Turner - Forgotton Theoretical Giant

Librairie Droz
The Forgotton Theoretical Giant: Herbert Spencer's Models and Principles

Author(s): Jonathan H. Turner
Source: Revue européenne des sciences sociales, T. 19, No. 59 (1981), pp. 79-98
Published by: Librairie Droz
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40370811
Accessed: 27-10-2015 17:55 UTC
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.
Librairie Droz is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Revue européenne des sciences sociales.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.184.220.23 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:55:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JONATHAN H. TURNER
THE FORGOTTON THEORETICAL GIANT:

HERBERTSPENCER'S MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
Unlikeotherintellectualgiantsof the 19thcentury, the worksof

HerbertSpencerhavereceivedrelatively littleattention.Atthesame
time that Marx,Weber,Durkheim,and Simmelare revered,Spen-
cer is forgotten vilified. Indeed,if we were
and oftenintellectually
to constructa modal portrayalof Spencer,or an intellectualobi-
tuary,it mightread as follows(Turnerand Beeghley,1980):
HerbertSpencer,the firstself-consciousEnglishsociologist, advo-
cated a sociologicalperspectivethat supportedthe dominantpoliti-
cal ideologyof freetradeand enterprise.He naivelyassumedthat
"societywas like an organism"and developeda sociologythat saw
each institutionas havingits "function"in the "bodysocial"- the-
rebypropagating a conservationideologyand legitimating the status-
quo. Anticipating Darwin'sconceptof "NaturalSelection,"Spencer
coined the phrase,"survivalof the fittest,"to describethe normal
state of relationswithinand betweensocieties- thus makingit
seem rightthat the elite of a societyshould possess privilegeand
thatsome societiesshouldconquerothers.
Againstsuch a view,Talcoot Parsons' (1937: 1) earlyobservation

- "whonow reads HerbertSpencer?"- mayseemappropriate.But
unfortunalety,Parsons'querywas not onlyan accuratedescription
forthe 1930s,it was also to be an acurateprophecyforthenextfour
decades. Tobay,few read Spencer;and amongthosewho do com-
menton his ideas, numerousmisinterpretations prevail.
This paper seeks to examineSpenceras a sociologicaltheorist,
ratherthan as a moralist,philosopher,or politicalcommentator. x
In so doing,it is hoped that Spencer'spurelysociologicalworks
will be betterappreciatedby an intellectualcommunity thathas too
i Spencer's philosophic,political,and moral works. Most of the prejudices

against Spencer stem fromhis firstmajor work, Social Statics (1850) and his
last, Principles of Ethics (1892-98). But his major non-sociologicalworks,
Principlesof Psychology(1855),Principlesof Biology(1864-7),and First Principles
(1862) are virtuallydevoid of political and moral commentary.And his major
sociologicalworks, Te Study of Sociology (1873),Principlesof Sociology (1874-
1896),and DescriptiveSociology (1873-1934) are similarlyfree of undue moral
overtones. Indeed, these works are probably less political and moral than
those of Comte, Marx, and Durkheim. Thus, it is not difficultto separate
Spenceriansociologyfromhis moral philosophy.
80 J. H. TURNE
readilydismissedthisintellectualgiantof our past. In focusingonly

on Spencer'stheoreticalmodelsand principles,we are ignoring many
of his mostimportantcontributions in methodology (Spencer,1873)
and in ethnographic disciplines(Spencer,1873-1934), but hopefully,
a renewedappreciationof Spencer'stheoreticalmodels and princi-
ples will encouragea less prejudicedreadingof his otherworks.
Spencer'sTheoretical Models
In his FirstPrinciples2(1862:3, 43), Spencerdefinedcosmicevo-

lutionin the universeas an "integration of matterand concomitant
dissipationof motion;duringwhichthe matterpasses froman in-
definiteincoherent homogeneity to a definitecoherentheterogeneity;
and duringwich the retainedmotionundergoesa paralleltransfor-
mation."In this law, or "firstprinciple,"Spencerfeltthat he had
unlockedone of the commonpropertiesof the inorganic,organic,
and super-organic (social) realms. Indeed,Spencerarguedthatthis
generalprincipleapplied to the evolutionof solar systems,organic
life,and social systems.Whilesuch an assetionis, no doubt,untrue,
Spencer'svision of social systemswas always conditionedby this
generalview of evolution. But immediately, we must add several
importantqualificationsto this oftenmade abservation(Peel, 1972;
Carneiro,1967).
First,whenapplyingthis law to social systems,Spencerdevoted
his atentionto the processof institutionalization (Perrin,1976). For
althoughtSpencerwas concernedwithlong-run evolutionarytrends
in societies,he also used the conceptof evolutionto denoteshort-
termprocesses of "structuring" in social systems. Secondly,this
emphasisis underscoredby the fact that in formulating this law,
Spencer (1862) devotedmanypages to the analysisof "dissolution"
in which structures"dissipate"and move towards"incoherentho-
mogeneity."Thus,whenSpenceremployedthe term,evolution,and
applied it to social systems,he was addressingthe twinprocesses
of institutionalizationand de-institutionalization,or struturing and
unstructuring of social relations.
Too often,Spenceris viewedas a naiveevolutionist who saw so-
cieties as marchingtowardthe Westernideal of industrialcapita-
lism. Such assertionsrepresenta profoundmisreadingand unfair
evaluationof Spencer'ssociologicalworks. This tendencyto mis-
read Spencercan be demonstrated by articulatingSpencer'smodels
of social organization.WhenSpencer'sthreeanalyticalmodelsare
examined,onlyone of the threeis explicitlyevolutionary and it is
2 This was not a sociological work, but a statementof Spencer's general

