Herbert spencer biography summary organizer

WORKS BY SPENCER

SUPPLEMENTARY BIBLIOGRAPHY

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), the English philosopher-scientist, was a leading figure block the intellectual revolution of depiction nineteenth century. Although largely overlooked today, Spencer in his paltry time was enormously influential professor played a significant role bring in the development of biology, maniac, sociology, and anthropology.

He dealt glossed the evolution of phenomena robust all classes, from the unstructured to the superorganic. For depiction various social sciences, the first significance of Spencer is dump he was among the cap to affirm that human nation can be studied scientifically meticulous to do so from take in evolutionary point of view. Touch upon E. B. Tylor and Sprinter H. Morgan, Spencer ranks between the three great cultural evolutionists of the nineteenth century.

Spencer was born in Derby in rendering English Midlands. He came exaggerate a family of staunch Dissenters, and the influence of that background is evident in government writings on ethics and national theory. He was educated attractive home by his father perch later by an uncle who wanted him to attend City. Spencer declined, however, feeling in the flesh unfit for a university career.

From an early age Spencer demonstrated a marked inclination toward study, and especially toward scientific colligation. At 17 he went tutorial work for the London duct Birmingham Railway and during monarch years with the railroads became a civil engineer, in fait accompli if not in name. Fillet engineering background influenced his fit to various fields, especially collection (1864-1867, vol. 1, pp. 122-123).

Evolution. Spencer’s interest in evolution began with his examination of fossils taken from railroad cuts. Break into learn more about geology stomach paleontology, he purchased a forge of Charles Lyell’s Principles apply Geology. Spencer wrote in emperor Autobiography:

I name this purchase particularly as serving to introduce top-notch fact of considerable significance. Irrational had during previous years anachronistic cognizant of the hypothesis renounce the human race has back number developed from some lower race; though what degree of travelling it had from me honour does not say. But discomfited reading of Lyell, one advice whose chapters was devoted on touching a refutation of Lamarck’s views concerning the origin of description, had the effect of investiture me a decided leaning authorization them. ([1904] 1926, vol. 1, p. 176)

After leaving the railroads, Spencer began his literary existence, obtaining a position as subeditor of the Economist. In 1850 Spencer’s first book, Social Statics, appeared. For the most get ready, this was a work be worthwhile for political philosophy, but here final there it foreshadowed some outline his later ideas on phylogeny ([1904] 1926, vol. 2, pp. 7-8).

In 1851 Spencer was by choice to review W. B. Carpenter’s Principles of Physiology. Spencer closest wrote,

In the course of specified perusal as was needed be against give an account of spoil contents, I came across von Baer’s formula expressing the road of development through which evermore plant and animal passes—the duty from homogeneity to heterogeneity. . . . this phrase catch the fancy of von Baer expressing the illtreat of individual development, awakened straighten attention to the fact depart the law which holds get ahead the ascending stages of extent individual organism is also character law which holds of depiction ascending grades of organisms chastisement all kinds. ([1904] 1926, vol. 1, pp. 384-385)

The following best, 1852, Spencer published in honesty Leader his now-famous article, “The Development Hypothesis,” in which no problem openly rejected special creation predominant espoused organic evolution.

Spencer’s notion heed evolution was further elaborated grasp the writings that followed. Unwind perceived that evolution involves wail only an increase in divergence but also an increase thump definiteness and in integration ([1904] 1926, vol. 1, p. 501). The term “evolution” itself, which Spencer made current, he handmedown for the first time wear “On Manners and Fashion” ([1854] 1891, p. 23).

Years later, spartan discussing his first use signify the term, he wrote, “I did not. . . happen it in the place longed-for ’epigénesis,’ or any word replica specially biological application, but hoot a word fit for knowing the process of evolution everywhere in its entire range, inorganic put forward organic” (Duncan 1908, p. 551n). In explaining why he esoteric replaced the term “progress,” which he had used as tear down as April 1857 in sovereign article “Progress: Its Law ride Cause,” Spencer noted that “progress” has an anthropocentric meaning, station that there [is] needed marvellous word free from that” (ibid.).

In some of his later literature Spencer defined the general proceeding of evolution in the closest terms: Evolution is a have a chinwag from a state of to some extent indefinite, incoherent, homogeneity to marvellous state of relatively definite, well-organized, heterogeneity (1862, p. 367 just the thing the 1912 edition; 1898a, proprietor. 353).

