Pacific Sociological Association

Spencer's Theory of Kinship Evolution and the Status of Women: Some Neglected
Considerations
Author(s): Leonard Beeghley
Source: Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Jul., 1983), pp. 299-322
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389220 .
Accessed: 25/06/2014 01:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Pacific Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Sociological Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SPENCER'S THEORY OF KINSHIP EVOLUTION
AND THE STATUS OF WOMEN
Some NeglectedConsiderations

LEONARD BEEGHLEY
of Florida
University

This articlereconsidersSpencer'ssociologyin orderto show how his

social theoryis appliedto specifictopicsand to suggesthisimportancein
the emergenceand continuingdevelopmentof the social sciences.The
firsttaskis accomplishedbyapplyingSpencer'sconceptualschemeto the
studyofkinshipevolutionand changingwomen'sstatus.The secondtask
is achievedbycriticallyappraisinghissocial theory,showinghowcurrent
writersduplicate his mistakes,and extrapolatinga numberof useful
theoreticalprinciples.

No classical theoristis depicted with so much folkloreas is

HerbertSpencer. He is consistently caricaturedas espousinga
purelylinear form of evolutionism,with the resultthat his
writingsare dismissedas theoretically barren.Parson's (1937)
easyverdict-thatSpencerwasthevictimofhisownevolutionism
and was superseded by Durkheim, Weber, and Pareto-is
acceptedas thefinalword.Yetthiswidelyheldviewisunsupported
by anyfactualevidence;it is folklore.
This articlereconsidersSpencer'swritings byshowinghow he
applied the most importantelementsof his theory-evolution
and themilitant-industrial typology-tounderstandkinshipand
women'sstatusin society.AlthoughSpencer'sempiricalanalysis
isobviouslyoutdated,themannerinwhichheusedtheinformation
then available to elaborate his theoreticalideas illustrateshis
social scientificorientation.Underlyingthis presentationis a
beliefthatit is usefulto tryto getcloserto thegenuinemessage
containedin the classical theorists'writings,not because they
constituteholy writ,but because it is usefulto specifytheir
theoriespreciselyin orderto assess how far we have come. In
Spencer'scase thereis the added factthatconsiderablefolklore
SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES, Vol. 26 No. 3, July1983299-322
? 1983PacificSociological Assn.

299

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
300 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY 1983

has accumulatedthatpreventsan understanding of his contri-

butions.
As it turnsout, specifying the elementsof Spencer'stheory
showsthathis workis stillrelevantforresearchand knowledge
accumulationin the social sciences.While this argumentmay
seem surprising,considerNisbet's (1969: 228) judgment:"the
differencesbetweencontemporary socialevolutionarytheoryand
the theoryof HerbertSpencer do not seem verylarge or very
significant."From this angle, Spencer's writingsconstitutea
baselinefromwhichto evaluatecurrentevolutionary arguments,
for his work not only highlightscertainproblemsof theory
construction thatcontinueto plaguethesocialsciences(especially
sociologyand anthropology)but also providesusefulabstract
hypothesesfor research.Several of these hypotheseswill be
presentedbelow,along withsome examplesof recentresearch.
Can the social sciences be theoreticalenterprises?Spencer
thoughtso, at a time when this issue was still in doubt. The
subtletyand complexityof his writingsshow some of the
heforesaw.In general,however,socialscientists
possibilities have
failedto learnmuchfromSpencer,primarily because they have
ignoredhiswork.
The followingdiscussion begins by brieflydepictingthe
folklorethatdominatesliterature on Spencer.The secondsection
introduces Spencer'spoliticalphilosophyand itsearlyapplication
to women.The thirdpart explains his conceptualscheme:the
theoryof evolutionand the militant-industrial typology.The
fourth section applies his theory of evolution to kinshipforms
and the status of women. The fifthpart applies the militant-
industrialtypologyto thefamilyand women,and showstheway
Spencer'spoliticalviewsinterfered withhis theoreticalanalysis.
The final portion of the articlecriticallyappraises Spencer's
sociology and sketchesits potentialinfluenceon theoryand
research.

SPENCERIAN FOLKLORE
Andreski(1971: 13) arguedthatSpencer's"treatmentof the
familyshowshimat hisweakest... becauseoftheinapplicability
of his masterconcept[evolution]to thismatter."He also noted

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beeghley/ SPENCER & STATUS OF WOMEN 301

thatSpencersaw theevolutionofthefamilyas having"followed

the route from primiscuityto life-longmonogamypassing
throughpolygamy."Actually,Spencer'sanalysisoftheevolution
of thefamilyin Principlesof Sociology(1885 [1910]) is thefirst
topic afterthe explanationof his theoreticalschemeand it is
doubtfulthathe would have begunhis studywitha subjectnot
amenableto theoreticalexplanationas heconceivedit.As can be
seen below, Spencer'sdiscussionof kinshipevolutionis a good
exampleof his sociology:Evolutionoccursin severaldirections
as people adapt to theirenvironment and (in some cases) tryto
masterit.
Bock (1978: 64) claimedthat"thatthereis no evidencethat
Spencerattemptedanysystematic delineationofdivergent paths
of evolution."He also said that"Spencer'sobjectwas alwaysto
markoutthenormalpathofsocial progress"and thathe assumed
"a unilinearevolutionaryprocess"operatedin humanhistory.
Hence, Spencer's"conclusionwas thatthegenesisof thefamily
'fulfillsthelaw of Evolutionunderitsleadingaspects."'Finally,
Bock wrotethatSpencerused themilitant-industrial typologyto
place societies in "a temporalsuccession." Actually,Spencer
contendedthatkinshiporganizationdevelopedalong divergent
pathsand, in thisway,fulfulled the"law ofEvolution."Further,
themilitant-industrialtypologyis notan evolutionary construct;
itis a meansofdelimiting thestructural tendenciesofsocietiesat
each stage of development.As will be shown below, Spencer
intendedthesetwo modesof analysisto be complementary.
Duffin(1978: 57) said that while nineteenth-century evolu-
tionarytheorypresupposedchange,it servedas an ideological
toolforthosewhoopposedanyalterationinthestatusofwomen;
she cites Spencer as a primeculprit.Though her argumentis
correct,itis marredbymisrepresentations thatweakenitseffect.
For example,in herdiscussionof Social Statics(Spencer,1850
[1950]), she said that Spencer believed women ought to be
subordinateto menbecause theyhave inferior mentalfaculties.
What Duffinfailedto recognizeis thatSocial Staticsadvocates
totalsexualequality.It was onlylater,in PrinciplesofSociology,
thatSpencerconfusedtheoryand ideology,and triedto use his
sociologyas a meansofjustifying sex inequality.The significance