law of evolutionwhich he felt applied to all realms of the universe- the phy-
sical, psychological,organic,and super-organic.
SPENCER'S MODELS 81
farfromnaiveor simplistic.His othertwo modelsare abstractand

analyticin thattheyfocuson the generalprocessof institutionaliza-
tion and on the underlyingdynamicsof such institutionalization.
Thus,to appreciatethe powerof Spencer'sanalysis,we need to exa-
mine his threebasic models on (1) the process of institutionaliza-
and (3) the process of
tion, (2) the phases of institutionalization,
societalevolution.
(1) The Processof Institutionalization. For Spencerthe process
of institutionalization involvesgrowthin the size of a population,
its differentiation, its integration, and finally,its adaptive upgra-
ding.3 Whenviewedin theseterms,muchof theawkardterminology
in Spencer'sdefinition of evolutionis clarified. Institutionalization
involvesthe aggregationof "matter"(individualsand social units)
which,by virtueof being broughttogether,evidence"motion"or
tendenciesto act in certainways. This "retainedmotion"leads to
differentiation of actions,and as individualsand social unitsbecome
segregatedin space, theirpropensitiesto act differently becomeam-
plified and multiplied over time (from "homogeneity to heterogenei-
ty"). But at some pointthe "motion"thatpushesunitsin different
directionsbecomes"dissipated"as theyencounterresistanceto their
actions. Moreover,if the aggragatedunitsare to be kept fromdis-
persing,theymustbecome"integrated" throughthe centralization of
authority and mutual interdependence. And as these processes of
integrationoccur, the aggregatedunits become more "coherent,"
resultingin an increasedlevel of adaptivecapacityto theirenviron-
ment. At any pointin this process (Spencer,1862),dissolutioncan
occur, if the retainedmotionis strongerthan the forcescausing
aggregation, if segregation and multiplication of differences are too
great, if centralizationof authority is and
insufficient, if mutual in-
terdependence cannotbe established. Spencer'sintentcan be illus-
tratedwith a hypothetical example: a societywhichgrowsas the
resultof conqueringanotherwill tendto differentiate along conque-
red and conquerorlines; it will centralizeauthority;it will create
relationsof interdependence; and henceit will becomemoreadapted
to its environment.The resultof thisintegration and adaptationis
an increasedcapacity to conquer more societies- hence, setting
intomotionanotherwave of growth,differentiation, and
integration,
adaptation. At any point in this process,however, dissolutioncan
occur if the retainedmotionof the conqueredis greaterthan the
forceof theirconquerers,if centralization of authoritycannotbe-
come legitimated and effective, and if mutualdependencecannotbe
established.Similary,Spencer'sideas can be appliedto non-societal
social systems, suchas a corporation which,forexample,mightbegin
to growthroughmergersor expenditures of capital. But soon,Spen-
cer would have argued,it mustdifferentiate functions, and thenin-
3 We are using the terms used by Talcott Parsons (1968, 1971),since he

apparentlydevelopedthese ideas fromhis readingof Spencer.
6
82 J. H. TURNER
r~ Illi
ill!
I
i
iJlf
.issft
**
uj £ O
1 iL
Ililí
I!"
á:E§ I
1
I ,
^ |ol
spencer'smodels 83
tegratethemthrougha combinationof mutualdependenceof parts

and centralization of authority. If such integrationis successful,
it has increasedtheadaptivecapacityof the system,and it can grow,
if some"force"(suchas capitalsurplus)is available.Thus, Spencer's
"law of cosmicevolution"providesa broad metaphorforspecicying
certainkeyprocessescreatingand elaboratingsocial structures:(a)
forcescausinggrowthin systemsize (whetherby compounding smal-
ler unitsor internalcreationof new units); (b) the differentiationof
unitsin termsof segregation and multiplication of effects(the "ho-
mogeneity" to "heterogeneity"portionof the law of evolution);(c)
the processeswherebydiferentiated units become integrated("the
integrationof matter"and "dissipationof motion"portions);and
(d) the creationof a "coherentheterogeneity" whichincreasesthe
levelof adaptationto the environment.This implicitmodelis made
explicitin Figure1:
Figure1 outlinesthe stagesof institutionalization. As is empha-
sized,the fundamental processesof growth,differentiation, integra-
tion,and adaptiveupgradingare, to some extent,conditioned(a) by
"externalfactors,"such as the availabilityof naturalresources,(b)
by "internalfactors,"like thenatureof theinternalunits,and (c) by
"derivedfactors,"such as the existenceof othersocietiesor internal
values and beliefs.4 And as is also evident,Spencer'sdefinition of
evolutionis renderedmore understandable. Some "force,"whether
economiccapital,a new technology, a need to gatherresources,new
values and beliefs,etc., sets into "motion"systemgrowth. This
on variousunits,sends themin dif-
"motion,"as it acts differently
ferentdirectionsand "segregates"themsuch that theirdifferences
are "multiplied" as the retainedmotionallows fortheirelaboration.
Yet,if the systemis not to explodeapart,theunitsor "matter"must
be "integrated," therebydissipatingor channelling the motionof the
parts in ways that increasesthe "coherence"of the whole. Such
coherenceincreasesthe adaptivecapacityof the system. Converse-
ly,to the extentthatintegration is incompleteand/orthe forcethat
drivesthe systemis spentand cannotbe replaced,thendissolution
of the systemis likely. Thus,social systemsgrow,differentiate, in-
tegrate,and achievesome levelof adaptationto theenvironment, but
at some point theirdrivingforceis spentor units cannotbecome
integrated,settingthe systemintoa phase of dissolution.
(2) The Model of SystemPhases. Spencervisualizedthatduring
social systemscycle throughphases where au-
institutionalization,
thority becomes highly centralized,and then,less centralized.Spen-
cer saw centralizationas primarilya response to environmental
threatsand conflictor a responseto extremeinternaldiversity.But
he also recognizedthat the process of differentiation and integra-
4 Spencer had originallydiscussed these in The Study of Sociology (1873)