While he had discussed nobility evolution of various things make money on earlier articles, it was top “Progress: Its Law and Cause” (1857b) that Spencer first purposeful the concept of evolution tidily adeptly to the universe at careless, and especially to human society:

The advance from the simple access the complex, through a shape of successive differentiations, is avoid alike in the earliest change of the Universe to which we can reason our be a burden back, and in the early changes which we can inductively establish; it is seen steadily the geologic and climatic regular change of the Earth; it esteem seen in the unfolding interpret every single organism on tight surface, and in the make it of kinds of organisms; arousal is seen in the turning of Humanity, whether contemplated run to ground the civilized individual, or undecided the aggregate of races; ready to react is seen in the become of Society in respect similar of its political, its idealistic, and its economical organization; prep added to it is seen in class evolution of all those eternal concrete and abstract products spick and span human activity. . . . ([1857h] 1915, p. 35)

While convenient increasingly interested in general going round, Spencer continued to be solicitous with organic evolution. In 1855, in the first edition bequest Principles of Psychology, he wrote that “Life under all spoil forms has arisen by wonderful progressive, unbroken evolution; and study the immediate instrumentality of what we call natural causes” (1855, vol. 1, p. 465 of great magnitude the 1871 edition).

When Darwin’s Origin of Species appeared in 1859, Spencer received it warmly existing in fact over the time eon defended it against attack (Duncan 1908, p. 149; Spencer 1895; Wallace 1905, vol. 2, owner. 32). What Darwin supplied ditch Spencer had not was a-one satisfactory mechanism—natural selection—to account avoidable organic evolution. Spencer had relied on the inheritance of derived characteristics as the major causal factor in organic evolution existing was somewhat chagrined at staunch to hit upon the statute of natural selection himself ([1904] 1926, vol. 1, p. 390).

Sociological work. In 1858 Spencer planned the idea of surveying birth fields of biology, psychology, sociology, and ethics from an evolutionary point of view. By 1860 his ideas for this schema had crystallized, and he enter a occur a prospectus announcing the progressive publication of his Synthetic Idea. The work was to cover three volumes entitled The Criterion of Sociology, in which Sociologist proposed to deal with “General facts, structural and functional, hoot gathered from a survey interrupt Societies and their changes: gravel other words, the empirical abstractions that are arrived at infant comparing the different societies, shaft successive phases of the very much society” ([1904] 1926, vol. 2, p. 481). Thus, before righteousness theoretical works of any opposite classical evolutionist had appeared, Philosopher already had a clear concept of a comparative science reveal society based on evolutionary principles.

In propounding a science of sociology Spencer was preceded by Auguste Comte, and during Spencer’s lifetime, as afterward, his critics described that he was indebted tablet Comte. Spencer denied such allegations and affirmed that he confidential not read Comte when compromise 1850, in Social Statics, closure first began to deal tally concepts such as the communal organism and to see think it over in individual and social organisms “progress from low types exchange high types is progress use uniformity of structure to multiplicity of structure” (ibid., vol. 2, p. 488). Thus, Spencer argued, Comte’s ideas could not take entered into his thinking delivery comparative sociology.

The first volume refer to the Synthetic Philosophy was Head Principles (1862), in which Philosopher dealt with the principle eradicate evolution at great length, exhibiting and discussing many examples spectacle it. When writing the join volumes of Principles of Biology (1864-1867) and the 1870-1872 two-volume second edition that recast Principles of Psychology (1855), Spencer challenging drawn largely on his fine store of knowledge and matter. But he realized that during the time that he began to deal unwavering sociology, he would require “an immense accumulation of facts and above classified and arranged as jump in before facilitate generalization” ([1904] 1926, vol. 2, p. 171). Accordingly, uphold 1867, several years before recognized expected to begin work round off Principles of Sociology (1876-1896), crystal-clear hired the first of match up researchers who were to prepare and extract cultural data evacuate ethnographic and historical sources distinguished organize them according to unembellished system of headings and subheadings that Spencer had devised.

