Jiwon+Spencer+D

media type="youtube" key="8v672dqdCD0" height="265" width="320"

Interviewer: Today we will be interviewing a REAL LIFE English philosopher prominent classical liberal political and sociological theorist, Herbert Spencer! Lets give him a warm welcome. Hello Mr.Spenacer

Spencer: Hello

Interviewer: It is a pleasure to meet you! It is great knowledge that you have created several ideas that have influenced various people. Such as your book, The Study of Sociology and The Principles of Psychology. Your idea on Social Darwinism has influenced various other people. What were some factors that happened in your childhood that influenced you?

Spencer: Well, in my childhood, I was the only person to survive infancy with my eight other siblings. In addition to that, I was strongly influenced by the individualism and views of my father, who was a school teacher, and the radical views of my uncle when I was a child. Then as I grew, being dissatisfied with being a teacher, engineer, and a railway worker, I worked as a journalist and a political writer. I became interested and involved in radical politics. Later, I was a writer and subeditor for The Economist. So, I first began expressing my ideas through magazines. Then I wrote letters arguing my opinions.

Interviewer: Ohh I see. Were there any particular people besides your family that inspired you?

Spencer: Ah yes! Other than my family, there were several others who have influenced me as well. As you may have guessed, my idea of social Darwinism was influenced by no other than Charles Darwin, who wrote his theory of evolution and applied it on evolution. Well, I applied it on humans instead. In addition to that, reading Thomas Malthus influenced me as well.

Interviewer: Yes, your idea of social Darwinism is one of your most well known. Could you tell us what main problem you were aiming to solve through your works?

Spencer: Survival of the fittest. Studying society was what I did the most. I applied Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and used them to people. However, my ideas caused much controversy and debate, and I spent a good part of my life having to try and protect them.

Interviewer: That is very good. What are some of the most significant points of your philosophy?

Spencer: I have made several points in my philosophy. One is that the government does more harm than it does good because they interfere with the society’s business too much. In addition to that, nothing should interfere with nature’s laws. My idea of social Darwinism is basically a theory that competition or ideas drives social evolution in humans

__**PRIMARY SOURCES**__ =Survival of the Fittest Applied to Human Kind= In common with its other assumptions of secondary offices, the assumption by a government of the office of Reliever--general to the poor, is necessarily forbidden by the principle that a government cannot rightly do anything more than protect. In demanding from a citizen contributions for the mitigation of distress--contributions not needed for the due administration of men's rights--the state is, as we have seen, reversing its function, and diminishing that liberty to exercise the faculties which it was instituted to maintain. Possibly, some will assert that by satisfying the wants of the pauper, a government is in reality extending his liberty to exercise his faculties. But this statement of the case implies a confounding of two widely different things. To enforce the fundamental law--to take care that every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man--this is the special purpose for which the civil power exists. Now insuring to each the right to pursue within the specified limits the objects of his desires without let or hindrance, is quite a separate thing from insuring him satisfaction.

Pervading all nature we may see at work a stern discipline, which is a little cruel that it may be very kind. That state of universal warfare maintained throughout the lower creation, to the great perplexity of many worthy people, is at bottom the most merciful provision which the circumstances admit of. The poverty of the incapable, the distresses that come upon the imprudent, the starvation of the idle, and those shoulderings aside of the weak by the strong, which leave so many "in shallows and in miseries," are the decrees of a large, farseeing benevolence. It seems hard that an unskilfulness which with all its efforts he cannot overcome, should entail hunger upon the artisan. It seems hard that a labourer incapacitated by sickness from competing with his stronger fellows, should have to bear the resulting privations. It seems hard that widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life or death. Nevertheless, when regarded not separately, but in connection with the interests of universal humanity, these harsh fatalities are seen to be full of the highest beneficence--the same beneficence which brings to early graves the children of diseased parents, and singles out the low-spirited, the intemperate, and the debilitated as the victims of an epidemic.
 * Source:** Herbert Spencer, "Social Statics," in J. Salwyn Schapiro, ed., //Liberalism: Its Meaning and History// (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1958), 136-137.

