Comparing the Theories of Darwin and Spencer - Research Paper Example

Comparing the Theories of Darwin and Spencer Both Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer were the foremost scholars of the nineteenth century. They were from United Kingdom and had a lasting impact on the way people today see the process of evolution. (Perry) Charles Darwin lived from 1809 to 1882 and Herbert Spencer from 1820 to 1902. Both were thus contemporaries, and perhaps were aware of each other’s work at different point of time. Over the years, there have been controversies over questions, such as who first popularized the word “evolution,” and more importantly, what they implied by it when they referred to it in their works. Terms such as “survival of the fittest” and “Darwinism socialism” are often misquoted or referred for each other. (Bowler; Dennet) Charles Darwin was a British naturalist. He studied geology and biology of the area around the Pacific Coast extensively before producing his monumental work “Origin of Species” in 1859 to the world. Herbert Spencer was a British philosopher who showed early interests in physics, chemistry and natural science. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the study of natural history had already proliferated into diverse fields such as religion, psychology, and other social sciences. Lamarck was widely credited by many to be the first scientist to put forward a consistent general theory of gradual evolution. Herbert Spencer was privileged to go through his work, right when he was 20, and this had a lasting impact on his subsequent intellectual thoughts and work. Thus, when we seek to study the difference between Darwinian approach of evolution and that of Herbert Spencer’s, this connection plays an important role. (Caroll) Darwin’s vision of world was one of ceaseless interactions leading to evolution and adaptation. The drivers to these were quest for survival and reproduction. But for Spencer, the drivers were realization of some good ideals. Spencer could never free his work without attaching some form of hidden divine stigma to it. His theories were progressive and teleological. The change is occurring because of realization of a just goal. That is, it is has in it the concept of “archetype” put forward by Aristole; an ideal form with an unchanging virtues or qualities or essence. Spencer has tried to justify the same ideal, but that it occurs over through a time period and evolves over generations. (Caroll) When Darwin speaks of general evolution, he has a much longer time span in mind than Spencer. Spencer sees it happening with the transfer of qualities in species within few generations and its impact immediately found in the offspring. For Darwin, adaptation takes place not just because of behavioral changes in one or few generations, but rather through random life cycle, and the process has been taking place in the history of specie over many generations. Thus, Spencer thought that the process can have an impact on human population within a short period of time by careful breeding. Today, when we speak of genetically creating or modifying human beings, the idea put forward by Herbert Spencer appears real. Though breeding of plants and other primitive forms of life has been known for ages, Darwin’s idea perhaps neglected the rapidity with which technology can fasten the whole process. (Fisher) Spencer’s first book, The Social Statics (1851), is an exercise which seems to integrate Lamarckian teleological progressivism, utilitarian ethical society, and an extreme form of libertarian society in the form of laissez- faire economics. (Caroll and Darwin, 32) As the date of this publication makes it clear, it was much before Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ which was published in 1859 and in no way influenced by it. Spencer visualized a superior social order that would come into existence by gradually eliminating social undesirables and perfectly synchronizing symbiotic interactions in a population of optimally efficient players. In a nutshell, parallel to the idea of natural selection, he envisions the gradually perfecting human population by elimination of relative underperformers. Thus, by the transfer of Lamarck’s theory of inheritance, the more efficient human population will come into being. That is, according to Spencer, members of same specie adjust to their environment with varying degree of success. These adjustments are passed on to their subsequent generation. For Spencer, this is the core. But Darwin saw this adaptation only as a minor, subsidiary process. For Darwin, adaptation takes place not just because of behavioral changes in one generation, but rather through random life cycle and differential survival of offspring over many generations. (Liagouras; Perry) After his foray into the social ideology, Spencer developed a theory of evolution which was called general theory of cosmic evolution. The cosmic theory depends on intrinsic formal processes abstracted from any specific field of action. It appears to use abstract terms to describe a process of increasing organizational complexity- the simultaneous proliferation of smaller units of organization and their incorporation into even larger systemic units. This is a descriptive pattern, which Spencer perhaps mistakenly took as a causal pattern, and hence as a form of explanation. This was only natural because he considered progress as an intrinsic and his first principle. Thus what he thought was only to deduce how to achieve the same. After forming his theory of cosmic evolution, Spencer used it as a pattern to describe various phenomenons in astronomy, geology, biology, sociology, psychology, and ethics. However, for Darwin, the subject of evolution was more for studying patterns found in plants and animals, including humans; he did not blend this with the other dimensions. (Caroll and Darwin) When Darwin made his study on evolution, he studied in context of the general evolution, and saw it as a gradual process occurring throughout the history of species, starting from the point of origin. On the other hand, Spencer was trying to find a quick fix of human problems through it. When dealing with human beings, the moral and social theories put forward by Darwin in his essays in the “Descent of Man” are strikingly different from Spencer’s. the latter’s work seems to be influenced by utilitarian economic thoughts of the day, which advocated that individuals work best when they have personal interest in mind and that individuals compete in a society for scarce resources. On the other hand, Darwin’s concept of human competition was much more holistic, through “evolved social sympathy.”(Caroll and Darwin, 32) Darwin saw the same competition, but with far more human penetration. He also saw human beings as social animals, and that their whole emotional and motivational survival was for maintaining that interdependence and interconnection. Darwin was perhaps limited by the ideological constraints of the day. Charles Darwin saw the incidence of evolution in all living beings. Herbert Spencer pointed out the application of the evolution in man’s physical, social, and moral development in particular. Darwin’s work was of natural discovery coming out from the observation of all form of life, including human. Spencer’s work has a philosophical tilt, involving abstract and concrete features. Occurrences of evolution today are incontestable and no one doubts them. The rapid advancement in the study of genetics today now poses a new question regarding how to address diseases which plague humankind through the judicious application of the science. At the same time, the idea was not to produce a rogue breed, which contrary to Spencer’s vision of improved human race, can go the opposite way. Today, the debate is on how to moderate the aspirations of evolution, to tap its right features, and not go disarrayed in the process. Countries across the globe are putting some form of check in order to forbid some scientists go out of control and produce a life, which can create disaster. There are promising signs of cure of diseases as complex as cancer from genetic mutation, and the debate is heated on how to quicken the process by meaningful vigilance. (Genetic Mutation) Though we have come far from the time of Spencer and Darwin, their theories may help the modern day’s scientists in inducing evolution among the human specie via scientific approach. Works Cited 1. Caroll, Joseph and Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection/ Charles Darwin. Broadview Press Limited. Canada.2003 2. Bowler, P. (1989). Evolution: The history of an idea. Berkeley: University of California Press. 3. Fisher, Ronald Aylmer, The genetical theory of natural selection. New York: Dover Press. 1999 4. Dennet, Daniel Clement. Darwin's dangerous idea. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996 5.. Liagouras, George, Socio-economic evolution and Darwinism in Thorstein Veblen: a critical appraisal. University of the Aegean, Greece. 2008. Oxford University Press. Retrieved on Oct 15. 2009 form: http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/ben061v1 6. ‘History in Our Time’. Genetic Mutation. BBC Radio 4. retrieved on October 16, 2009 form: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20071206.shtml 7. Perry, Mathew, Western Civilization, A Brief History. Vol ii From the 1400s. 5th ed. 2004 Read More