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
302 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY 1983

ofhisshortsightedness lies in itsimplicationsfortheory-building

ratherthanfeminism.
Perrin (1976) asserted that Spencer had four theoriesof
evolution.He identified theintialone in Social Statics.However,
thisbook describes"theconditionsessentialto humanhappiness"
inan idealsocietyand,as such,itis notsocialtheory, evolutionary
or otherwise.'Social Statics is an assertionof faithin human
progress,a beliefthatservedas a metaphysical foundationforhis
scienceofsociety.The othertheoriesPerrinattributed to Spencer
are variationson a similartheme:Social evolutionis (1) "the
differentiationof social aggregatesintofunctionalsubsystems,"
(2) "an advancingdivisionoflabor,"and (3) "theoriginofspecies
ofsocieties."The similarity inthesepresumably different theories
can be seenin Perrin'sdiscussion.He wrotethatthefirstreveals
Spencer as a "functionalist"concerned with understanding
society's"functionalrequirements"and the mannerin which
differentiationinto "social subsystems"occurs. The second is
depictedin termsof "advancingfunctionalspecialization"and
portraysSpencer as interestedin the "inherentproblem" of
integration.The thirdtheoryis described as "a population
theory," withthecaveatthat"functional analysisis a populational
approach"because itfocuseson the"'social survival'ofdifferen-
tiallyendowedsocieties."In reality,Spencerhad a singlelaw of
evolution,whichhe consistently appliedto thestudyof society.
Althoughunintended, thesignificance of Perrin'sdiscussionlies
inwhatitimpliesaboutSpencer'stheoreticalmistakes,especially
problemsof teleology,tautalogy,and the notion of adaptive
upgrading(or advance).

SOCIAL STA TICS

AND THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN

In Social Statics, Spencer's protagonistwas the utilitarian

"doctrineof expedience,"an argumentthatgreatesthappiness
should go to the greatestnumberof people. Unfortunately, he
observed,people cannot agree on whathappinessis or how to
achieveit.Hencetheutilitarian dictumis an impracticalprescrip-
tionforhumanbehavior,one thatcannotlead to an ideal society.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beeghley/ SPENCER & STATUS OF WOMEN 303

What is needed,Spencersaid, is a simple,generalguidelinethat

individualscan use to evaluate an action and arrive at an
intuitivelycompelling judgmentofitsrightness or wrongness.He
thoughtthatpeoplehavesuchan intuitivesenseand thata moral
code, properlyconstructed,would allow for the "ultimate
development"of individualsand society.While this goal may
seem farfetched today, Spencer believedin the inevitabilityof
humanprogress.
Spencer'sprescription forcorrectconductcan be summarized
in thefollowingmanner(1850 [1950]: 67-69):(1) Human happi-
ness is God's will. (2) Since happinesscan only be obtained
throughtheuse ofthosefaculties(such as sightand hearing)that
allow humansto experiencesensationsfromtheenvironment, it
followsthat God wills people to exercisetheirsenses and that
each personhas a dutyto do so. In Spencer'swords,"ifGod wills
man's happiness,and man's happinesscan be obtainedonlybe
the exerciseof his faculties,then God wills that man should
exercisehis faculties;that is, it is man's duty to exercisehis
faculties."(3) The fulfillment
ofthisdutypresupposesthatpeople
have freedomofaction,sincechoiceis necessaryforthesatisfac-
tion of theirvarious physicaland psychologicalneeds. (4) It
followsthat individualshave a rightto liberty,for otherwise
God's willcould notbe fulfilled and humanhappinessobtained.
(5) However,sincethisrightis sharedby all, people inevitably
place restraintson one anotheras theyact individuallyto obtain
satisfaction.(6) Equitydemandsthatsuch limitationsmustbe
sharedequally.(7) Hence,thebestguideforhumanbehavioris a
rule statingthat "everyman may claim the fullestlibertyto
exercisehisfacultiescompatiblewiththepossessionoflikeliberty
by everyotherman." In this way, Spencer believedthat both
individualhappinessand theperfection ofsocietywould result.2
He neverabandonedthisfaith;hissociologyis,infact,a manifes-
tationof it.
On the basis of this principle,Spencer (1850 [1950]: 138)
enunciatedthe various rightspeople have, among them the
"rightsof women."The rightsdeduciblefromthe principleof
moral action"mustappertainequallyto both sexes.... Equity
knowsno difference ofsex. In itsvocabularythewordman must
be understoodin a genericand not in a specificsense."Further,

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
304 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY 1983

Spencersaid thatthereis no principlethatcan explainwhyhalfof

the human race should be excluded fromfullparticipationin
society.Afterrefutingopposingarguments, hesaid thattherights
ofwomenare a good indicatorofa society'slevelofcivilization,
and hewonderedwhyEnglishlaw at thattimeexplicitly restricted
thespheresofwomen'sparticipation and legitimized therightsof
menoverwomen,especiallywithinmarriage.Spencercompared
thissituationwithslavery,suggesting thatitisjust as barbarous.
He continuedbylabelingas "trifling"thosesex-related "differences
in bodily organization"and psychologicalcharacteristics that
may exist. AlthoughSpencerlaterrevisedhis position,at this
timehe clearlybelievedwomenand menare farmorealikethan
different.
In the years followingSocial Statics,Spencer turnedfrom
philosophyto science,and itis thataspectofthisworkthatis of
greatestinteresthere.Nonetheless,itwillbecomeclearbelowthat
the mostseriousweaknessof his sociologylies in his attemptat
combiningbeliefinhumanprogresswithsociologicaltheory.One
of the lessons Spencercan teach us today is that such efforts
cannotsucceed.

EVOLUTION AND THE

MILITANT-INDUSTRIAL TYPOLOGY

It was only a step fromfaith in progressto a theoryof

evolution.Bythetimehe wroteFirstPrinciplesin 1862,Spencer
had a grandiosetheoretical goal: to developa setofscientific
laws
capable of explainingall elementsin theuniverse.The basis for
suchlaws was evolution,whichhe definedas "a changefroman
incoherenthomogeneityto a coherentheterogeneity" (1862
[1880]: 291). Thiswas theversionofevolutionthatSpencerused
consistently in his analysesof the physical,organic,and social
realms.In effect,he arguedthat phenomenaas disparateas a
solar system,a geologicalform,a plantor animalspecies,and a
social system,evolve by proceedingfromrelativelyunstable
homogeneousstatesto relatively stableheterogeneous states.All
of Spencer'swritingsin biologyand the naturalsciencesdocu-
mentedthisprinciple.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beeghley/ SPENCER & STATUS OF WOMEN 305