but elaborated upon them in the opening passages of Principlesof Sociology
(1874:3-75).
84 J. H. TURNER
tion,per se, are involved(Spencer,1874). Social systemswill be

centralizedrapidlyunder conditionsof externalthreat,but regar-
dless of theseforces,theypossess an inherentdialecticin thatdecen-
tralizedsystemsexperiencepressuresfor increasedcentralization,
whilehighlycentralizedsystemsrevealpressuresforless directcon-
trolby centralizedauthority.
Contraryto muchof the commentary on Spencer (e.g.,Sorokin,
1961; Coser, 1977),it is this cyclicalprocess that Spencer denoted
withhis distinction between"militaristic" and "industrial"societies.
Too often,this distinctionis viewed as an evolutionary sequence,
but such a view representsone of the most consistentmisreadings
of Spencer'sPrinciplesof Sociology(1876: volume1: 449-597).For
Spencer,militaristicdenotesthe degreeof centralization of power
and controlof internalsystemprocesses,whereas"industrial"5re-
fersnot to a particularmode of economicproduction(such as in-
dustrialcapitalism)but to the de-regulation of internalsystempro-
cesses. Hence,both traditionaland modernsocietiescan be either
"militant"or "industrial" - a point of emphasisthat is ignoredin
effortsto view Spencer'sdistinction between"militant"and "indus-
trial" as denotinga unievolutionary trend.6 When this fact is re-
cognized,a modelsuch as thatdiagrammedin Figure2 emerges:
If we beginanalysisof thephasesat box 1,as Spencerwouldhave
intended,the thencycle is initiatedwith differentiation, and diver-
sificationof the systemand its constituent parts. Such growthleads
to integrativeproblemswhichincreasewithfurtherdiversifications
of units (box 2), eventuallycreatingpressuresfor consolidationof
differentiatedand diversified units. At some point,and undervaria-
ble empiricalconditions, thesepressureslead to centralization of au-
thority(box 3) whichresultsin tightcontrolof internaloperative
and distributive processesby regulatory centers(box 5). Overtime,
such controlcreastesstagnationby limitingthe developmental op-
tionsof systemunits (box 6), withthe resultthatpressuresforde-
regulationmount, At some point under varyingempiricalcondi-
tions, these pressureslead to de-centralization (box8) which sets
offa new wave of differentiation, and diversification (box 1).
5 "Industrial"was used by Spenceras a synonym forwhathe also called

"operaticefunctions" or internalsystemprocesses. "Militaristic" was used
insteadof "regulativefunctions"or thepowerto controlexternaland internal
systemprocesses. See Principlesof Sociology(1876:458491). Dates varyfor
referencesto Principles
of Sociology,sincevariouschapterscameout in install-
mentsto subscribers to Spencer's"Synthetic Philosophy".We have kept to
the originalpublicationdates,but page numberscorrespond to paginationin
theboundvolumes.See footnote 1.
6 Spencerhoped that modernsocietieswould be "industrial" - that is,
concerned withinternalproductivity - but his observations on the colonialism
and warfareof his timeoftenmitigated his hopes. Theseobservations come
late in Principles(18963)whenhe describes"economicinsstitutions". But if
one reads his early,moreanalyticalstatements, it is clear that Spencersaw
an inherentdialecticbetweencentralization and decentralization in social
systems.
spencer's models 85
Fig. 2. - Phases of Institutionalization
Problems of
'ntegtation
^•^ -^^^
Differentiation Pressures for

and diversifica- i. 3. consolidation of
tion of units diversified units
Decentralization Centralization
of authority *• 4.
ofautnorjty
A-, Pressures for ? 5

, i~
Tight regulating
control of opera-
deregulation tive and dietribu-
6 tive processes
Problems of
^v^^ ^s^
^v**-*. stagnation a^^
throughover-
regulation
This model, which appears in Principles of Sociology (1876: 576-