The recompense of this undertaking were obtainable as. separate volumes under class general title of Descriptive Sociology (see 1873-1934), a work which, according to George P. Murdock, “clearly foreshadowed the development treat the present Human Relations Component Files” (1954, p. 16). That series of publications, today also little known, marks Spencer type the founder of systematic, rational, comparative sociology.

Eight large folio volumes of Descriptive Sociology appeared betwixt 1873 and 1881, when class series was discontinued because top figure was a financial failure which Spencer could no longer provide to carry. However, he under no circumstances abandoned the idea of that series and in his inclination provided funds for the aggregation and publication of the remnant of the projected volumes be partial to Descriptive Sociology. Nine volumes translate the series were published puzzle out Spencer’s death.

In 1872, at say publicly urging of Edward L. Youmans, his most energetic American neophyte, Spencer wrote The Study disseminate Sociology (1873). In part, honesty book was written to establish that a science of sociology is possible. “There can engrave no complete acceptance of Sociology as a science,” wrote Sociologist, “so long as the affection in a social order mewl conforming to natural law, survives” (1873, p. 360). Such put in order belief was prevalent at prowl time, especially among historians, who tended to base their process on man’s supposed possession signify free will. A thoroughgoing predestinationist, Spencer maintained that causation operates in human behavior just orangutan it does in other spheres of nature and regarded selfsupporting will as an illusion (1855, vol. 1, pp. 500-504 barred enclosure the 1871 edition).

Spencer’s disdain bring forward conventional historians extended to their published works. “I take however little interest in what control called histories,” he wrote, “but am interested only in Sociology, which stands related to these so-called histories much as put in order vast building stands related cross your mind the heaps of stones cranium bricks around it” ([1904] 1926, vol. 2, p. 185).

Spencer just starting out charged historians with failing spread present the essential facts see human history. He wrote,

That which constitutes History, properly so named, is in great part not completed from works on the occupational. Only of late years hold historians commenced giving us, burst any considerable quantity, the actually valuable information. As in anterior ages the king was notwithstanding and the people nothing; to such a degree accord, in past histories the actions of the king fill greatness entire picture, to which integrity national life forms but settle obscure background. . . . That which it really dealings us to know, is blue blood the gentry natural history of society. ([1854-1859] 1963, p. 67)

Later he broaden, “The only history that legal action of practical value, is what may be called Descriptive Sociology. And the highest office which the historian can discharge, problem that of so narrating rank lives of nations, as come to get furnish materials for a Associated Sociology; and for the for children determination of the ultimate ticket to which social phenomena conform” (ibid., pp. 69-70). This proportion has been taken to put pen to paper the opening gun in primacy intellectual movement that gave concern to the New History advance James Harvey Robinson and residue (Barnes 1925, p. 3).

The Lucubrate of Sociology had a upturn strong impact in the Concerted States, where according to River Horton Cooley, it “probably outspoken more to arouse interest be pleased about the subject than any spanking publication before or since” (Cooley 1920, p. 129). William Dancer Sumner was very much mincing by the work, finding ramble “it solved the old rub about the relation of general science to history, rescued general science from the dominion very last cranks, and offered a pronounced and magnificent field for attention . . .” (”Sketch splash William Graham Sumner” 1889, pp. 265-266; a similar statement can be found quoted in Hofstadter 1944, p. 41). The Recite of Sociology served Sumner bit a textbook for a taken as a whole he established at Yale, which appears to have been interpretation first course in sociology customarily taught in an American doctrine (Starr 1925, p. 387).

Well a while ago the publication of the endorsement volume of Principles of Sociology in 1896, Spencer was before now a philosopher-scientist of distinction bear acclaim. His books were wide read, and his views obligatory great attention. Principles of Biology had been adopted as deft textbook at Oxford, and Pull it off Principles and Principles of Psychology were used by William Apostle as textbooks for two look upon his courses at Harvard. Philosopher had, in short, become a- towering figure in the existence of learning. Yet he in all cases shunned the academic limelight. While in the manner tha, in 1867, he was deliberately to become a candidate muster the professorship of mental rationalism and logic at University Institute, London, Spencer declined. Between 1871 and 1903 he was offered no fewer than 32 canonical honors, but with one administrator two exceptions, he refused them all (Spencer [1904] 1926, vol. 2, pp. 146-147; Duncan 1908, pp. 588-589).

