered forced labor to be a characteristic feature of slavery. The degree of slavery depends on how much the slave must give and how much he can keep for himself, and who his master is - an individual or society - does not matter in principle. If a person must give all his labor to society and receive from the common wealth only that part that society assigns to him, he is a slave of society. It is in the book “The Individual versus the State” that Spencer tries to warn humanity against the danger that threatens it.
English philosopher and positivist sociologist Herbert Spencer(1820-1903) is the founder organic school in sociology. Spencer's main sociological work is the three-volume work "Foundations of Sociology", which gives a holistic idea of the scientist's methodological principles and his views on society.
The essence of Spencer's organic theory lies in the understanding of society as a social organism, similar to a biological one and developing according to the same laws. Consistently drawing an analogy between social and biological organisms. Spencer identifies the following common features:
In support of these provisions, Spencer cited a number of specific analogies: the role of the brain in society is played by the government, blood circulation by trade, the vascular system by transport, nutrition by industry and agriculture, etc. At the same time, Spencer noted the difference between society and biological organisms: 1) in it the individual is less dependent on the social whole; 2) in biological organisms, elements exist for the sake of the whole, and society, consisting of individual individuals, serves the benefit of its members.
Closely connected with Spencer’s organic theory of society is his doctrine of universal evolution, which developed largely under the influence of the ideas of Charles Darwin. Spencer considered evolution as the highest law of everything that exists, as the source of any natural and social phenomenon. Its main points are the transitions from simple to complex (integration), from homogeneous to heterogeneous (differentiation), from indefinite to definite (increasing order).
Social evolution, according to Spencer, is part of the “general process of evolution.” Society develops from the simplest forms to more complex ones according to natural laws that are objective in nature.
In the course of social evolution, the institutions of society are improved and their functions become more complex. Spencer saw the main direction of social evolution in the increasing internal differentiation of society (increasing complexity of political organization, social stratification, the emergence of new institutions, etc.). Any highly organized society consists of three main systems: “productive”, “distributive” and “regulatory”. Each of these systems includes social institutions, by which Spencer meant “stable structures of social action.” For example, within the framework of the “regulatory system,” he identified institutions of social control, which included the state, church, family, rituals and traditions (“ceremonial institutions”). The entire system of social control, according to Spencer, rests on fear: “fear of the living” is supported by the state, and “fear of the dead” by the church.
Spencer considered the degree of strictness of social control and centralization of management to be one of the main criteria for classifying societies. Thus, he distinguished between “military” and “industrial” types of society. The first is characterized by strong centralized control and a hierarchical order of power. All life here is subject to discipline, and the cooperation of people in achieving common goals is forced. In “industrial” type societies, the management system becomes more flexible, forced cooperation gives way to voluntary cooperation, and power is seen as an expression of the general will of free citizens.
The "military" type of society, according to Spencer, reflects a lower level of social development compared to a society of the "industrial" type. He considered the transition from the first to the second as social progress. Over time, Spencer's concept of "unilinear" progress, i.e. continuous forward movement of society is modified into a theory of complicated “multilinear” evolution, which in some cases even suggests the possibility of social degradation.
Spencer highly valued competition as a mechanism for improving society, attributing to it the role of “natural selection.” By rewarding the most skillful and diligent workers, competition contributes not only to raising the intellectual and moral level of society, but also to increasing the volume of social wealth. Spencer believed that it was necessary to get rid of unfit members of society and the state should not interfere in this process.
Spencer, like Comte, was an opponent of revolutionary changes, believing that any intervention in the natural course of social development could result in unpredictable consequences. He also did not share socialist ideals, believing that their implementation would lead to the suppression of the individual, the imposition of egalitarianism (“encouraging the worst at the expense of the best”), and the growth of the bureaucratic apparatus in charge of the distribution and redistribution of public goods.
Spencer paid great attention to the development of the conceptual apparatus of sociology. He was the first to widely use such sociological categories as “social system”, “social institution”, “social function”, etc. He also has priority in justifying the relationship between changes in the social structure and differentiation of the functions of its constituent elements, the need to coordinate this process within special regulatory system.
By highlighting the study of the structure of society and the functions of its elements, G. Spencer laid the foundations of the structural-functional method, which later became widespread in sociology. This is precisely what determines, first of all, his merit in the development of sociological thought.