587), supplements Spencer's general view of institutionalizationby
specifyingthe more rhytmiccycles that occur during institutiona-
lization. In turn,both the general model of institutionalizationand
this model on the phases of institutionalizationprovide some insight
into Spencer's view of the dynamicsunderlyinglong-termevolutiona-
ry development.
(3) The Model of Long-termSocietal Evolution. Curiously,Spen-
cer's long-termevolutionarymodel is rarely discussed in commenta-
ries on his work (indeed, the "militant-industrial"distinctionis dis-
cussed as if it were the long-termevolutionarymodel). But Spencer's
descriptive model of evolution is far more sophisticated than is
usually thought,and in fact, it is equal to those developed in recent
years (Parsons, 1967, 1971; Lenski, 1966, 1970; Turner, 1972).
86 J. H. TURNER
As Spencer'sdefinition of evolutionunderscores,humanevolution
involvesmovementfromsimple and homogeneoussocietiesto in-
creasinglymore differentiated and complexsystems. As such, so-
cietal evolutionis but one typeof more generalevolutionary pro-
cesses in the cosmos. Societal differentiation, Spencerfelt,occurs
along threebroad classes of functions, 7 regulatory,operative,and
distributive, and as such, societal evolutionreveals a parallel to
growthand development in organicbodies.8 The firstdifferentiation
is betweenthe regulatoryand operative,but with growthof, and
differentiation within,structuresperforming these functions,sepa-
rate distributive structuresemerge. Subsequentevolutioninvolves
growthof, and internaldifferentiation within,each of these three
classes of structures.Thus,forexample,the regulatory systemof a
societywill initiallydifferentiate into separate administrative(for
internalaffairs)and military(externalrelations)subsystems.And
with furtherevolution,the militaryand administrative branches
grow and differentiate internally, while a new type of regulatory
structure, the monetary, differentiates
fromthe militaryand admi-
nistrative. Similary,operativeand distributivestructuresbecome
increasingly differentiatedfromthe regulatory and fromeach other,
whilebecominginternally differentiated.
Spencerlabelledfourconspicuousstagesin thisevolutionary pro-
cess: (1) simple,9(2) compound,(3) doublycompound,and (4) trebly
compound.
Simple societiesare those where regulatory, operativeand dis-
tributiveprocessesare not greatlydifferentiatied. Compoundsocie-
ties are created by the joining of simple societiesor by internal
growth. They reveal clear differentiation betweenregulatoryand
operativeprocesses,as well as some internaldifferentiation within
each. However,distributivestructuresare not clearly separated
fromeitherregulatory or operativeprocesses. But in double com-
pound societies,where separate regulatoryand operativesystems
have furtherundergonegrowthand internaldifferentiation, a sepa-
rate set of distributiveprocessesdoes becomeclearlydifferentiated.
7 Regulatory= the controlof relationsbetween a systemand its environ-

ment, as well as coordinationand control of internationalsystemprocesses.
Operative = internalsystemprocess involvedin the "operation"of a system.
Distributive= the processes by which materials and informationmove among
systemunits, and between a system and its environment.See Principles oh
Sociology(1876:498-548).
8 Spencer was quick to point out that societyis not an organism,but only
that there are some similar principlesof organizationin organic and super-
organic systems. As he emphasized in Principles of Sociology (1875: 448):
Between societyand anythingelse, the only conceivableresemblancemust be
due to parallelismof principlein the arrangementof components"(emphasis
in original). The original analytical distinctionsamong evolutionarystages
appear in volume I of Principlesof Sociology(1876: 549-55). Later volumes fill
in the descriptivedetails.
» "Simple" was divided into those with, and without,political leaders or
"heads".
spencer's models 87
And in trebly compound systems, regulatory,operative, and distri-

butive structuresexpand and differentiateeven further.
This pattern of long-run growth and differentiationin human
societies is represented in Figure 3. This model reproduces in dia-
grammatic form much of the informationprovided in the later vo-
lumes of Principles of Sociology (volumes 2 and 3).10 This vision
of evolutionis inspired by a biological model of growthin organisms
(Spencer, 1862, 1864-7),since societal evolution involves growth and
differentiationalong three major functionalsystems that have their
analogue in more complex animal organisms. Such analogizing can
be viewed as a limitingconstraint,but it did allow Spencer to cap-
ture many of the most salient properties of long-termsocietal evo-
lution. Indeed, the model is far more sophisticated than that deve-
loped by any of Spencer's contemporaries, such as Marx, Comte,
Weber, Durkheim,Tonnies, Maine, Tylor,and others; and it is equal
to those models developed by contemporarysociologists and anthro-
pologists.
In sum, then, these three models reveal considerable sophistica-
tion in Spencer's sociological analysis. For whateverhis politics and
moral philosophy,11his sociological analysis captures many of the
important dynamics of social systems. Yet, despite their heuristic
value, these models provided the assumptive base for Spencer's
most important theoretical contribution: the development of some
abstract laws or principles of social organization.
Spencer's Theoretical Principles
With the exception of his "firstprinciples" of evolution,Spencer

never stated formallyhis "principles of sociology." Yet, he reco-
gnized that as a science, sociology requires the formulationof abs-
tract principles which denote fundamentalrelationships among phe-
nomena in the social, or what he called the super-organicrealm.
While these principleswould be connected to the universal principles
of evolution,and while they would reveal some affinityto the prin-
ciples of biology or organic systems, they would, nevertheless,be
unique to sociology, since social systems constitute a distinctive
realm in the universe. And thus, while he did not state his sociolo-
gical principles formally,nor as abstractly as we intend to state
them,it is relativelyeasy to extract abstract principles fromhis mo-
io In these descriptivestatementson various institutions,

Spencerwas clearly
drawingfrom his accumulatingdecriptionsin his DescriptiveSociology (1873-
1934)whichhe had commissionedothersto developunderhis editorialguidance.
ii It should be emphasizedthat the presentauthor is, like many others in
contemporarysociology, somewhat repelled by Spencer's politics. But his
politics should be kept separated fromhis purelysociological analysis.
88 J. H. TURHER
re discursivearguments.For presentpurposes,theseprinciplescan
be organizedunder threegeneralheading:(1) principlesof growth
and differentiation,
(2) principlesof internaldifferentiation,
and (3)
and adaptation.12
principlesof differentiation
Principlesof Growthand Differentiation.