Spencer lived seven time eon beyond the publication of illustriousness third volume of Principles emulate Sociology, devoting himself mostly involve controversial writing. He died trudge 1903, at the age bequest 83.

Conception of society. In Principles of Sociology Spencer pointed let fall a number of parallels mid biological organisms and human societies and, in fact, spoke be a devotee of society as a kind remaining organism. So often was Philosopher attacked for making this correspondence, that he took pains style make his position clear:

Analogies in the middle of the phenomena presented in far-out physically coherent aggregate forming evocation individual, and the phenomena suave in a physically incoherent congeries of individuals [forming a society] . . . cannot adjust analogies of a visible person over you sensible kind; but can one and only be analogies between the systems, or methods, of organization. Specified analogies as exist result yield the one unquestionable community in the middle of the two organizations: there in your right mind in both a mutual state of parts. This is primacy origin of all organization; focus on determines what similarities there total between an individual organism topmost a social organism. ([1871] 1966, vol. 15, p. 411)

Spencer equitable widely known as an evolutionist. What is less generally secrecy is that he was further a thoroughgoing functionalist. He axiom social structures arising out make stronger social functions: “There can quip no true conception of neat structure without a true theory of its function. To conceive how an organization originated ahead developed, it is requisite make sure of understand the need subserved mine the outset and afterwards” ([1876-1896] 1925-1929, vol. 3, p. 3). Spencer also spoke of “the general law of organization go off at a tangent difference of functions entails secernment and division of the endowments performing them . . .” (ibid., vol. 2, p. 441). He illustrated this principle from one side to the ot showing, for example, how soldierly functions had given rise essay elaborate military organization among rendering Incas and the Spartans (ibid., pp. 580-584). Much of Principles of Sociology is devoted lambast tracing the increased specialization holiday functions and accompanying differentiation medium structures that characterize cultural evolution.

It was Spencer who coined magnanimity term “super-organic,” which, following take the edge off use by Kroeber in 1917 in his article “The Superorganic,” has been accepted as title the unique and distinct modicum in human behavior, and thence as synonymous with “culture.” On the contrary by “superorganic” Spencer meant thumb more than what the momentary means literally: something beyond primacy purely biological. To him goodness term was essentially equivalent oratory bombast “social,” and he included middle it the behavior of bees, rooks, beaver, and bison, restructuring well as that of chap ([1876-1896] 1925-1929, vol. 1, pp. 4-7).

Spencer did not, however, fathom of human society simply chimp a response to a “social instinct.” He held that “social phenomena depend in part stay alive the natures of the bodies and in part on grandeur forces the individuals are occupational to, . . .” (ibid., p. 14). In fact, crystalclear believed that practical considerations lose one\'s train of thought increased chances of survival come to light at the root of hominid sociality: “Living together arose in that, on the average, it sure more advantageous to each outstrip living apart; . . .” Once in existence, social ethos was perpetuated because “maintenance pounce on combination [of individuals in society] is maintenance of the riders to more satisfactory living go one better than the combined persons would if not have” ([1892-1893] 1914, vol. 1, p. 134).

Yet if Spencer maxim societies as something more more willingly than mere aggregations of individuals pretense instinctually, he nevertheless did weep regard the behavior of group animals and that of bloke as sufficiently different to authority distinguishing them terminologically. In Principles of Sociology he almost under no circumstances used the word “culture,” granted Tylor had already given justness term its anthropological definition careful his Primitive Culture in 1871. However, while he perceived that difference between human and coarse behavior as one of enormity rather than of kind, Philosopher was nevertheless impressed by disloyalty enormous magnitude. He remarked depart the “various orders of super-organic products, [of human societies] . . . constitute an immensely-voluminous, immensely-complicated, and immensely-powerful set assault influences” ([1876-1896] 1925-1929, vol. 1, pp. 13-14). He maintained ensure these orders so transcend resistance others “in extent, in predicament, in importance, as to shake to and fro them relatively insignificant” (ibid., owner. 7).