Thus, when he turnedto the studyof society,his primary

theoreticalgoal was to understandthe natureand directionof
structuraldifferentation as revealed by the available ethno-
graphicand historicalevidence.Principlesof Sociologywas an
empiricallybased (althoughnonstatistical) work.3However,the
uniquenessof the social world forcedthe use of two comple-
mentary theoretical tools,bothofwhichhavebeenmisunderstood
be subsequentcommentators."We class societies,then,in two
ways; both havingto be keptin mindwheninterpreting social
phenomena"(1885 [1910]: 549-575).
First, societies "have to be arrangedin the order of their
integration,as simple,compound, doubly-compound,trebly-
compound;" and each of these evolutionarystages implies
"growingheterogeneity" (1885 [1910]: 550,574).4Thus,based on
empiricaldata thenavailable,Spencerbelievedtherehas been a
long-termtrendfor societiesto become increasingly complex.
Theyhave becomelarger,heterogeneous, and moreadaptableto
the environment. For example,Spencer(1885 [1910]: 450-452)
said that in a "rudimentary" state,a societyis all warrior,all
hunter,all hutbuilder,all tool maker:everypartfulfills foritself
all needs. But withevolutionaryadvance, "progressivediffer-
entiationofstructures is accompaniedbyprogressive differentia-
tion of functions."The presumedresult,as Parsons and others
have noted,is increasingadaptivecapacity.
A varietyof factorshave influencedthese developments,
accordingto Spencer (1885 [1910]: 8-15). "Extrinsicfactors,"
such as thephysicalenvironment (climate,soil fertility,
and the
like), influencethe possibilityof evolution."Intrinsicfactors,"
human beings' physicaland emotional traits,also affectthe
likelihoodof evolution.Finally,a varietyof "derivedfactors"
altersthechanceof evolution.These are structural variables.
Like manysocial scientists,Spencer (1885 [1910]: 498-548)
developeda classificatory schemethatidentifiedthe structural
variablesof interest.Thus, regulatory structures referprimarily
to government; theyfunctionto stabilizesocial relationswithin
societyand betweenit and theexternalenvironment. Operative
structuresreferprimarilyto the economy,kinship,law, and
education; they functionto meet a society'sinternalneeds.
Distributivestructuresreferto stratification processes; they

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
306 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY1983

functionto carryvitalsubstances(powerand privilegeas wellas

goods and services)to variouspartsof societies.The similarity
betweenSpencer'sschemeand Parsons' (1951, 1966, 1971) and
Lenski's (1966) ought to be apparentto most readers. Here
Spencer'sanalysisof how various kinshipstructures effectand
reflectevolutionarychangeis thefocusof interest.
Second, at each evolutionarystagesocietiesare divided"into
the predominantly militantand the predominantly industrial"
(1885[1910]:550,574).Thus,contrary to sociologicalfolklore,the
militant-industrial typologyis notpartofSpencer'sevolutionary
scheme.Societiesat all levelsofdevelopment tendtowardeithera
militantor industrialprofile,cyclingfromone to theotherover
timein lightof changesin the externalenvironment or in the
"derivedfactors"notedabove. Spencerwas veryclearaboutthis;
thetypologyis an attemptat distinguishing relatively
centralized,
predatory societiesfromrelativelydecentralized,peacefulsocieties
(1885 [1910]: 687).

between
Thecontrast militant
andindustrial
isproperly
between a
stateinwhichlifeis occupiedbyconflict
withotherbeings,
brute
and human,and a statein whichlifeis occupiedin peaceful
labor-energiesspentindestruction spentin
insteadofenergies
production.

He emphasized that regardlessof their evolutionarystage,

militantsocietiesrequirea highlycentralizedregulatory system
in whichsocial organizationis maintainedthroughcoercion-
what he called "compulsorycooperation."Conversely,at each
evolutionarylevel, industrialsocieties are characterizedby a
relativelydecentralizedregulatory systemin whichsocial organi-
zationis maintainedbymeansof"voluntarycooperation"(1885
[1910]: 564-569).
The differences betweenmilitancyand industrialism, and the
typology'srelationto evolution,are shownin Spencer'sstudyof
kinship.His analysisis organizedintermsoftwoquestions(1885
[1910]:686). (1) "Do societiesofdifferent
degreesofcomposition
habituallypresentdifferent formsof domesticarrangements?"
That is, do theformsof kinshiprevealan evolutionary pattern?
(2) "Are different formsof domesticarrangements associated

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beeghley/ SPENCER & STATUS OF WOMEN 307

withthemilitantsystemoforganizationand theindustrialsystem
of organization?"

THE EVOLUTION OF THE

FORMS OF KINSHIP AND
THE STATUS OF WOMEN

In reviewingtheevolutionofthefamily, Spencerwas interested

in how social bonds characteristic of different
formsof kinship
functionforsociety;that is, he wantedto know how "derived
factors"(social facts)affectsurvival.Thus,he developeda setof
"absolutestandards"bywhichto evaluatekinshipsystems(1885
[1910]: 610-612). The firstand most importantcriterionis the
welfareof society;thefamilymustfacilitatereproduction of the
species. Second, wherehighsurvivalratesof childrenare con-
duciveto thepersistence ofsociety,thefamilymustassurethata
highproportionof physicallyand psychologically healthychil-
drensurviveto maturity. Third,afterprecedingrequirements have
beenmet,Spencerjudgedthosetypesofmaritalrelationsbestthat
further mostand burdenleastthelivesofadults.Fourth,afterthe
reproductiveand childrearingyears are over, those domestic
arrangements are best in whichpatientsand childrenmutually
supportone another,therebymaintainingfamilialbonds and
cultivatingthose "highersentiments"that distinguishhuman
beings.
In general,Spencer'sexpositionis orientedin sucha waythat
the less advanced a society-that is, the smaller,more homo-
geneous,and moreunstableitis-the morethefocusofanalysisis
on the firsttwo criteria.Note, hence,the phrasing:The family
mustfunctionto facilitatereproduction and survivalofchildren.
However,themoreadvanceda society,greatertheemphasisthat
is placed on thelasttwocriteria.Thus,thoseformsofkinshipare
bestthatburdenadultsleastand allow forthemutualsupportof
familymembers.This change is not only a recognitionof the
uniquenessof humansocietiescomparedto animal societies,it
also reflectson organismicanalogy: more advanced formsof
animallifedemandlesssacrificeofindividualsforthesake ofthe
survivalof the species (1885 [1910]: 603-610).5Thus, among
human beings,maintenanceof the species is more assured in

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
308 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY 1983

complexsocieties.In thiscontext,Spencertriedto accountfor

the statusof women.His orientationwas structural;
thatis, he
triedto showhow theevolutionofthekinshipsystemaffects the
positionof womenindependentof ideologicalbeliefsor sexual
differences.