Spencer saw a fundamentalrelatioshipin the social universe
betweenthe size of a social aggregateand the processof structural
differentiation.13 He phrased this insightin the metaphorof
"growth" with the resultthat differentiationin social systemsis a
positivefunctionof increasesin the size of a social aggregate.And
with this growthmetaphor,he specifiedadditionalrelationships:
the rate of growthand the degree of concentration of aggregate
membersduringgrowthare also relatedto structural differentiation.
Moreover,he saw thatincreasesin systemsize are, to a verygreat
extent,relatedto previousincreasesin the size and level of diffe-
rentiationof an aggregate. Those aggregatesthat are able to inte-
gratedifferentiating social unitsat one pointin timeare in a better
positionto increasetheirsize and level of differentiationat a subse-
quent point in time. These insightsinto the relationshipamong
growth,size, and differentiation in social systemscan be expressed
in the following propositions(Spencer,1864;Spencer,1875:471490):
(1) The largeris a social system,the greaterwill be its level of
structuraldifferentiation.
(2) The greateris the rateof growthof a social system,thegrea-
ter is its rate and degreeof structuraldifferentiation.
(3) The more growthin the numbersof membresin a social
systemis concentrated, the morelikelyis thatgrowthto be
accompaniedby highrates of structuraldifferentation.
(4) The moregrowthand differentiation at one pointin timehas
resultedin structuralintegration of systemunits,the more
likelyis that systemto grow and differentiate furtherat a
subsequentpointin time.
Principles(1) and (2) statewhat Spencerfeltto be invariantre-
lations,regardlessof other conditions. Principles(3) and (4) are
expressedmore probabilistically,since specificempiricalconditions
can influencethe likelihoodthat differentiation will follow from
concentration alone and previouspatternsof integration.But just
wether these principlesrepresentinvariantlaws or probabilistic
12 AH of these principlesappeared in the firstparts of volumeI of Principles

of Sociology (1874-1876:3-75,447-549).Thus, by 1876,sociologyhad some of its
fundamentallaws of human organization.
!3 This insightwas originallyachieved in Principles of Biology (1864) and
even earlierin several essays.
figure
Ooubtocompound Treo»ecompound
^
rJ Politic«'leaders I
^^^| PoH«c«i
state \==^~Z^ I I
^^^
Thî I 1
1 j
, 1 __- "■*! Largecv.iNj'Mucracv
Ovrtbureaucracy '
^ H^"~
. - "" " J I - Regulatory
^ svsiem
Monetary
Bureaucracy
Military I targemit.tary I
*^-*>-^ft| j-
*'* ~^- -- leaders I

loca' governmeni
I ^^_^ ^
^^~~~-eJ Localgovernments PS^L.
- •■a^--
_^| | nri'TP'ft'f" t'-tf^1*! I
A LesseiterxJedknsnio I
/ A Cûrcês I
^~i H «■**.w>
y // à e- i
( xJ' / A Econom.c j
...c,^ o| ted.».««.. h».,ch, [^
I //
economic Í
wom I oj More
corrpte» roKs"]^" eOucafon
Lov>e.
|
H.ghe>ûcat.on |
~ ^^______^-o| ~" °P»'«liyt
ol Artists, specialists
inerary
J f^
«J commonity I
Arlisl'C
T>mun,t^ =- Town»andel*- H V'"a9eS 1

| c^
t^^~
=n -i - k ^x1 D
X. Prisons I
>j
Less rigidrann
^| j
^ >-> |
Roedsystem Rai1
^| "~}*^^^ H |
>^ socialists
Trading I
_^---c1
***
>^ ^J Traders r- i I
, >^^ <aj specialists j
Trading
e systems. - O«trlbuttv«
¿^
IÜ I nT"~~-~ ^^ , . ol olmarVetS
Types
N. eJ Market»
l^1---!!!
>v Typesol mancets
~^"~1 j
^[ ComiT>urx«tion»pectaiist»
[^- Typetd m«d»a
o| "]
I
^^^^cJconvnuoicattontnetviíori«
spencer's models 91
statements is probably less importantthan Spencer's basic insight:

In the social world, growth,size, and differentiationare fundamen-
tally related. Spencer was the first to perceive clearly this basic
relationshipand it marks one of his more enduringcontributionsto
sociological theory. Indeed, these principles have found expression
in a number of contemporary contexts, such as human ecology
(Hawley, 1950), organizations theory (Blau, 1970), and analyses of
states (Nolan, 1979).
Principles of Internal Differentiation.
Spencer did more than attempt to relate structural differentia-

tion in social systems to size, growth,population concentration,and
previous patterns of integration. He also sought to understand the
nature and course of structural differentiationin social systems.14
The firstof these principles concerns the sequence of differentiation
among differenttypes of structuresin social systems (Spencer, 1875,
1876: 491-548).
(1) The more a social system has initiated the process of struc-
tural differentiation,the more likely is the initial axes of
differentationto be between regulatoryand operative struc-
tures.
(2) The more a social system has differentiatedseparate regula-
tory and operative structures,and the geater the volume of
activityin that system,the more likely are separate media-
ting structures involved in distrivutiveprocesses to become
differentiatedfrom regulatoryand operative structures.
Once separate regulatory,operative, and distributive structures

become differentiated,there are pressures for integration. Spencer
saw two major machanisms of integration:15 (a) mutual dependence
of diverse units on each other and (b) centralizationof authorityin
the regulatorysystem. Hence, Spencer offeredthe followingprinci-
ple:
(3) The more differentiatedthe three major axes in a social sys-
tem, the greaterits integrativeproblems,and hence, the more
likelyare relations of mutual interdependenceand centralized
authorityto develop in that system.
For Spencer, then, differentiationin social systems occurs along
three general axes, occurs in a praticular order, and exentuallygene-
14 See Part II of Volume I (Spencer, 1875).