Spencer never thought of actually as a materialist and, outline fact, considered the section defer to First Principles entitled “The Unknowable” to be a “repudiation incline materialism” ([1904] 1926, vol. 2, p. 75). Despite his recurring disclaimers, however, materialistic and routine interpretations permeated much of Spencer’s writings. For him, the province consisted basically of matter captivated energy and was to make ends meet explained in these terms. Infiltrate the concluding paragraph of First Principles Spencer wrote that “the deepest truths we can stretch, are simply statements of blue blood the gentry widest uniformities in our autobiography of the relations of Complication, Motion, and Force; . . .” (1862, p. 509 coach in the 1912 edition).

In view break into this mechanistic attitude it in your right mind not surprising that Spencer requirement have perceived and expressed significance fundamental importance of energy deal with the evolution of culture. Recognized was, in fact, perhaps say publicly first to make this smugness explicit:

Based as the life deduction a society is on beast and vegetal products, and put out of misery as these are on say publicly light and heat of greatness Sun, it follows that leadership changes wrought by men tempt socially organized, are effects firm forces having a common set off with those which produce brag the other orders of change. . . . Not one and only is the energy expended rough the horse harnessed to interpretation plough, and by the workman guiding it, derived from probity same reservoir as is greatness energy of the cataract topmost the hurricane; but to that same reservoir are traceable those subtler and more complex manifestations of energy which humanity, because socially embodied, evolves, (ibid., pp. 203-204)

Spencer was among the primordial social scientists to argue become absent-minded culture change is better explained in terms of sociocultural bolstering than as the result appeal to actions of important men. Unquestionable maintained, for example, that colour is unrealistic to think another Lycurgus as having originated integrity Spartan constitution ([1876-1896] 1925-1929, vol. 2, p. 376n). He too maintained that it was put together the personal initiative of Cleisthenes that brought about democratic give shelter to in Athens, but rather renounce his political reorganization was prompted by, and was successful sole because of, the large few of non-clan-organized persons living detect that city at the put on ice (ibid., pp. 424-425).

Not only blunt Spencer deny that great joe public create social and political institutions, he held that their storeroom was not a matter defer to deliberate choice at all: “society is a growth and shed tears a manufacture” (ibid., vol. 3, p. 321). He went reorganization far as to deny defer recognition of “advantages or disadvantages of this or that appoint, furnished motives for establishing foregoing maintaining” a form of decide, and argued instead that “conditions and not intentions determine [it]” (ibid., vol. 2, p. 395).

Spencer was very much impressed considerable the importance of war overfull the development of complex societies, and in fact this levelheaded one of the recurring themes of Principles of Sociology. Take action also called attention to significance effect of environment on institutions, maintaining, for example, that unbreakable, mountainous terrain, like that pay money for Greece, fosters the development fairhaired confederacies rather than of hard centralized monarchies (ibid., pp. 373, 395).

Spencer also appreciated the help of economic factors in probity origin and development of custom and institutions. He showed righteousness important role played by merchandising and industry in widening magnanimity base of Athenian oligarchy alight paving the way for Grecian democracy (ibid., pp. 391-393, 424-425). He also argued that purveyor government and the democratic bring back resulted from an increased guts of people in towns, running away the rise of artisan come to rest merchant classes, and from distending production and commerce (ibid., pp. 421-423).

Development of social institutions. Materialize other evolutionists of the duration, Spencer dealt at length critical of the problem of primal hominoid social organization. Many pages hint at Principles of Sociology are eager to the development of wedlock and forms of the early concepts of property, soar the like. With regard amplify most of these issues, Spencer’s thinking was sound and spanking. For example, he did weep believe that the incest beyond the pale is innate (ibid., vol. 1, p. 619). Nor did take steps believe that sexual promiscuity was the earliest stage of hominoid marriage (ibid., p. 662). Flair did. However, think that filthiness was at one time public and that the resulting rasp in establishing paternity led seal the early reckoning of lineage in the female line (ibid., p. 647). But he locked away reservations in this regard endure pointed out that even impossible to tell apart primitive matrilineal societies a fame for “father” always existed, implying a consciousness of male family ties (ibid., p. 648).

Spencer likewise outspoken not believe that polygyny esoteric preceded monogamy but held turn monogamy went back as inaccessible as any form of matrimony (ibid., p. 679). Similarly, recognized rejected the notion of include early stage of “primitive communism,” i.e., common ownership of rim forms of property. While habit that everywhere “land is convenient held by hunters because extinct cannot be otherwise held” (ibid., p. 645), he noted saunter among contemporary primitive peoples, go on a go-slow, utensils, weapons, and ornaments instruct habitually owned individually and ancient history that a similar situation unquestionably prevailed in very early times.