=Modern History Sourcebook: Herbert Spencer: Social Darwinism, 1857= //Herbert Spencer (1820­1903) was thinking about ideas of evolution and progress before Charles Darwin published// The Origin of Species //(1859). Nonetheless, his ideas received a major boost from Darwin's theories and the general application of ideas such as "adaptation" and "survival of the fittest" to social thought is known as "Social Darwinism". It would be possible to argue that human evolution showed the benefits of cooperation and community. Spencer, and Social Darwinists after him took another view. He believed that society was evolving toward increasing freedom for **individuals**; and so held that government intervention, ought to be minimal in social and political life.// //Here Spencer specifically discusses race and class.// The current conception of Progress is somewhat shifting and indefinite. Sometimes it comprehends little more than simple growth-as of a nation in the number of its members and the extent of territory over which it has spread. Sometimes it has reference to quantity of material products-as when the advance of agriculture and manufactures is the topic. Sometimes the superior quality of these products is contemplated; and sometimes the new or improved appliances by which they are produced. When again we speak of moral or intellectual progress, we refer to the state of the indivdual or people exhibiting it; whilst, when the progress of Knowledge, of Science, of Art, is commented upon, we have in view certain abstract results of human thought and action. Not only, however, is the current conception of Progress more or less vague, but it is in great measure erroneous. It takes in not so much the reality of Progress as its accompaniments-not so much the substance as the shadow. That progress in intelligence which takes place during the evolution of the child into the man, or the savage into the philosopher, is commonly regarded as consisting in the greater number of facts known and laws understood: whereas the actual progress consist in the produce of a greater quantity and variety of articles for the satisfaction of men's wants; in the increasing security of person and property; in the widening freedom of action enjoyed whereas, rightly understood, social progress consists in those changes of structure in the social organism which have entailed these consequences The current conception is a teleological one. The phenomena are contemplated solely as bearing on human happiness. Only those changes t are held to constitute progress which directly or indirectly tend to heighten human happiness. And they are thought to constitute progress simply //because// they tend to heighten human happiness. But rightly to understand Progress, we must inquire what is the nature of these changes, considered apart from our interests. Ceasing, for example, to regard the successive geological modifications that have taken place in the Earth, as modifications that have gradually fitted it for the habitation of Man, and as therefore a geological progress, we must seek to determine the character common to these modifications-the law to which they all conform. And similarly in every other case. Leaving out of sight concomitants and beneficial consequences, let us ask what Progress is in itself. In respect to that progress which individual organisms display in the course of their evolution, this question has been answered by the Germans. The investigations of Wolff, Goethe, and Van Baer have established the truth that the series of changes gone through during the development of a seed into a tree, or an ovum into an animal, constitute an advance from homogeneity of structure to heterogeneity of structure. In its primary stage, every germ consists of a substance that is uniform throughout, both in texture and chemical composition. The first step in its development is the appearance of a difference between two parts of this substance; or, as the phenomenon is described in physiological language-a differentiation. Each of these differentiated divisions presently begins itself to exhibit some contrast of parts; and by these secondary differentiations become as definite as the original one. This progress is continuously repeated-is simultaneously going on in all parts of the growing embryo; and by endless multiplication of these differentiations there is ultimately produced that complex combination of tissues and organs constituting the adult animal or plant. This is the course of evolution followed by all organisms whatever. It is settled beyond dispute that organic progress consists in a change from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous. Now, we propose in the first place to show, that this law of organic progress is the law of all progress. Whether it be in the development of the Earth, in the development of Life upon its surface, the development of Society, of Government, of Manufactures, of Commerce, of Language, Literature, Science, Art, this same evolution of the simple into the complex, through a process of continuous differentiation, holds throughout. From the earliest traceable cosmical changes down to the latest results of civilization, we shall find that the transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous, is that in which Progress essentially consists.... Whether an advance from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous is or is not displayed in the biological history of the globe, it is clearly enough displayed in the progress of the latest and most heterogeneous creature-Man. It is alike true that, during the period in which the Earth has been peopled, the human organism has become more heterogeneous among the civilized divisions of the species ­ and that the species, as a whole, has been growing more heterogeneous in virtue of the multiplication of races and the differentiation of these races from each other.... .... In the course of ages, there arises, as among ourselves, a highly complex political organization of monarch, ministers, lords and commons, with their subordinate administrative departments, courts of justice, revenue offices, &c., supplemented in the provinces by municipal governments, county governments, parish or union governments - all of them more or less elaborated. By its side there grows up a highly complex religious organization, with its various grades of officials from archbishops down to sextons, its colleges, convocations, ecclesiastical courts, &c.; to all which must be added the