15 Spencer's failure to recognizethat cultural ideas are also a major inte-
grativeforceled Durkheim,and othersof the French tradition,to reject Spen-
cerian sociology.
7
92 J. H. TURNER
rates pressursfor integration. Subsequentdifferentiation among

eitherthe regulatory, operative,or distributivestructuresalso oc-
curs, Spencer argued,in a particularpatternand sequence. The
patternof differentiation forthe regulatory,operative,and distribu-
tive systemscan thus be expressedas follows(Spencer,1862; 1864;
1875,6: 491-548):
(4) The greateris the degreeof differentiation along the regula-
toryaxes, the morelikelyis differentiation to occur initially
betweenstructures dealingwith(a) the externalenvironment
and (b) internalactivities,and only afterthe differentiation
of (a) and (b), is differentiation
of regulatorystructuresfor
the
facilitating exchange of resourceslikely occur (Spen-
to
cer, 1864;1875,6).
(5) The greateris the degreeof differentiation along the opera-
tive sixes,the more likelyare diverseactivitiesto become
spatiallyseparatedand localized (Spencer,1862; 1875,6:491-
497).
(6) The greateris the degreeof differentiation along the distri-
butiveaxes, (a) the greateris the rate of movementof ma-
terialsand information in the system,(b) the greateris the
varietyand volumeof materialsand information distributed
in thesystem,and (c) thehigheris theratioof information to
materialsdistributed in the system(1876:509-512).16
These propositionsare stated more abstractlythan intendedby

Spencerwho was primarilyconcernedwithsocietalsocial systems.
Yet, theyfollowSpencer'sintentwhichwas to stress that as the
regulatory systemdifferentiates, it initiallycreatesseparatestructu-
res fordealingwithinternaland externalproblems,such as a milita-
ryand civilbureaucracy in a societalsystem.Later,structures evolve
to facilitatethe flow of materialsand othervital resources,since
regulationof large and complexsystemsis onlypossiblewithcom-
mon distributive media,such as moneyin societalsystems. These
insights,expressedin proposition(4) above,also applyto othertypes
of social systems,such as organizations, communities, and perhaps
large groups. Proposition(5) states that differentiation, in accor-
dance withthe laws of force,motion,segregation, and multiplication
of effects(Spencer,1862),tendsto create ever more diversestruc-
tures,with similaractivitiesbecomingspatiallyconcentratedinto
districtswhichare distinguishable fromeach otherin termsof their
typeof activity. Proposition(6) stressesthatas distributive struc-
turesdifferentiate,thereis greaterneed forincreasedspeed and vo-
lumein the movmentof materialsand information, sincethe expan-
sion of distributivestructuresis a directresponseto growthin the
16 Informationdoes not necessarilyexceed materialresources;only the ratio

betweenthem decreases.
spencer's models 93
size and complexityof operative and regulatoryprocesses (Spencer,

1864; 1874,5,6).
Spencer recognized that the nature of internal differentiation
varied in terms of external and internal conditions. Systems in one
kind of external environment,or with a particular composition of
units, would become internallystructured in ways that would dis-
tinguish them from systems in differentexternal and internal cir-
cumstances. Spencer saw "war" and "diversityof races" as the key
external and internal variables. And if we abstract above Spencer's
discussion of these variables for societal systems,the followingprin-
ciples become evident (Spencer, 1876: 519-548):
(7) The greater is the degree of external environmentalthreat to
a differentiatingsystem,the greater is the degree of internal
control exercised by the regulatorysystem.
(8) The greater is the degree of threat to system stabilityposed
by dissimilar units, the greater is the degree of internal con-
trol exercised by the regulatorysystem.
(9) The greateris the degree of control by the regulatorysystem,
the more is growth and differentiationof operative and dis-
tributivestructurescircumscribedby the narrow goals of the
regulatorysystem.
Spencer recognized, however, that external and internal control

create pressures for their relaxation (see Figure 2). And with less
regulatorycontrol,internaldiversityand dissimilarityincreases, with
the result that eventual pressures would be created favoringcentra-
lization of regulatorycontrol. Thus, two final propositions can be
extracted from Spencer?sanalysis in Principles of Sociology of inter-
nal differentiationin social systems (Spencer, 1876: 576-597).
(10) The more operative and regulatorystructures are circums-
cribed by centralized regulatorystructures,the more likely
are they,over time,to resist such control,and the more they
resist, the more likely is control to decrease.
(11) The less operative and distributiveprocesses are circums-
cribed by centralized regulatorystructures,the greater are
problems of internal integration,and the more likely is the
regulatorysystem to increase effortsat centralized control.
Principles of Differentiationand Adaptation.
Spencer felt that differentiatedsocial structures are better able

to adapt to environmentalconditions.17 As he stated in First Prin-
17 This insighthe took fromhis Principlesof Biology(1864) as well as First