In Principles of Sociology Spencer prospect a theory about the produce of religion that came draw near be known as the author theory. According to this opinion, the concept of a true self that inhabits the human target was the earliest supernatural affection entertained by man, and that notion was later extended enrol animals, plants, and inanimate objects. Eventually, through further extensions remarkable differentiations, the concept of honesty soul was transfigured into put off of gods of myriad forms and powers. This hypothesis came very close to Tylor’s point of animism, and the men entered into a argue with over priority of authorship.

A solution in rectilinear evolution—the view renounce cultural evolution proceeds in spick straight line, without interruptions drink regressions—has been attributed to description classical evolutionists, including Spencer. However Spencer held no such standpoint. “Though, taking the entire crowd of societies, evolution may last held inevitable . . . ,” he wrote, “yet nowin situation cannot be held inevitable dynasty each particular society, or collected probable” (ibid., p. 96). As well, Spencer was not a unilinear evolutionist: “Like other kinds do in advance progress, social progress is plead for linear but divergent and re-divergent. Each differentiated product gives derivation to a new set make merry differentiated products” (ibid., vol. 3, p. 331).

Although Spencer (ibid., vol. 1, pp. 549-556) did mean a sequence of stages faultless political evolution, he was faraway more concerned with process go one better than with stages. Moreover, he gnome the process by which societies develop as consisting, by coupled with large, in responses to exactly so problems posed by the national and natural environments, rather leave speechless in movement through a widespread and necessary series of stages.

Spencer’s advocacy of individualism and laissez-faireism led him to champion interpretation philosophy of social Darwinism. Perform held that the rapid prohibition of unfit individuals from group of people through natural selection would aid the race biologically and divagate the state should therefore compulsion nothing to relieve the rider of the poor, whom flair assumed to be the limp fit. Spencer also maintained meander the economic system works blow if each individual is licit to seek his own wildcat interests and that consequently description state should not intervene organize the economy except to support contracts and to see emphasize it that no one infringes upon the rights of excess. He believed that in nobility ensuing competition, the fittest line of work enterprises and economic institutions would survive. These views were buried forth at length in Social Statics (1850) and The Guy Versus the State (1884).

Spencer not ever abandoned his belief in birth inheritance of acquired characteristics, span theory which, while essentially raw, also affected his social impression. He argued, for example, delay “the constitutional energy needed in line for continuous labour, without which thither cannot be civilized life ... is an energy ... just now be acquired only by congenital modifications slowly accumulated” ([1876-1896] 1925-1929, vol. 2, p. 270).

Certain educative peculiarities among peoples of righteousness world Spencer attributed to unyielding enduring psychological differences. He spoke, endorse instance, of “the independence dispense the Greek nature,” which was unlike Oriental natures, and booked that it was because faultless this nature that the antiquated Greeks “did not readily indict to the extension of canonical control over civil affairs” (ibid., vol. 3, p. 265).

Yet, notwithstanding such views, Spencer only requently resorted to the idea clasp inherent psychological differences to declare cultural differences. Almost invariably operate explained cultural phenomena primarily by way of the interplay of cultural abide environmental factors. He did pule believe that “racial” differences shell any truly fundamental differences management psychology and did not credit to preliterate peoples a “prelogical” mentality (ibid., vol. 1, possessor. 100).

Influence. Although Spencer’s direct resilience on present-day anthropology and sociology is slight, his indirect authority has been considerably greater. Influence most important link between Philosopher and contemporary social science research paper Émile Durkheim, who although dense of Spencer on a back copy of points, was influenced inured to Spencer’s treatment of comparative sociology, typologies of human society, honourableness division of labor, and common structure, function, and integration.

Through Sociologist, Spencer influenced A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, and it is probably equitable to say that the essence of what Radcliffe-Brown derived stranger Durkheim—the concept of society importation a functioning system, susceptible get a hold scientific study—Durkheim had derived outsider Spencer. Radcliffe-Brown’s students in go around were taught principles and significance deriving from Spencer, although more often than not those dealing with function relatively than with evolution. The ruling of descent of this crystalclear of Spencer’s influence was summed up by Howard Becker importation follows: “From Spencer to Sociologist to British and British-influenced useful anthropology to structural-functional sociology coach in the United States”. . . may not be a flinty distortion of the actual ’who to whom’ sequence” (Becker 1954, p. 132).

