Yellow Family on Spencer & Sumner, along with my own commentary

Below are the Yellow Family's remarks on Spencer and Sumner. I interjected some comments in parentheses. Also, I added some comments at the end of Yellow family's remarks:

Proposition 3 Spencer definitely agrees with. It says that society is made up of relationships and institutions and individuals are a part of this society and must fulfill society's needs through playing certain roles and occupying certain statuses. Spencer says, "Society becomes a separate entity as people take on specialized roles to fulfill social needs." (65) He means that the individuals in a society create a working society because they take on roles, such as doctors, lawyers, and even motherhood which allows others to do their jobs and provide services other persons cannot provide. It is a fact that these institutions exist, not just individuals, that creates our ability to live and function in what we know as society. (But Spencer would NOT agree with the first part of that proposition: "The individual is an abstraction..." -- more on this in my commentary below.)

Spencer agrees with Proposition 4 which states: "The parts of a society are interdependent and interrelated. Customs, beliefs, and institutions are organically intertwined so that changing or remaking one part will undermine the complex relationships maintaining the stability of society as a whole" reflects aspects of his organic analogy. This organic analogy says, "As the organizational structure increases the differentiation arises, the functions, or activities, of the parts become more specialized. But these different activities are interdependent -- that is, they are 'so related as to make one another possible.' In other words, the parts of society, like the parts of an organism, function to maintain the structure of the whole"(69). As the population increases within a growing industrial society, and people begin to diverge more with their occupations and practices, such specialization makes the variety of jobs necessary for an efficient society's operation. When people begin to narrow their focus to a few aspects of living, then they depend on others to provide the goods and services relied upon to function in society. For example, most people do not grow their own food, while farmers don't usually manufacture the trucks that carry their produce to market. In order for a growing society to continue its progress, people are needed to fill out the positions others cannot. Together, many specializations make up a complete society. (which sounds a lot like Durkheim's argument in The Division of Labor in Society)

Proposition 10 directly relates to the authors' analysis of Spencer and Sumner. The proposition states that: "The conservatives feared that equality would destroy the "natural" and time honored agencies by which values were passed on from one generation to another. Hierarchy was necessary to the family, the Church, and the State, without which social stability was impossible." Spencer promoted the idea of the laissez-faire doctrine. He believed in little government intervention, as opposed to institutions set up to create equality. Spencer believed that hierarchy within an institution would be established, but it would be established through natural processes. In society, Spencer says, "The law of organization dictated a 'function to each organ and each organ to its own function' in both the social and natural world." (65) Individuals all have different roles to perform; if they are allowed to perform these roles, a natural hierarchy, which is necessary for stability, will be established.

MOST RELEVANT point for Spencer and Sumner is the idea of "survival of the fittest"/laissez-faire doctrine. This is key in understanding the division of labor and how a modern society should work. (That is, a modern CAPITALIST society.) Spencer believed that a free market economy demonstrated progress towards peace and well-being. This idea is relevant because of its reality in today's marketplace. Spencer and Sumner believed that "Capitalism and industrialism, unfettered by government interference, were the motors of social progress." (88)...
(I would just add, that the "relevance" of this point is more relevance to capitalist IDEOLOGY, not necessarily the REALITY of contemporary capitalism, which has flourished in part due to government intevention and regulation.)

LEAST RELEVANT aspect of Spencer and Sumner for understanding modern society is their ideas of race and gender. They did not regard men and women as equal; in fact, Spencer says, "to regard men and women as mentally alike, is as untrue as that they are alike bodily" (74). This is clearly out of step with modern society. It seems like Spencer and Sumner were repeating the status quo of society at the time instead of challenging it. In regard to race, it is stated that "some societies or some individuals have not progressed as far or as fast, or in the same manner, as some others." (78) They refer to different races as "lesser breeds." This is clearly not acceptable in our modern society....All are valuable and vital members in our organic society, regardless of race and gender.


And now for some of my own commentary:

A. It is true that Spencer made ample use of the organic analogy; he saw sociology and biology as closely linked. BUT on p. 69 the authors list several similarities and DISSIMILARITIES between society and biological organisms. A fundamental difference hinges on the idea that the individual has more freedom than any part of the biological organism. Recognizing these differences is key to understanding how Spencer can embrace political individualism and laissez-faire economics, along with the more wholistic view of society as an organism. SEE ESPECIALLY PASSAGE FROM SPENCER QUOTED NEAR THE BOTTOM OF P. 79.

B. Spencer's views on women (and less so on race) bring up what I would argue is a serious weakness in his evolutionary and functional model of society and social change, which is that it puts him in the position of endorsing (or rationalizing) any aspect of the existing society and claiming it contributes to evolution and is functionally necessary.

1. Despite his initial position favoring equal rights for women, in the end he argued that women should accept their status based on their different biology. Women evolved to be child bearers and child rearers, not thinkers and leaders (as if their being locked out of leadership roles happened naturally). The fact is that social customs more than biology dictated what roles women could take.

2. And regarding race, although one might argue that Spencer's views on race have been misinterpreted -- that he did not promote the racial superiority of white Europeans -- he did argue against miscegenation (mixed-race unions) on bogus racist grounds. See bottom p. 78 - top p. 79.

C. And don't forget Sumner's "Social Darwinism" and how it also justified racial and gender inequality.



That's all for now. Make sure to incorporate the above comments in your notes for the class.