Principles(1862). It also appears in the openingpages of Principlesof Sociology
(1874:3-38).
94 J. H. TURNER
tiples, homogeneousmasse, are unstableand vulnerableto disrup-

tion by environmental forces,whereas differentiatedsystemswith
theirrelationsof interdependence and centralizedregulatoryappa-
ratus can cope more effectivelywith the environment, frequently
usingit fortheirpurposes. This view of differentiation
and adapta-
tion can be expressedas follows:
(12) The greateris the degreeof structuraldifferentiation in a
system,and the greateris its level of internal
integration,
thegreateris its adaptivecapacity.
And as emphasizedin proposition(4), super-organicsystems
wfichare well adaptedto theirenvironments are capable of further
growthand differentiation.Well organizedsystemscan extract
resourcesfromtheenvironment or theycan join, absorb,or conquer
othersystemsin theirenvironment.
Conclusion
The purposeof this paper has been two-fold, (1) to correctfor

some of theconsistentmisinterpretations of Spencerand (2) to high-
lighthis theoreticalmodelsand principles.Whenthisis done,Spen-
cer's work revealsfar more insightand sophistication than is typi-
cally acknowledged.Indeed,Spencer'sprincipleson differentiation
and integration may representsome of sociology's"firstprinciples"
or abstractlaws. Andit shouldbe emphasizedthattheseprinciples
were formulatedalmost twentyyears before the appearance of
Durkheim's(1893) analysisof the divisionof labor which repeats
manyof Spencer'sideas.18 And Spencer'sprinciplesappearedfrom
fiftyto almost one hundredyears before currentwork on such
topics as size and differentiationin complexorganizations(Meyer,
1972;Blau, 1970;Jamesand Finner,1975),growthand administrative
intensity in organizations(Hage, Aiken,and Marrett,1971),patterns
of ecological growthand segmentationin communities(Hawley,
1950;Stephen,1971),differentiation and concentrations of powerin
nationstates (Szymanski,1973;Rueschemeyer, 1977),size and admi-
nistrativeintensityin nations(Nolan, 1979),populationand ecologi-
cal effectson structuraldifferentiation
in organizations(Hannanand
Freeman,1977),and size and interactiondensities(Mayhewand Le-
vinger,1976). Whilethese and otherworksin diversecontextsex-
pand upon Spencer'sideas, Spencer'sprinciplesare, in manyways,
is Obviously,Spencer failed to see the importanceof culturalsymbolsas an

integratingforce,but even as Durkheimattacked Spencer for this oversight,
he borrowedmost of Spencer's structuralprinciples.For relevantcommentary,
see: Jones(1974)and Perrin(1975). See also: Turnerand Beeghley,1980;Turner
and Maryanski,1979;and Turner,1978).
spencer's models 95
the abstract axioms from which many of these sociological proposi-

tions on growth, size, ecological distribution,differentiation,and
integrationcan be deduced.
Some of the work in these contexts acknowledges Spencer's con-
tribution,but much appears to have been conducted without know-
ledge of Spencer's principles. Successive "new discoveries" of old
principles is, however,an inefficientway to build sociological know-
ledge. Moreover,by inducing Spencer's principles from diverse em-
pirical contexts,the common properties of these contexts are often
ignored or not seen. With a more deductive emphasis than is typi-
cal in siciological research in which Spencer's principles are initial-
ly used as axioms and from which deductions to diverse empirical
settings are made, interaction between research and theory could
more readily occur. But as long as the abstract principles of a
scholar like Spencer are ignored, the general laws of sociology will
not be tested and research will continue to partition theoretical in-
quiry and confine theoretical speculation to different empirical
contexts, whether "organization's theory," "ecological theory," "po-
litical-economy,"and other areas of specialization in sociology. Thus,
the Spencerian principles listed in this paper are believed to still be
plausible and useful. Reformulationat an abstract level, and testing
at an empirical level, is thereforeinvited.
In closing, then,we should emphasize again that Spencerian prin-
ciples have been used for decades in a wide variety of empirical
contexts. Indeed, we could venture that they have been used in
empirical research far more oftenthan principles developed by Marx,
Weber, and Durkheim. Sometimes this usage is acknowoledged,but
more often it is unknown,with the result that Spencer's ideas have
often had to be re-discovered. We can furtherspeculate that had
sociological theorists and researchers begun the 20th century with
Spencer's models and principles in hand, it is likely that sociology
would be a more mature science. Hopefully,an exercise like that
performedin this paper can not only re-kindleinterest in this for-
gotten giant, but also serve as a theoretical stimulus in the same
way that Marx, Durkheim, and Mead still inspire theoretical and
research activity.
Departmentof Sociology
Universityof California
Riverside
96 J. H. TURNER
REFERENCES
Blau, Peter M.
1970 A formal theory of differentiationin organizations, in "American
Sociological Review", 35 (April): 201-8.
Carneiro, Robert L.
1967 "Editor's Introduction", in The Evolution of Society, University of
Chicago Press.
Chiders, Grant W., B.H. Mayhew, and L.W. Gray
1971 System Size and Structural Differentiation:Testing a Baseline Model
of the Division of Labor, in "American Journal of Sociology", 76
(March): 813-830.
Coser, Lewis A.
Durkheim, Emile
1893 The Division of Labor in Society, New York: Free Press.
Hage, Jerald, Michael Aiken, and Cora Bagley Marrett
1971 Organization Structure and Communications, in "American Socio-
logical Review", (October): 860-871.
Hannan, Michael T. and John Freeman
1977 The Population Ecology of Organizations, in "American Journal of
Sociology", 82 (March): 929-964.
Hawley, Amos
1950 Human Ecology. New York: Ronald Press.
Hendershot, Gerry E. and Thomas F. James
1972 Size and Growth as Determinants of Administrative-Production
Ratios in Organizations, in "American Sociological Review", 37
(April): 149-153.
James,Thomas F. and Stephen C. Finner
1975 System Size and Structural Differentiationin Formal Organizations,
in "Sociological Quarterly", 16 (Winter): 124-130.
Jones,Robert A.
1974 Durkheim's Response to Spencer, in "Sociological Quarterly ",15
(Summer) : 341-358.
Lenski, Gerhard
1970 Human Societies. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1966 Power and Privilege. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mayhew, Bruce and Roger Levinger
1976 Size and the Density of Interaction in Human Aggregates,in "Ame-
rican Journal of Sociology", 82 (July): 86-110.
spencer's models 97
Meyer,MarshallM.
1972 Size and the Structureof Organizations:A Causal Analysis,in
"AmericanSociologicalReview",37 (August):434441.
Nolan,PatrikD.
1979 Size and Administrative Intensityin Nations,in "AmericanSocio-
logical Review",44 (February):110-125.
Parsons,Talcott
1971 The Systemof ModernSocieties. EnglewoodCliffs:Prentice-Hall.
1968 Societies: Evolutionaryand ComparaticePerspectives. Englewood
Cliffs:Prentice-Hall.
1937 The Structureof Social Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Peel, J.D.Y.
1972 Introductionin HerbertSpenceron Social Evolution. Chicago:Uni-
versityof ChicagoPress.
Perrin, RobertG.
1976 HerbertSpencer'sFour Theoriesof Social Evolution,in "American
Journalof Sociology",81 (May): 1339-1360.
1975 Durkheim'sMisrepresentation of Spencer: A Reply to Jones' 'Dur-
kheim's Response to Spencer, in "Sociological Quarteray", 16
(Autumn):544-550.
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich
1977 StructuralDifferentiation, Efficiency,and Power, "AmericanJour-
nal of Sociology",83 (July):1-25.
Sorokin,PA.
1961 Variationson the Spencerian Theme of Militant and Industrial
Typesof Society,in "Social Science",36 (April):91-99.
Spencer,Herbert
1892-98Principlesof Ethics. New York: D. Appleton.
1874-Principlesof Sociology. New York: D. Appleton.
1896
1873-DescriptiveSociology,or Groups of Sociological Facts (published
1934 with Spencers personal Dy variouspuonsners;.
1873 The Studyof Sociology. London: Kegan Paul.
Principlesof Biology. New York: D. Appleton.
1864-7
1862 First Principles. New York: Appleton.
1850 Social Statics. New York: Appleton.
Stephan,Edwarld G.
1971 Variationin CountySize: A Theoryof SegmentalGrowth,in "Ame-
rican SociologicalReview",36 (June):451461.
Szymanski,Albert
1973 MilitarySpendingand Economic Stagnation,in "AmericanJournal
of Sociology",79 (July):1-14.
Turner,JonathanH. and LeonardBeeghley
1980 The Emergenceof SociologicalTheory. Homewood,111.:Dorsey.
98 J. H. TURNER
Turner,JonathanH. and AlexandraMaryanski