Promiscuity

Spencercondemnedas unscientific the assumptionof many

nineteenth-century anthropologists
thatthe"infancyofsociety"
is displayedinthepatriarchalfamily.Rather,he said theevidence
(available to him) suggestedthatearlyhumanbeingswerelike
other "gregariousanimals" in that males usually foughtfor
possessionof females.6This impliesthat sexual relationswere
promiscuousand social relationshipsrelativelydisorganized.
Accordingto Spencer,thesignificance of thislack of stabilityis
thatsocial bondswereoftentoo tenuousto facilitatesurvivalof
the group. As a result,stable patternsof reproductiondid not
develop and progenywere ill-caredfor. Further,while adults
sufferedgenerally,the problemsof womenwereacute because
there was no check on the brutalityto which femaleswere
subjectedotherthantheirabilityto live and propagate.In sum,
"irregularrelationsof the sexes are thus at variancewiththe
welfareof the society,of the young,and of the adults" (1885
[1910]: 650-651).
Historically,Spencer said, therewas a slow and irregular
diminutionin theprevailingpromiscuity and social disorganiza-
tion. Nonetheless,at all timestherewere"unionshavingsome
duration,"and suchfamilieswerealso morelikelyto reproduce
and have childrensurvive. Because of the way they were
socialized, such progenywere more likelyto have enduring
families,whichis an important"derivedfactor"affecting the
survivalof societies.Spencerconcludedthatin habitatscapable
ofsupporting an expandedpopulation,socialgroupscharacterized
by stable relationsof the sexes weremorelikelyto persistand
evolve into "higherstates" of society. As he put it, "under
ordinaryconditionstherearingof morenumerousand stronger
offspringmust have been favoured by more regular sexual
relations,[and] theremust,on theaverage,have beena tendency

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beeghley/ SPENCER & STATUS OF WOMEN 309

forthesocietiesmostcharacterized by promiscuity to disappear

beforethoseless characterized by it"(1885 [1910]: 652).
In additionto changesin the otherstructuralfactorsnoted
above,an especiallyimportant "derivedfactor"producingsucha
disappearanceis war. From this angle, the qualifyingphrases
"underordinaryconditions"and "on theaverage"are important
(here and below), fortheysuggestthe subtlemannerin which
Spencerused the principleof evolution.Since conditionswere
oftennot"ordinary"amongprimitive people,heemphasizedthat
groupsurvivalfrequently dependedon factorsotherthanpopula-
tion size and coherence of social bonds-such as courage,
swiftness,endurance,guile, and skill withweapons. Thus, in
competitionforlivingspace, aggregateshaving"inferior" forms
ofsocialorganization haveoftentriumphed overmore"advanced"
groups.
Evolution,Spencercontended,does not proceedin a linear
manner,a fact that is clear when domestic institutionsare
considered;for the maritalformsthat restrictpromiscuity-
polyandry,ploygyny, and monogamy-"have equallyearlyori-
gins." That is, theyhave been foundat all timesand places in
humanhistory.WhatbothAndreskiand Bock failedto realizeis
thattheevolutionary significance ofthesefamilytypesis notthat
one proceedsaftertheother,butthateach facilitates thesurvival
of human groups in certainenvironments. Thus, as societies
becomemorecomplex,"growthof customintolaw, whichgoes
along with an extendinggovernmentalorganizationholding
largermassestogether, affectsthedomesticrelationsalong with
thepoliticalrelations;and thusrendersthefamilyarrangements,
be theypolyandric,polygynicor monogamic,more definite"
(1885 [1910]: 687).
Nonetheless,whilethesemaritalformsdid notoccurin linear
sequence,theycan be evaluatedin termsof the criterianoted
above; foreach reflectstheprocessof structural differentiation
and each representsan evolutionaryadvance overpromiscuity,
although in different directionsand with different potential
consequencesforthesurvivalofsociety.WhileSpencerrecognized
thatpureexamplesofthethreeformsofkinshipdid notexistin
reality(1885 [1910]: 757), he believedthatconceptualizing them
as puretypesprovidedthebestmeansforcomparison.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
310 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY 1983

Polyandry

Spencernotedthatthismaritalformis rare.He believedthatit

usuallyoccursin inhospitableenvironments in whichthe food
supplyis uncertainand survivalofthesocietyrequiresrestrictions
on population growth.7Althoughthe evidence was unclear,
Spencer speculatedthat childrenare oftenbetteroffin such
circumstances,because the likelihood of starvationis less.
Psychologically,however,childrenprobablydo not fare very
well,since"conflictofauthority and absenceofspecificpaternity
mustentailseriousevils"(1885 [1910]: 659). WhileSpencersaid
little about the status of women in polyandricmarriages,
primarily because theyare so rare,he believedthatwhensocial
restraintswere absent, women were degraded in most early
humansocieties,due to theirsubservienceto biologicalfacts-
continual pregnancyand lactation-and to men's superior
strength.
Whilepolyandryhas existedsincethedawn of time,Spencer
concluded that it is an inferiorform of social organization
because its strengths
in certainenvironments are weaknessesin
others.Thus, overthelong run,low fertility ratesand relatively
low levels of social cohesion make societies organized in a
polyandricmannerless adaptable thentheircompetitors.Other
thingsbeing equal, Spencer said, eitherpolygynousor mono-
gamous forms of social organization should triumphover
ployandrousones as societiescompoundand recompound.

Polygyny

Spencerarguedthatpolygyny has beencommonin everypart

of the world throughouthistory,mainlybecause it facilitates
reproductionin contextswherethe death rate of males greatly
exceedsthatof females;forinstance,whensocietiesare oftenat
war, plural wives become an importantmeans of maintaining
population.Spencerbelievedthatthislinkbetweenpolygyny and
meantthatsuch societiesare often"superior"to either
fertility
polyandrousor monogamoussocieties.8"Food beingsufficient
and other thingsequal, it will resultthat of two conflicting
peoples,theone whichdoes notutilizeall itswomenas mothers

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beeghley/ SPENCER & STATUS OF WOMEN 311

willbe unableto holditsgroundagainsttheotherwhichdoes thus

utilizethem:the monogamouswill disappear beforethe poly-
gynous"(1885 [1910]: 671).9
Further,Spencer said that polygynyfosters"greaterfamily
cohesion"becausematernity and paternity areclearlyestablished
and traceablelines of descentexist. Apart fromthe statusof
women,the main weaknessof polygynyis thatlateralrelations
areunclear,resulting injealousyand conflictamonghalf-siblings.
Assumingenoughfood is available,Spencerfeltthatprogeny
are probablybetteroffin polygynicthanin polyandricsocieties
because the death rate frommalnutrition is lower,paternity is
known,and thecareofwivesand childrenat a husband'sdeathis
oftenprovidedfor-as whena man is "called upon to marrythe
widowofhisbrotherand adopthisfamily."However,hethought
thatthepsychological effectsofpolygyny forchildrenarescarcely
betterthanthoseofeitherpromiscuity or polyandry. '0
Spencersaid thatwhenthe habitatis such thatadult women
cannotsupportthemselves and theirchildren,and thenumberof
menis deficient, thenfemalesbenefitfrompolygyny becausethe
alternativeis death.Nonetheless, "theevilsentailed,especiallyfor
women,are great.""Associated as it is withthe conceptionof
womenas property, to be sold by fathers,boughtby husbands,
and afterwardstreated as slaves, there are negativedthose
sentiments towardsthemintowhichsympathy and respectenter
as necessaryelements.How profoundly thelivesofadultsarethus
vitiated"(1885 [1910]: 674-675). As will be shown, Spencer
thoughtthat the normativebasis for this sexual brutalityis
enhancedbecause polygyny is associatedwitha militanttypeof
social organization.

