While Smith, Malthus and Ricardo were the advocates of economic and laissez-faire individualism; Bentham of philosophical and political individualism; Herbert Spencer provided sociological ground for laissez-faire individualism. Will Durant in his The Story of Philosophy, writes, ‘his (Spencer’s) interest is predominantly in the problems of economics and government; he begins and ends, like Plato, with discourses on moral and political justice’.25 And Durant adds, ‘no man not even Comte (founder of the science and maker of the word sociology) has done so much for sociology’.
In our discussion on the Organismic theory, we have seen Herbert Spencer applying methods of biology in understanding society in terms of an analogy between society and natural organism. He drew a parallel between the evolution and growth of a social structure and biological organism. These parallels were to be organs of nutrition, circulation, coordination and reproduction. The conclusion Spencer drew was that development of society carried out the formula of evolution that individual/biological being is subject to. This evolution was visible all round: political unit—family to state; economic unit—domestic industry to monopolies; and population unit—from village to city. However, there was an integration of all this. In identifying the stages of evolution of society, Spencer identifies three distinct categories corresponding to three value systems. These three stages of society are—priestly/spiritual, military and industrial regimes, corresponding to three value systems of religious-spiritual, regimental-authoritarian and rational-scientific ethics. Further, this evolution for Spencer also represented evolution from ‘status to contract, as Henry Maine would say, and also to the belief that State exists for the benefit of the individual and not vice-versa. The individual in an industrial society was a self-contracting free individual.
In assuming evolution, Spencer was led to believe that it was the principle of ‘survival of the fittest’ that should apply to individual existence as Charles Darwin in his The Origin of the Species said it applied to evolution of living organisms. On the other hand, he concluded, as Adam Smith would, that state interference in intricate industrial situation would be inimical. Economic relations must be left to the automatic self-adjustment of supply and demand. He also opposed the government attempting equality principle.
Armed with these assumptions and parallels, Spencer advocated laissez-faire individualism. The main points may be listed as follows:
- Evolution of society is towards liberty of the individual and survival of the fittest
- ‘Struggle for existence’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ require non-interference of the State in economic activities
- The State should not seek to bring forced or compulsory equality
- The State, at best, can be a ‘joint stock company for mutual assurance’ and should not undertake public health or provide relief to poor as that would amount to interference with the principle of evolution26
- Non-interference by the State is also justified on the grounds of survival of the fittest
In short, Spencer supported negative liberty, laissez-faire individualism and ultra-minimalist state. In the words of Durant, ‘He (Spencer) never tired of reiterating his arguments against state-interference; he objected to state-financed education, or to governmental protection of citizens against fraudulent finances; at one time he argued that even the management of war should be a private, not a state, concern.’27 Thus, his is a state of rich-educated, on the one hand and ignorant, on the other, fraud financiers on the one hand and helpless citizens, on the other, and above all a state of mercenaries. It seems, if analogy of biological organism is to fit with social organism, as Spencer would like, then industrial society should be integration of each organ and parts as a body. It is intriguing, then, why Spencer advocated liberal society based on individual heterogeneity instead of centralized state.
Leave a Reply