Social Evolutionism – Comte, Spencer, Marx, Engels
New concepts of religion and science gave rise to the concepts of sociology and
anthropology which in turn raised questions relating to why there were different
societies and to the idea of social evolution.
Within social evolution was preserved the same themes that had occupied
enlightenment thinkers, specifically the idea of stages of development and the idea
that knowledge of human societies must be based on principles of modern science. It
was believed that studying the objects of science might lead to a unity in scientific
knowledge and the discovery of universal laws of development. This became a central
theme in the development of C19 sociology and anthropology.
Marx, Engels, Comte and Spenser are seen as the founders of modern sociology – the
idea of society as objects of scientific knowledge. It is with these that the conception
of primitive mentality and primitive mind came about and following on from that the
idea of modern society evolving out of the primitive one. The principle motivation for
these ideas was to explain why the West is distinct from other societies in terms of
thought and development, and consequently what is distinct about its science and
reason.
St. Simone argued that science should be applied to social problems and that society
should eventually be run by technocrats. The science of man was possible and
necessary to deal with the problems of modern society. These problems were the
result of the drives of individuals (Hobbesian) and that consequently questions about
society could be reduced to the psychology of individuals
Comte rejected this account. Society could not be reduced to individuals to be
understood as a system of independent parts to be studied on their own terms. Instead
he attempted to define the science of society (“social physics”) – sociology. This was
to be the study of social systems and their effects on men and to be concerned with
how societies develop/change/evolve.
To understand how societies work we need to look at the system of interdependent
parts using a biological analogy.
Societies evolve but what leads societies to change/transform. It is caused by changes
in the human mind. The difference between societies is the result of different kinds of
mentality – how different societies think and act.
Comte argues for the law of three stages of evolution in human societies –
Theological, Metaphysical and Positive.
1. Theological. Explained by reference to the supernatural, but manifested within
human experience.
2. Metaphysical. Turns away from the supernatural and seeks explanations by
means of abstract ideas and forces that govern the World.
3. Positive. Sees the World as a specific process to be understood as a result of
discoverable laws and empirical investigation – the methods of modern
science.
The transformation in mentalities is tied in to different social institutions and practices
each related to the stages above
1. Priests, a martial character, slavery
2. Development of knowledge about law and its natural character
3. Modern scientific thought, technology and the institutions that support them.
(Included within these are population growth, environmental changes etc)
There are a complex set of dynamics at work. Societies are seen as evolving and also
progressing from primitive to modern/rational/complex.
Herbert Spenser (and J.S. Mill)
Both Spenser and Mill were influenced by the positivist ideas of Comte and especially
his notion of sociology. Spenser is often thought of as the primary social Darwinist.
However The Origins of Species was published in 1859 by which time Spencer had
already worked out most of his ideas on progress, and his account of evolution is
essentially different to that of Darwin.
He saw the drive for social evolution as a cosmic principle applying to all matter, life
and societies. Evolution was seen as governing everything. A constant process of
differentiation and interrogation during which things get increasingly more complex
and where systems of all types become more integrated with different parts working
together to ensure survival, that the parts of a system are interdependent.
Spenser saw this as a system of “synthetic philosophy” – a unity to explain
everything, in which the philosophical principle was that the course of life always has
more than one effect and it was this effect that characterised the physical world.
The process of differentiation that we see in human society is one of individuationwe become more different as we take on more roles and as a consequence are better
able to fulfil our potential in life.
The freedom that this engenders is not however anarchic. It is only possible because
of the dependence on other individuals in specific roles. It is this dependence that
allows the fulfilment of many different roles in that it gives rise to multiple
opportunities.
Freedom to maximise happiness requires being part of a complex interdependent
system.
Passage through earlier stages is a requirement for progress to further stages.
Primitive societies are engrossed in survival and reproduction. The need for social
interaction leads to the recognition of the benefits this can have for the whole of
society. Spencer saw this as primarily a response to population pressure (Malthus) and
the need to find innovative ways of food, consumer product production and
population control. These force men to adopt social forms of living leading to the
initiation of the State, to co-operation, mass production and the need for population
control.
The idea of adaptation is necessary for survival in an environmental context, the
adaptations being passed on to later generations through acquired characters.
It is in this that Spenser differs from Darwin; that natural selection is not a theory
about progress and/or development in any direction; it is about descent with
modifications; that with regard to environmental context, variation is the differing
through generations which leads to adaptation.
The environment is essential for selecting adaptation. It is not about achieving
perfection/complexity or heterogeneity, evolution is random, it is about how things
change not about how they progress towards perfection.
Spenser’s ideas of transmission are drawn from LeMarck – that change is the result of
the passage of acquired characteristics from one generation to another. Spenser sees
evolution as purpose in the universe. Consequently he sees modern society as part of
the process of evolution. His support of laissez-faire ideas and private property rights
are in line with his attempt to portray the individual as distinct while different. A
theme echoed throughout the C19 in Victorian liberal capitalist ideas.
Marx
Was not fond of, but nevertheless praised capitalism because it destroyed superstition
and effected change. The early stages of society were seen as necessary for progress
to the later stages which do not end with capitalism but with communism.
The historical development of society (materialism) could only be understood on the
basis of organized production, which implied the creation of an economic structure.
How then does society change? For Marx the essential driver was technology leading
to the higher development of the forces of production which in turn lead to the
increased development of society. Certain kinds of productive technology fit with
certain class relations. Bourgeois dominance is the result of change in the European
economy away from feudalism to wage labour and capital. Changes in the means of
production in turn lead to changed class relations. Modern industrial production
makes the industrial working class increasingly powerful until at some point they
seize power and bring about the classless society.
Marx theory of social evolution is determined by a law related to productive
development and growth.
Engels
Engels book “Origins of the Family…” was central to Marxist anthropology. In it we
see historical materialism applied to primitive societies.
The book is principally based on L.H. Morgans work “Ancient Societies”. Primitive
societies are seen as promiscuous and descendant through the matrilineal chain. The
emergence of private property is the result of conflict among offspring and the desire
by men to transfer property to their sons. This in turn leads to the overthrow of
matriarchy in favour of patriarchy and essential changes in the character of kinship
and family life. The need for support and protection for these acquired property rights
leads to the emergence of the State.
The nature and character of primitive society was universal to all thinkers of the time
with no thought given to the complexity and differentiation that might be present or to
the differences that arise between geographic areas. These were ignored principally
because of the acceptance of the concept of civilization as arising out of primitive
society. As a consequence there was no or little attempt to compare the similarities
between modern civilized life and life in primitive societies