Monogamy
Like polyandry "monogamydatesas farback as
and polygyny,
any othermaritalrelation"(1885 [1910]: 679)." While Spencer
saiditis an unstableformofunioninthoseprimitiveenvironments
wheremarriagesare maintainedby forceand subjectedto the
disruptiveeffectsof men's"unrestrainedimpluses,"he empha-
sized thatwheneverthesex ratiohas beenequal, monogamyhas
beenconduciveto thesurvivalofsociety,because morechildren

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
312 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY 1983

arelikelyto be bornwheneach manhas one wifethanwhensome

havemanyand somehavenone.As hesurveyedtheevidence,the
monogamousfamilyhas provento be the"mostevolved"formof
kinship,"as testedbythedefinitenessand strength oflinksamong
itsmembers"(1885[1910]:681). Thatis,as societiesbecomemore
complex, monogamyfacilitatestheirsurvivalbecause it best
meetsthecriterianotedabove.
Thus,Spencerassertedthatbothmaternaland paternaltiesas
well as bonds among siblingsare tighterin the monogamous
familythanineitherthepolyandrousor polygynous family,with
theresultthatthewelfareofan advancedheterogeneous societyis
bestservedbythisformofmarriage.In addition,progenyprofit
from monogamy because there is decreased mortalityand
because of the psychologicalbenefitsresultingfromrelatively
constantpaternaland maternalinterest.While Spencer noted
adultsofbothsexes are also betteroffin monogamicmarriages,
he said thatwomen'sstatuscan improvebecause theyare less
likelyto be seen as chattels,and choice can become a greater
factorin formingmaritalunions."Thereevolve the sentiments
which characterizethe relationsof the sexes among civilized
peoples. These sentimentshave far widereffectsthan at first
appear" because theyraisethequalityof adultlife(1885 [1910]:
684). Finally,inmoredifferentiatedsocieties,Spencercontended
thatmonogamyfavorsthepreservation of adults'livesafterthe
reproductive yearsareoverbecauseitfostersthe
and childrearing
developmentof "prolongedmaritalaffection"and greaterfilial
support.Spencersurmisedthatone reasonwomen'sstatuscan
improvein monogamyis thatit is associatedwithan industrial
typeof social organization.
In sum,Spencer'sanswerto thefirstquestionposed above is
that"thechiefconclusionsforcedon us bytheevidencearethose
whichevolutionimplies"(1885[1910]:757). He said thatsurvival
inthe"rudestsocialgroups"is problematic, partlybecausefamily
tiesare weak or nonexistent.Thus,kinshipsystemsevolvedthat
restrictpromiscuity,promotefamilialbonds,and therebyfacili-
tate groupsurvivalin specificcontexts.Excludinginhospitable
environs,societiescharacterizedby eithermonogamyor poly-
gynyhavebeenthemoreadaptablemaritalforms.However,with
evolutionary development, monogamyhas provedto be themost

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beeghley
/ SPENCER & STATUS OF WOMEN 313

advancedtypebecauseitbestmeetsthe"absolutestandards"for
evaluatingkinshipsystems.An increaseinthestatusofwomenis
possiblewithmonogamy, despitethefactthattherehavebeenfew
effectivewaysof regulatingreproductiveactivityuntilrecently.
Thereare, however,"primitive" societiesin whichwomenenjoy
highstatus,and Spencerused themilitant-industrial typologyto
explain this fact and to suggestsome additional reasons that
monogamymakesa riseinwomen'sstatuspossible.The theoreti-
cal principlesimpliedherewillbe identified below.

THE MILITANT-INDUSTRIALTYPOLOGY,
DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONS,
AND THE STATUS OF WOMEN

Spencernotedthatmilitancyis associatedwithpolygyny and

industrialism is relatedto monogamy;in thiswayhe provideda
structural accountofdifferences inwomen'sstatusthatis analyti-
cally distinctfromhis evolutionaryargument.That is, at all
evolutionarystages, patternsof "compulsory"or "voluntary
cooperation"establishedintheregulatory systemtendto general-
ize to otherinstitutional arenas,includingthefamily.Hence,as
societieschange frombeing centralizedand warliketo being
decentralizedand peaceful(and vice versa),patternsof marital
interaction and thestatusof womenchangeas well.
Other things being equal, Spencer said, the relationship
betweenmilitancy-polygyny and the degradationof womenis
causal. In warlikesocieties,loss ofmenin battlemakespolygyny
functionalforgroupsurvival,and in suchsocietiesit is common
forcapturedwomento becomeadditionalwivesorconcubinesof
warriors.In effect,he believedthatthepossessionofseveralwives
seized as spoils of war is a masculinestatussymbolin militant
societies.In addition,becausemenhavepowerand areengagedin
morehighlyvaluedtasks,women'srolesas cook,beastofburden,
farmerand so on are devalued.Finally,he arguedthatthereis a
congruencebetweenthepoliticaldespotismcharacteristic ofmil-
itantsocietiesand thedomesticdespotismcharacteristic ofpoly-
gyny(1885 [1910]: 690-691).

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
314 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY1983

Themilitant typeofsocialstructure
is basedon theprinciple
of
compulsory cooperation, typeofsocialstruc-
whiletheindustrial
tureis basedontheprincipleofvoluntarycooperation.Nowitis
clearthatplurality
ofwives,whether
thewivesarecaptured inwar
or purchasedfromtheirfathers regardless of theirown wills,
impliesdomesticruleof thecompulsory type:thehusbandis
tyrant andthewivesareslaves.

In sucha context,Spencerasserted,menputupon womenwhat-

ever tasks they are not preventedfromdoing by biological
factors.
Spencerwas carefulnotto asserta causal relationship between
industry-monogamy and improvement in the statusof women.
Rather,he merelyarguedthatthecombinationprovidesa struc-
tural contextwithinwhich such a change can occur. This is
because industrialsocieties(in Spencer'ssense) are associated
withan equal sex ratiothatencouragesmonogamickinshipsys-
tems. In addition, both sexes are likelyto engage in similar
economictasksin such societiesand "womenare bettertreated
wherecircumstances lead to likenessofoccupationsbetweenthe
sexes" (1885 [1910]: 732). Finally,whilemonogamousmarital
formscan be centralizedand tyrannical, as withpatriarchalfami-
lies in some societies,theyneed not be; industrialism providesa
contextin whichvoluntarycooperationcan occurin marriageas
in other spheres. In this way Spencer tried to explain why
women'sstatusvariesacrosssocietiesindependent oftheirevolu-
tionarystage,and he illustratedhisargumentwithmanyempiri-
cal examples.
Together,evolutionand the militant-industrial typologycan
tellus muchaboutthestatusofwomeninmanydifferent contexts
withoutrecourseto ideologyor biology.It mustbe emphasized,
however,that Spencer'stheoreticalanalysisis ambiguousat a
crucialpoint:itsapplicationto nineteenth-century Britishsociety.
In thiscontext,thetwo modesofclassifying social systemswere
abandoned.Despitehisown strictures againstlettingideological
biases affectsociologicalanalyses,themilitant-industrial typol-
ogy became a thinlydisguisedway of defendingthe statusquo
and showingwhy England was at the zenithof evolutionary
development. 12Englandat thistimewas industrial (i.e., peaceful