ever­multiplying independent sects, each with its general and local authorities. And at the same time there is developed a highly complex aggregation of customs manners, and temporary fashions, enforced by society at large, and serving to control those minor transactions between man and mar which are not regulated by civil and religious law. Moreover it is to be observed that this ever­increasing heterogeneity in the governmental appliances of each nation, has been accompanied by an increasing heterogeneity in the governmental appliances of different nations all o which are more or less unlike in their political systems and legislation in their creeds and religious institutions, in their customs and ceremonial usages. Simultaneously there has been going on a second differentiation of a still more familiar kind; that, namely, by which the mass of the community has become segregated into distinct classes and orders of workers. While the governing part has been undergoing the complex development above described, the governed part has been undergoing an equally complex development, which has resulted in that minute division of labour characterizing advanced nations. It is needless to trace out this progress from its first stages, up through the caste divisions of the East and the incorporated guilds of Europe, to the elaborate producing and distributing organization existing among ourselves. Political economists have made familiar to all, the evolution which, beginning with a tribe whose members severally perform the same actions each for himself, ends with a civilized community whose members severally perform different actions for each other; and they have further explained the evolution through which the solitary producer of any one commodity, is transformed into a combination of producers who united under a master, take separate parts in the manufacture of such commodity. But there are yet other and higher phases of this advance from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous in the industrial structure of the social organism. Long after considerable progress has been made in the division of labour among different classes of workers, there is still little or no division of labour among the widely separated parts of the community: the nation continues comparatively homogeneous in the respect that in each district the same occupations are pursued. But when roads and other means of transit become numerous and good, the different districts begin to assume different functions, and to become mutually dependent. The calico manufacture locates it self in this county, the woollen­cloth manufacture in that; silks are produced here, lace there; stockings in one place, shoes in another; pottery, hardware, cutlery, come to have their special towns; and ultimately every locality becomes more or less distinguished from the rest by the leading occupation carried on in it. Nay, more, this subdivision of functions shows itself not only among the different parts of the same nation, but among different nations. That exchange of commodities which free­trade promises so greatly to increase, will ultimately have the effect of specializing, in a greater or less degree, the industry of each people. So that beginning with a barbarous tribe, almost if not quite homogeneous in the functions of its members, the progress has been, and still is, towards an economic aggregation of the whole human race, growing ever more heterogeneous in respect of the separate functions assumed by separate nations, the separate functions assumed by the local sections of each nation, the separate functions assumed by the many kinds of makers and traders in each town, and the separate functions assumed by the workers united in producing each commodity. Not only is the law thus clearly exemplified in the evolution of the social organism, but it is exemplified with equal clearness in the evolution of all products of human thought and action; whether concrete or abstract, real or ideal… We might trace out the evolution of Science; beginning with the era in which it was not yet differentiated from Art, and was, in union with Art, the handmaid of Religion; passing through the era in which the sciences were so few and rudimentary, as to be simultaneously cultivated by the same philosophers; and ending with the era in which the genera and species are so numerous that few can enumerate them, and no one can adequately grasp even one genus. Or we might do the like 0 with Architecture, with the Drama, with Dress. But doubtless the reader is already weary of illustrations; and our promise has been amply fulfilled. We believe we have shown beyond question, that that which the German physiologists have found to be the law of organic development, is the law of all development. The advance from the simple to the complex, through a process of successive differentiations, is seen alike in the earliest changes of the Universe to which we can reason our way back, and in the earliest changes which we can inductively establish; it is seen in the geologic and climatic evolution of the Earth, and of every single organism on its surface; it is seen in the evolution of Humanity, whether contemplated in the civilized individual, or in the aggregation of races; it is seen in the evolution of Society in respect both of its political and economical organization; and it is seen in the evolution of all those endless concrete and abstract products of human activity which constitute the environment of our daily life. From the remotest past which Science can fathom, down to the novelties of yesterday, that in which Progress essentially consists, is the transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous.
 * From Herbert Spencer.** //Progress: Its Law and Cause//
 * Source**: Herbert Spencer: "Progess: Its Law and Causes", //The Westminster Review//, Vol 67 (April 1857), pp 445-447, 451, 454-456, 464-65

Bibliography 1.Herbert Spencer: "Progess: Its Law and Causes", //The Westminster Review//, Vol 67 (April 1857), pp 445-447, 451, 454-456, 464-65 2. Herbert Spencer, "Social Statics," in J. Salwyn Schapiro, ed., //Liberalism: Its Meaning and History// (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1958), 136-137. 3. "Herbert Spencer [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." __The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - IEP__. 10 Dec. 2008 .

DBQ 1. What is the fundamental law and how do you enforce it? 2. How is work at stern discipline both cruel and kind?