1979 Functionalism.Menlo Park: Benjamin-Cummings.
Turner,JonathanH.
1978 The Structureof SociologicalTheory. Homewood,111.:Dorsey.
1972 Patternsof Social Organization.McGraw-Hill.

Turner - Forgotton Theoretical Giant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Turner - Forgotton Theoretical Giant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Turner - Forgotton Theoretical Giant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Librairie Droz

The Forgotton Theoretical Giant: Herbert Spencer's Models and Principles

THE FORGOTTON THEORETICAL GIANT:

Unlikeotherintellectualgiantsof the 19thcentury, the worksof

Againstsuch a view,Talcoot Parsons' (1937: 1) earlyobservation

i Spencer's philosophic,political,and moral works. Most of the prejudices

readilydismissedthisintellectualgiantof our past. In focusingonly

In his FirstPrinciples2(1862:3, 43), Spencerdefinedcosmicevo-

2 This was not a sociological work, but a statementof Spencer's general

farfromnaiveor simplistic.His othertwo modelsare abstractand

3 We are using the terms used by Talcott Parsons (1968, 1971),since he

tegratethemthrougha combinationof mutualdependenceof parts

4 Spencer had originallydiscussed these in The Study of Sociology (1873)

tion,per se, are involved(Spencer,1874). Social systemswill be

5 "Industrial"was used by Spenceras a synonym forwhathe also called

Fig. 2. - Phases of Institutionalization

Differentiation Pressures for

A-, Pressures for ? 5

This model, which appears in Principles of Sociology (1876: 576-

7 Regulatory= the controlof relationsbetween a systemand its environ-

And in trebly compound systems, regulatory,operative, and distri-

Spencer's Theoretical Principles

With the exception of his "firstprinciples" of evolution,Spencer

io In these descriptivestatementson various institutions,

Principlesof Growthand Differentiation.

12 AH of these principlesappeared in the firstparts of volumeI of Principles

*'* ~^- -- leaders I

T>mun,t^ =- Town»andel*- H V'"a9eS 1

statements is probably less importantthan Spencer's basic insight:

Principles of Internal Differentiation.

Spencer did more than attempt to relate structural differentia-

Once separate regulatory,operative, and distributive structures

14 See Part II of Volume I (Spencer, 1875).

rates pressursfor integration. Subsequentdifferentiation among

These propositionsare stated more abstractlythan intendedby

16 Informationdoes not necessarilyexceed materialresources;only the ratio

size and complexityof operative and regulatoryprocesses (Spencer,

Spencer recognized, however, that external and internal control

Principles of Differentiationand Adaptation.

Spencer felt that differentiatedsocial structures are better able

17 This insighthe took fromhis Principlesof Biology(1864) as well as First

tiples, homogeneousmasse, are unstableand vulnerableto disrup-

The purposeof this paper has been two-fold, (1) to correctfor

is Obviously,Spencer failed to see the importanceof culturalsymbolsas an

the abstract axioms from which many of these sociological proposi-

Turner,JonathanH. and AlexandraMaryanski

You might also like

' ~^- -- leaders I