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beeghley/ SPENCER & STATUS OF WOMEN 315

and relativelydecentralized),and thisstateofaffairswas (at least

forSpencer)thewayofthefuture, foritrepresentedtheprogress
ofhumansocietyawayfromwartowardpeace and cooperation.13
This is why he fulminatedin favor of laissez-faireeconomic
doctrinesand extremeindividualism;afterthe weak have been
eliminated, themoralruleadoptedin Social Staticswillbe attain-
able. Men willexercisetheirrightsin waysthatare compatible
withtheexerciseof similarrightsby othermen.
The sexist language used here is deliberate,for Spencer
retreatedfromhisyouthful affirmation oftherightsofwomento
a viewoftheir"proper"statusin society(1885[1910]:767-770).A
Victorianbachelor,he came to believe that marriedlife as it
existedin nineteenth-century England representedthe highest
positionwomencould hope to attain.Writingbeforetechnologi-
cal advancesliberatedwomenfromthelikelihoodof pregnancy
and lactation,he saw no alternativeto femalesubordination to a
benigndespot.Thus,withinmarriage,he said that"theprepond-
erance of power,resultingfromgreatermassivenessof nature,
must,howeverunobtrusiveit may become, continuewiththe
man." As a corollary,any further"change in the educationof
women,made withtheviewof fitting themforbusinessand the
professions,would be mischievous."Finally,he declaredthat
politicalequality of the sexes could not occur so long as the
responsibilityforwar fallsonlyon men.
In hislackofprescience,Spencerrailedagainstthe"disintegra-
tionof thefamily"as he wishedit to be and ignoredtheterrible
injusticesperpetrated againstwomen.More generally, hedid not
realizethatmilitancy and industrialism could be combinedwhen
advancedtechnology exists,thatinnovationcouldbe institution-
alizedundergovernment aegis,thatstateinterventioncould pro-
tect or deny individualfreedom,that human naturewill not
become cooperativein a modernindustrialsetting,or thatthe
freedomof womenis possiblein modernsocieties.

A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF
SPENCER'S SOCIOLOGY
Thereis littledoubt thatSpencerwas shortsighted
wheneva-
luatinghisownsociety,whichis a commonmistake.In Spencer's

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
316 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY 1983

case,hisatavisticpoliticshaveled subsequentobserversto neglect

hiswork,a reactionthatis itselfshortsighted. Spencer'sanalysis
is interesting becauseofhisuse oftwocomplementary conceptual
schemesthat,together, allowedhimto explainvariationin both
kinshiporganizationand women'sstatus.Even though(as sug-
gestedintheNotessection)subsequentdata havemadehisempir-
ical generalizations questionable,thetheoreticalsophistication of
hisworkis impressive.This is evenmoretruewhenitis remem-
beredthatthesametheoreticaltoolswereused to providecoher-
ent accountof variationsin political,legal,religious,and other
social structures.Spencer'swritings,then,deservestudyas a
chapterin thehistoryof ideas.
In addition,however,Spencer'stheoreticalmistakesare of
interest, primarilybecausetheyhavebeenduplicatedbymodern,
presumablymoresophisticatedsocial scientists.
At the beginningof this article,it was noted that some
observershave accused Spencerofassumingthatevolutioncon-
stitutesa "unilinearprocess."This criticism is notonlywrong,it
missesa farmoresignificant probleminherent in Spencer'sanaly-
sis,one thatcontinuesto plaguethesocial sciences:He emphas-
ized thateach formofkinshiparosein specificenvironsin order
to facilitategroupsurvival.Thus,he arguedthat"irregularrela-
tions of the sexes" are dysfunctional, thatpolyandrywas func-
tionalonlyininhospitablehabitats,thatpolygyny was superiorto
monogamyin contextswherehighfertility was necessary,and
thatmonogamyappearsto be themostevolvedbecausethesocial
bondsbetweenfamilymembersarestronger. Buttheseareillegit-
imateteleologies.Theyimputepurposeto humanhistory:Social
differentiation occursinorderto assuregreateradaptivecapacity.
As is wellknown,thesesameproblemsarepervasiveinmodern
functionalism(Turner, 1978). Now Stinchcombe(1968) and
othershaveassertedthatfunctionalist analysesassumetheopera-
tionofcomplexfeedbackloops; and,to theextentthisoccurs,the
teleologyproblemcan be resolved.However,likeSpencer,most
functionalistsfail to specify-explicitlyand abstractly-how
theserelationships vary.Whilethisis a verydifficulttask,itis one
way recentworkcould have improvedon Spencer'sexposition.
Unfortunately, no one has botheredto read Spencer.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beeghley/ SPENCER & STATUS OF WOMEN 317

Spencer's work anticipatesthe problemsplaguing modern

social theoryin anotherwayas well.For example,hisconclusion
that monogamyis the most advanced kinshipformfollows
directlyfromthecriteriahe devisedto identify themostevolved
kinshipforms.This is, of course, a tautology,similarto that
whichis characteristicof manyfunctionalist analyses.To some
degree,Stinchcombe'sdefenseis again applicable,sincetautol-
ogiessometimesyieldnontautological and interesting results.But
witha fewexceptions(e.g., Blau, 1977),theoristshavenotspeci-
fiedhow theseresultsoccur.CertainlyParsonsdid not.
In addition,evolutionaryanalyses,eventhoseas sophisticated
as Spencer's,nearlyalwaysinvolvean abandonmentofsciencein
favorofideology.Thisoccursbecause,as Granovetter (1979) has
shown,itis simplynotpossibleto assesstherelativeadvancement
ofsocietiesintermsofeithertheirefficiency at problemsolvingor
theirflexibility(adaptive capacity).The logical and empirical
problemsinvolved here cannot be solved, even in principle.
Hence, the onlyrecourseis to extrapolatefromthe past to the
futureinthemannerofthesciencefictionwriter.Butthistacticis
itleads to thetransformation
a sirensongforsocial scientists; of
historicalconditionsof whichone approvesinto evolutionary
milestonesbythesimpleexpedientofconstructing a logicalarti-
ficefilledwithillegitimateteleologiesand tautologies.
Note,forexample,thatSpencersawevolutionary "advance"in
termsofstructural and functionaldifferentiation. This is a com-
mon, if questionable,techniquein sociology,politicalscience,
and anthropology.Thus, monogamy,he said, has provento be
themostadvancedkinshipsystembecausethesocialbondsbind-
ingmemberstogetherarestrongest, and thischaracteristic, inthe
contextof changesin otherspheres(not discussedhere),allows
for and contributesto social differentiation. On this basis,
Spencer defendedVictoriankinshiporganizationas the most
advancedin evolutionary terms.
Lenski and Lenski (1978: 300) have made a similarmistake.
They argued,for example,that industrialization is associated
withpoliticaldemocracy,and in orderto sustainthisposition
theymakeveryquestionableinterpretations ofrecentworldhis-
tory.Specifically,theyignoretherelationship betweentotalitar-