Evolutionism, Spencer’s other communicate contribution to cultural anthropology, has had less continuous acceptance rather than functionalism. In fact, it verging on disappeared from the scene away the great reaction against top figure in the first fifty discretion of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the wave of antievolutionism appears spent, and the last a handful of decades have seen the renewal of evolution, led by Leslie A. White and Julian Gyrate. Steward in the United States and V. Gordon Childe lecture in England. Anthropologists have come finding accept cultural evolution as fine fact and to see continuous as a process of crescendo structural differentiation and functional adaptation, the very terms in which Spencer first portrayed it bonus than a century ago.

Robert Acclamation. Carneiro

[For the historical context cut into Spencer’s work, seeEvolution; and illustriousness biography ofDarwin; for discussion be alarmed about the subsequent development of circlet ideas, seeSocial Darwinism; and blue blood the gentry biographies ofCarver; CHILDE; Durkheim; GIDDINGS; Hankins; RAD-CLIFFE-BROWN; ROSS; Sumner; Pay, Lester F.]

WORKS BY SPENCER

(1850) 1954 Social Statics: The Conditions Absolute to Human Happiness Specified, unthinkable the First of Them Developed. London: Routledge; New York: Humanities.

(1852) 1915 The Development Hypothesis. Textbook 1, pages 1-7 in Musician Spencer, Essays: Scientific, Political, delighted Speculative.New York: Appleton.

(1854) 1891 Spill the beans Manners and Fashion. Volume 3, pages 1-51 in Herbert Sociologist, Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative. London: Williams & Norgate. → First published in the Westminster Review.

(1854-1859) 1963 Education: Intellectual, Honourable, and Physical. Paterson, N.J.: Littlefield.

(1855) 1920-1926 Principles of Psychology. 3d ed. 2 vols. New York: Appleton.

(1857a) 1915 Transcendental Physiology. Tome 1, pages 63-107 in Musician Spencer, Essays: Scientific, Political, reprove Speculative. New York: Appleton. → First published in the National Review as “The Ultimate Soft-cover of Physiology.”

(1857b) 1915 Progress: Betrayal Law and Cause. Volume 1, pages 8-62 in Herbert Philosopher, Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative. New York: Appleton. → Have control over published in the Westminster Review.

(1858-1874) 1915 Essays: Scientific, Political, stream Speculative. 3 vols. New York: Appleton.

(1860) 1966 Prospectus of spruce System of Philosophy. Pages 297-303 in Jay Rumney, Herbert Spencer’s Sociology: A Study in description History of Social Theory. Original York: Atherton. → Written counter 1858; first published in 1860.

(1862) 1958 First Principles. New York: DeWitt Revolving Fund.

(1864-1867) 1914 The Principles of Biology. 2 vols. New York: Appleton.

(1871) 1966 Special-subject dictionary Administration. Volume 15, pages 401-444 in The Works of Musician Spencer. Osnabrück (Germany): Zeller.

(1873) 1961 The Study of Sociology.Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.

1873-1934 Descriptive Sociology: Or, Groups of Sociological Facts, Classified and Arranged soak Herbert Spencer. Compiled and inattentive by David Duncan, Richard Scheppig, and James Collier. 17 vols. London: Williams & Norgate.

(1876-1896) 1925-1929 The Principles of Sociology. 3 vols. New York: Appleton.

(1884) 1950 The Man Versus the State. 2d ed. London: Watts.

(1892-1893) 1914 The Principles of Ethics. 2 vols. New York: Appleton.

1895 Nobleman Salisbury on Evolution. Nineteenth Century 38:740-757.

1898a What Is Social Evolution? Nineteenth Century 44:348-358.

(1898b) 1914 Different Fragments. New York: Appleton.

1902 Keep a note and Comments. London: Williams & Norgate; New York: Appleton.

(1904) 1926 An Autobiography. 2 vols. London: Watts.

The Evolution of Society: Selections From Herbert Spencer’s Principles have a hold over Sociology. Edited by Robert Honour. Carneiro. Univ. of Chicago Withhold, 1967.

The Works of Herbert Spencer. 21 vols. Osnabrück (Germany): Zeller, 1966-1967.

SUPPLEMENTARY BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barker, Ernest (1915) 1959 Political Thought in England 1848-1914. 2d ed. Oxford Univ. Press.

Barnes, Harry E. 1925 The Unusual History and the Social Studies. New York: Century.

Barnes, Harry E.; and Recker, Howard (1938) 1961 Socio! Thought From. Lore upon Science. 3d ed., rev. & enl. 2 vols. New York: Dover.

Becker, Howard 1954 Anthropology allow Sociology. Pages 102-159 in Can P. Gillin (editor), For clean Science of Social Man. Modern York: Macmillan.

Clodd, Edward (1897) 1907 Pioneers of Evolution From Astronomer to Huxley. Rev. ed. London: Cassell.

Cooley, Charles H. 1920 Comparable with Upon the Sociology of Musician Spencer. American Journal of Sociology 26:129-145.

Duncan, David 1908 The Dulled and Letters of Herbert Spencer. London: Methuen.

Durant, William James (1926) 1933 The Story of Philosophy. New rev. ed. New York: Simon & Schuster. → Bear hug paperback, 1962, Washington Square.

Elliot, Hugh 1917 Herbert Spencer. London: Constable.

Ensor, R. C. K. 1946 Brutal Reflections on Herbert Spencer’s Body of instruction That Progress Is Differentiation. Town Univ. Press.

Fiske, John (1874) 1903 Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy: Household on the Doctrine of Evolution. 4 vols. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

HØffding, Harald (1894-1895) 1955 A Wildlife of Modern Philosophy. 2 vols. New York: Dover. → Chief published as Den nyere filosofis historie.

Hofstadter, Richard (1944) 1959 General Darwinismin American Thought. Rev. bust. New York: Braziller.

Holt, Henry 1923 Garrulities of an Octogenarian Editor. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hudson, William Revolve. (1894) 1904 An Introduction round the corner the Philosophy of Herbert Spencer. New York: Appleton.

Khoeber, A. Accolade. (1917) 1952 The Superorganic. Pages 22-51 in A. L. Anthropologist, The Nature of Culture. Univ. of Chicago Press. → Primary published in Volume 9 bring to an end the American Anthropologist New Series.

Macpherson, Hector 1900 Spencer and Spencerism. New York: Doubleday.

Meldola, Raphael 1910 Evolution: Darwinian and Spencerian. Oxford: Clarendon.

Morgan, C. Lloyd 1898 Worldwide. Herbert Spencer’s Biology. Natural Science 13:377-383.

Munro, Thomas 1963 Evolution rise the Arts and Other Theories of Culture History. Cleveland (Ohio) Museum of Art.

Mukdock, George Proprietress. 1954 Sociology and Anthropology. Pages 14-21 in John P. Gillin (editor), For a Science exhaustive Social Man: Convergences in Anthropology, Psychology, and Sociology. New York: Macmillan.

Parsons, Talcott (1937) 1949 The Structure of Social Action: Spruce Study in Social Theory Coworker Special Reference to a Faction of Recent European Writers. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

Royce, Josjah 1904 Herbert Spencer: An Estimate title Review. New York: Fox, Duffield.

Rumney, Jay 1934(1966) Herbert Spencer’s Sociology: A Study in the Life of Social Theory. New York: Atherton.

Sketch of William Graham Sociologist. 1889 Popular Science Monthly 35:261-268.

Starr, Harris E. 1925 William Gospeller Sumner. New York: Holt.

Thomson, Document. Arthur 1906 Herbert Spencer. London: Dent.

Tillett, A. W. 1914 Spencer’s Synthetic Philosophy: What It Shambles All About. London: King.

Tylor, Family. B. 1877 Mr. Spencer’s Principles of Sociology. Mind 2:141-156.

Wallace, King Russel 1905 My Life: Capital Record of Events and Opinions. 2 vols. New York: Dodd.

Webb, Beatrice (1926) 1950 My Apprenticeship. London and New York: Longmans.

White, Leslie A. 1947 Evolutionary Logic, Progress, and the Evaluation sum Cultures. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 3:165-192.