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
318 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY 1983

ianismand industrialization in the twentieth century.Whether

democracyis an evolutionaryadvance cannot be determined,
becausetheverynotionoftheevolutionofsocietiesis misbegot-
ten.What is unfortunate is thatthisproblemis veryobvious in
Spencer'swork; even thoughthe criticsfail to understandthe
subtletyof his analysis,theysee thisfactclearly.
Lenski(1975) has assertedthat"long-runtrendsare a factof
humanhistory"and offer"some of our bestclues to the forces
thatshape and mold social structure." Whilehe was correct,the
issueis howthisinformation is to be used. Spencer'sworkimplies
a moreprofitableway of dealingwithlong-term trends:Evolu-
tionaryargumentscan be convertedinto abstract(nonevolu-
tionary)hypothesesthatspecifyhow social factsaffecthuman
behavior.Here are some examples.
Spencer'sanalysisofkinshiporganizationimpliesthreehypo-
theses.The firstdeals withsocialdifferentiation, monogamy,and
familyties: Thegreaterthesocial differentiation, themorelikely
is kinshiporganizationto be monogamousand thestrongerare
thesocial bondsbindingmembersofkinshipgroupstogether. In
addition,Spenceralso triedto accountforvariationsin women's
statusin structural terms:Thegreaterthesocial differentiation,
thehigherthestatusof women.Finally,the militant-industrial
typologyleads to a complementary hypothesis thatalso accounts
for variationsin women's status in structuralterms:The less
compulsioncharacterizes social relationshipsin all institutional
spheresand thelessrolesegregationbysex, thehigherthestatus
of women.This hypothesisapplies to those societiesin which
womenhavehighstatus,eventhoughthesocial systemis notvery
complex.
The firsthypothesis supplements recentworkin evolutionand
sociobiology. For example, Lenski and Lenski (1978) mainly
exploredhowtechnologicaladvanceshaveaffected theevolution
of humansocieties.As a result,theirdescriptionof thekinship
systemis cursory;theyseemedto assumethatpreindustrial fami-
lies wereauthoritarian (1978: 223), thatthedeclinein polygyny
was caused mainlyby industrialization(1978: 358), and that
women'sroleshave changedbecause of industrialization (1978:
360). Withoutdenyingthese hypotheses,Spencer's portrayal
adds to the Lenskis'interpretation. Van den Berghe(1979) was

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beeghley/ SPENCER & STATUS OF WOMEN 319

primarily concerned withdemonstrating thebiologicalbasisof

familyorganization and thewaybiologicaland socialfactors
interactas theyaffect kinshipbehavior. Although thiseffort was
useful,itmeantthathedidnotportray theevolution ofthefamily
insociological termsorshowhowthestatusofwomenis altered
bysocialfacts.Spencerdidjustthat,andina waythatisperfectly
consonantwithvan den Berghe'spurpose.Overthelongrun,
sociology andsociobiology willprovide complementary explana-
tionsofhumanbehavior.
The firsthypothesis can also serveas a guideto research.
Blumberg andWinch(1972)testedtheproposition thatthelink
between socialdifferentiation andkinship complexity is curvili-
near,andtheyfoundjustsucha relationship; thatis,"nuclear"
familiespredominate in hunting-and-gathering and modern
societies,while"extended"familiescharacterize societiesof
intermediate differentiations.If theirfindings arecorrect, then
Spencer's hypothesis wouldhaveto bemodified. Thetrick, how-
ever,is toposita theoretical rationale thatexplainsthefindings.
Spencerhas one,thestrength of kinshipbonds;Blumberg and
Winchdo not.The pointhereis thatSpencer'swritings could
stimulate researchers to thinkabstractly, evenifhishypotheses
areincorrect.
Spencer'ssecondandthirdhypotheses can serveas guidesto
research as well.Friedl(1975)examined thesocialarrangements
producing varying degreesofsexualinequality, independent of
biological differences,and concluded that the more males control
thedistribution ofscarceitems,especially food,thegreater their
control overwomen.Herreview oftheliteratureindicated that,as
Spencer suggested, whenmenandwomenworktogether atsimilar
tasksthereis less inequality. This conclusionis an empirical
generalization, albeita controversialone;butitcouldbe more.
NotonlydidSpencermakethesamejudgment, healsoprovided a
theoretical rationaleforit.Whilethehypotheses advancedhere
maynotbe correct, theorytestingoughtto be thepurposeof
research,and Spencer'sworkcan providesome interesting
suggestions.
HerbertSpencerbelievedsociologyshoulddevelopabstract,
testable theories similartothoseintheothersciences.Principles
ofSociology was hismajorcontribution tothattask.Thefolklore

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
320 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY 1983

dominatingrecentinterpretations of his workhas not onlypre-

ventedsubsequentscholarsfromlearningabout and using his
ideas, it has also led to the repetitionof his mistakes.We have
neglectedSpencer'swritings fortoo long.

NOTES

1."Statics"refers to "theequilibriumofa perfect society,"while"dynamics"refers to

"theforcesbywhichsocietyis advancedtowardperfection" (Spencer,1850[1950]: 367).
Thus,Social Staticshad moreincommonwithTheRepublicthanthenascentdisciplineof
sociology.At thetimehe wrotethebook, Spencerwas unfamiliar withComte'swritings.
2. This argumenthas a numberofpurelyphilosophicalweaknesses(see Peel, 1971).
Peel also pointedoutthatwhilethereligiousbasis ofSpencer'sphilosophymayseemodd
today,itwas squarelyin thetraditionof nineteenth centuryBritishpoliticalphilosophy.
3. The empiricalbasis forSpencer'ssociologywas a seriesofeightvolumeswiththe
overalltitle,DescriptiveSociology,or Groupsof SociologicalFacts, publishedperiodi-
callybetween1873and 1881.(Anotherninevolumesappearedbetween1910and 1934.)
Organizedin functionalterms,theseitemsweretherawdata forhistheoreticalanalysis.
See Turnerand Beeghley(1981: 96-99)fora morecompleteexplanation.
4. Compoundingand recompounding are Spencer'sterms(1885 [1910]: 463-470)for
describinghow societiesevolve.Small social unitscombineby compoundingwithother
societies,and theresulting largerunitsarejoined to othersocietiesthroughrecompound-
ing.These processesoccurmostoftenthroughwar.
5. This is thelinkbetweenSpencerand Parsonsthatis usuallyrecognized(Turner,
1978). However,thesimilarities betweenSpencer'ssociologyand modernfunctionalism
suggestthatParsonsread PrinciplesofSociologyverycarefully, a facthe once admitted
(Parsons,1961).Unfortunately, as willbe seenbelow,Parsonsalso mademanyofthesame
theoreticalmistakesthatSpencerdid.
6. In Spencer'swords(1885 [1910]: 643), "forcibly takingwomenfromone another,
men recognizeno tie betweenthe sexes save that whichmightestablishesand liking
maintains.... Marriage,as we understandit, hardlyexists."Whilethe correctnessof
Spencer'sempiricalassertionsis notat issuehere,theanalogybetweenearlyhumanbeings
and otheranimalspointsintherightdirection, accordingto vanden Berghe's(1979:22-25)
reviewoftheliterature. It shouldbe noted,however,thathisinterpretation ofrecentdata
is verycontroversial. Many anthropologists wouldcitecontraryevidence.
7. WhileSpencer'sdescriptionof polyandry as arisingunderexceptionalconditions
was apparentlycorrect,he was unaware that it has occasionallyoccurredin benign
habitatsas well(Levine and Sangree,1980).
8. Currentdata on whetherpolygynyresultsin higherfertility are mixed;thereis
evidencein bothdirections.For a reviewof theliterature, see Isaac (1980).
9. It is not clear how criticscan read statementssuch as thisand manyothersin
Principlesof Sociology,and thenclaim thatSpencersaw evolutionas proceedingin a
strictly linearfashion.
10.Again,recentdata on thecorrelatesofpolygyny aremixed.Myimpression is thatit
is verydifficult to make thesimplegeneralizationsSpencerfavored.However,as noted
above, concernhereis notwithwhetherSpencer'sempiricalassertionswerecorrectbut
withhow he used data to elaboratehis theoreticalideas.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Beeghley/ SPENCER & STATUS OF WOMEN 321

11. Spencer emphasizedthis point. It was not stated in passing or noted as an

exceptionalcase. In his words,it is generallythe factthat"the phenomenaexhibited
duringevolutioncannot be placed in serial order. Always therego divergenciesand
redivergencies"(1885 [19101:226).
12.Spencer'sTheStudyofSociology(1872[1961])is a methodological classicthatis in
manywayssuperiorto Durkheim'sRulesoftheSociologicalMethod(1895[1938]).In this
book Spencerdealt witha numberof the problemsthatstillconcernsociologists:data
collection,measuringactors'subjectivestates,the influenceof personaland organiza-
tional interestson the choice of topics,the mode of interpreting
results,and so on. It
deservesreading.
13.WhileSpencerbelievedthatwarwas one ofthemostimportant factorscausingthe
evolutionofsocieties,primarily becauseitledto theexterminationofweakersocietiesand
theweedingoutofweakermembersofstrongsocieties(1885 [1910]:565),he thoughtthat
in "highersocieties"theill effects
ofwaroutweigheditsadvantages.In short,he believed
thatnineteenth-century Europeancountrieshad evolvedbeyondwar,and thatindustrial-
ismin itsmodernformmade war unnecessary.

REFERENCES

Andreski,S.
1971 "Introductory essay: sociology,biology,and philosophyin HerbertSpencer,"
pp. 7-35in S. Andreski(ed.) HerbertSpencer:Structure, Function,and Evolu-
tion.London: Michael H. Joseph.
Bock, K.
1978 "Theoriesofprogress, development, and evolution,"pp. 39-79inT. Bottomore
and R. A. Nisbet(eds.) A Historyof SociologicalThought.New York: Basic
Books.
Blau, P.
1977 Inequalityand Heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.
Blumberg,R. L. and R. A. Winch
1972 "Societal complexityand familialcomplexity:evidencefor the curvilinear
hypothesis." Amer.J. of Sociology77 (January):898-920.
Duffin,L.
1978 "Prisonersofprogress:womenand evolution,"pp.57-91inS. Delamontand L.
Duffin(ed.) The Nineteenth-Century Woman: Her Cultural and Physical
World.New York: Barnes& Noble.
Durkheim,E.
1933 The Division of Labor in Society(1893). New York: Free Press.
1938 Rules of the Sociological Method(1895). New York: Free Press.
Friedl,E.
1975 Women and Men: An Anthropologist's View. New York: Holt, Rinehart&
Winston.
Granovetter, M.
1979 "The idea of 'advancement'in theoriesof social evolutionand development."
Amer.J. of Sociology85 (November):489-515.
Issac, B. L.
1980 "Female fertility and maritalformamongtheMende ofruralUpperBambera
Chiefdom,SierraLeone." Ethnology19 (July):297-314.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
322 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES / JULY1983

Lenski,G.
1966 Power and Privilege.New York: McGraw-Hill.
1976 "Social structurein evolutionaryperspective,"pp. 135-153in P. Blau (ed.)
Approachesto theStudyof Social Structure.New York: Free Press.
Lenski,G. and J. Lenski
1978 Human Societies.New York: McGraw-Hill.
Levine,N. E. and W. A. Sangree,eds.
1980 "Womenwithmanyhusbands:polyandrousallianceand maritalflexibility in
Africaand Asia." J. of ComparativeFamilyStudies 11 (Spring):283-410.
Nisbet,R. A.
1969 Social Change and History.New York: OxfordUniv. Press.
Parsons,T.
1937 The Structuresof Social Action.New York: Free Press.
1951 The Social System.New York: Free Press.
1961 "Introduction,"pp.v-x in H. Spencer,The Studyof Sociology. Ann Arbor:
Univ. of MichiganPress.
1966 Societies.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.
1971 The Systemof Modern Societies.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Peel, J. D. Y.
1971 HerbertSpencer:The Evolutionof a Sociologist.New York: Basic Books.
Perrin,R. G.
1976 "HerbertSpencer'sfourtheoriesofsocial evolution."Amer.J.ofSociology81
(May): 1339-1359.
Simpson,G.
1933 "Prefaceto thetranslation,"pp.7-11 inE. Durkheim,The DivisionofLabor in
Society.New York: Free Press.
Spencer,H.
1880 FirstPrinciples(1862). New York: A. L. Burt.
1910 Principlesof Sociology,vol. 1 (1885). New York: D. Appleton.
1950 Social Statics(1850). New York: RobertSchalkenbachFoundation.
1961 The Studyof Sociology(1872). Ann Arbor:Univ. of MichiganPress.
Stinchcombe,A.
1968 Constructing Social Theories.New York: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.
Turner,J. H.
1978 The Structureof SociologicalTheory.Homewood,IL: Dorsey.
Turner,J. H. and L. Beeghley
1981 The Emergenceof Sociological Theory.Homewood,IL: Dorsey.
Van den Berghe,P. L.
1979 Human Family Systems: An Evolutionary View. New York: Elsevier
North-Holland.

LeonardBeeghleyis AssociateProfessorofSociologyat theUniversityofFlorida.

This articleis an extrapolationof some ideas containedin The Emergenceof
SociologicalTheory(coauthoredwithJonathanH. Turner).Beeghley'snewbook,
LivingPoorlyin America,willbe publishedin August1983 by Praeger.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.216 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:16:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions