Edward Bellamy & Herbert Spencer - Essay Example

EDWARD BELLAMY AND HERBERT SPENCER Does Edward Bellamy Challenges Herbert Spencer Herbert Spencer Herbert Spencer was a Victorian biologist and philosopher. He was born when British industrialism was at its peak. Mathematics, natural science, history, and English were some of the subjects he was educated in. Herbert Spencer has always been an influential figure in the fields of sociology and psychology. Spencer can be referred to as a sociologist whose arguments and ideals are embedded in social Darwinism. He also explains the function of these ideals to illustrate the fact that life is regulated by limitations which include both economic and socialistic limits to growth (Hofstadter, 1992). Spencer proposed the theory of evolution in the development hypothesis, which was written seven years before Darwin’s Origin of Species. During Spencer’s time, there was lack of an effective theoretical system of natural selection. Therefore, his theory was not taken into consideration. It is important to realize that the term ‘evolution’ was popularized by Herbert Spencer and not by Darwin. Herbert Spencer also coined the oft-used phrase ‘the survival of the fittest’. However, the last few years of his life were often characterized by a fall of his initial optimism. It was rather replaced by pessimism concerning the future of humankind. However, he spent a lot of time in reinforcing his arguments and making people understand the concepts which he had proposed. Many intellectuals admired Herbert Spencer. In addition to the respect, he was also accused of being petty, hypochondriacal, and maudlin (Wee, 2002). Spencer’s term, ‘the survival of the fittest’, refers to the fact that as natural species evolve, the societies also transform due to the process of natural selection. According to him, the fittest people in the society, or the “survivors” as he calls them, are able to overcome any problem imposed on them by the cycle of life, and these people drive a particular society towards development and progress, while the weaker people in the society lead to the formation of social class, which, in turn, causes imbalance in the society. Spencer believed that this imbalance is needed for an effective command chain in the smooth functioning of the society. Edward Bellamy Edward Bellamy bases his ideas on the profound knowledge of Bible and Christianity. He is a religious philosopher who envisions a world where men treat each other as equals and love is the main force in driving the society. His ideals are embedded in social transformation, human development, and analytic growth. Bellamy portrays a picture of society and modernity with regard to weighing both the sides – the positive and negative effects of the concept of development. In Looking Backward, a utopian novel set in Boston in the year 2000, Bellamy depicted the United States following an ideal socialist system that was comprised of cooperation, brotherhood, and industrious working to cater human needs. He saw the future under his framework of understanding. Bellamy never claimed to have written Looking Backwards to stir up a political action; rather, he has written it to illustrate a tale of social felicity. He is said to have followed classical Marxist thought. He advocated that growth in financial markets would lead to capitalism that would in turn affect the social standing of America, and the increase in these markets would also devour the common man with the menace of credit. His thoughts of the society are termed as contradicting the theory of Social Darwinism proposed by Herbert Spencer. On answering the question whether Edward Bellamy challenges Herbert Spencer, we would have to drill into the arguments they have put forward in their literary works. Both writers ponder upon the similar issues of social progression and development but are rooted in different theories. We have to look into the details of the two theories of classical Marxism and social Darwinism, deducing the arguments of these two writers. And for this to be in a more practical and comprehendible way, we construct an imaginative conversation. Conversation Spencer: I stress the idea that social change and evolution is brought about by the process of natural selection where the fittest survive. In today’s world, the socioeconomic change is brought about by the process of capitalism. This has efficiently imposed a social hierarchy in the society and maintains a stable command of chain in the society. Those of the upper class in the hierarchy are those that are able to face the challenges of life imposed on them in an effective manner, while those who cannot stay at the bottom. Inequality in social classes makes consistent progression in the society possible. Bellamy: I majorly disagree here, because I think that social inequality in the society gives birth to sense of superiority, intolerance, materialism, and favoritism. I believe in social equality as the foundation of societal growth and development. The members of the society with better abilities and opportunities should help those that do not enjoy such chances in life. This would enable parallel growth in the society and ensure a harmonious living environment. Spencer: I think the laws of social Darwinism follow the same directions as the natural laws and only imitate these laws so that they become applicable on the society. These social laws function as the social policy to bring about evolutionary progress through a variety of obstacles present between various social groups. These dynamics are fundamental, as they construct the foundation for human progress. Bellamy: In contrast to that, I believe that every phenomena or, as you put it, obstacles in this world bring about two reactions, positive or negative. In my book, Looking Backwards, I highlight the positives of the growth of financial markets and freedom, but I do not fail to stress the negatives associated with it – for example, consumer credit. Social development is only possible when the members of the society start working for the greater good and not just for themselves, as I highlighted in my first point. Spencer: I believe that members of a society are unequal. Those at a lower base of social pyramid should assist those who are above them, so that those with a better situation could achieve their goals and make it possible for those at the lower end to also grow economically. Bellamy: Well, I majorly disagree, because, as I said earlier, there should be parallel growth in the society. The members should prosper collectively and not on the expense of each other. In a society you have envisioned, I believe no harmonious growth takes place, as the upper class uses the lower class to attain its goals and also suppresses it, so that the people at the lower end of the pyramid do not realize their actual potential. Analysis of the conversation Speaking from a critical point of view, the two writers challenge each other. Bellamy challenges Spencer’s ideas of truth and notions of reality. Spencer bases his theories on the functioning of today’s world. As of today, Social Darwinism is much apparent in the world, but that’s the main cause of prevalent social injustices in the societies throughout the globe, and these injustices are not very far from what Bellamy envisions of the future. Bellamy believes in the equality of mankind and only supports capitalism when the upper class tries and works for the development of those at the bottom of social hierarchy. He advocates social equality among the social classes, which is a direct challenge to what Spencer advocates, as, according to him, the imbalance in form of the institute of social classes is highly beneficial for the societies to evolve, and a command chain helps the smooth running of the society. According to Spencer, the social classes highlight the ability of each member of the society to face the most critical stages of life. Bellamy challenges this notion and advocates that a man should help other men in such crucial situations and view each other as brothers. The basic difference between the two writers is that of perspective. Both of them apply different theories and categorize the same phenomena. Bellamy takes on the view of classical Marxist perspective, which is much evident in his works, while Spencer stresses the theory of Social Darwinism and its function in the evolution of the society. Bellamy supports the kind of economical structure that caters to human wants and needs and not to the needs of those in power, while Spencer maintains that economical structure favoring few members of the society is natural and is the way in which a society evolves. Bellamy’s ideal future and are we there yet? Bellamy’s notion of social equality is one that is yet to be recognized by those in power. This ideology is still in the making if the developed countries and other nations embrace it as the only way to achieve peaceful growth and human progression around the globe. It is a world proposed by Edward where man is considered as equal to others, because we are all the creations of God, made equal and given the ability to love. God did not make any one more or less superior. It would lead to peaceful and pleasant world society with a drum beat of unison and love and no divisions based on the concepts of ethnicity, language, and etc. The proposed future by Bellamy might become the reality if proper reforms are made. Implementations of new and proper reforms as proposed by Bellamy might experience change in the near future. There are profound evidences present in our history, especially those of American and French Revolution. These profound changes were brought in by the utopian philosophers just like Bellamy and proved to be the basis of modern movements and collaborations. These unions base their ideals on the concept of meritocracy, others on cooperatives which still prosper even today and intentional communities that are based on equality and brotherhood. Bellamy’s idea of an ideal future is a long shot from what we have today. The current scenario is hazy and his idea is not yet clearly understood by the minds of men today. Keeping in mind today’s situation, the ideal future as proposed by Bellamy is very hard to achieve. Today, every single person is caught up in his or her own vicious cycle of life where there is little or no time to think or care about others. The idea of equality is blurred due to the concepts of racism, gender discrimination, religion, and ethnicity in our society. The everlasting phenomenon of patriarchy has prevented women from realizing their actual potential and has contributed to inequality in the society. People today have forgotten the concept of tolerance and forgiveness. Revenge dominates the thinking of the most individuals. People want to succeed at the xepense of others. Bellamy’s idea might not also be possible to implement due to the increasing influence of capitalism and neoliberal economics. Men have buried themselves in the pursuit of material gains, and one’s social standing matters the most today. Capitalism has brought with itself cultural dominance – the developed countries dominate the cultures of developing nations, which, in turns, advocates the existence of Social Darwinism. Do we want to live in Bellamy’s world? Who would not want to live in a world categorized by love, peace, and harmony? But I personally believe that what Bellamy proposes is a utopian concept, especially if one takes into consideration our current environment. Human beings are designed to be selfish and it is present in their very nature. It is very hard for us to think of anybody else before us. In order to live in a world that is envisioned by Bellamy, one should embrace the idea of tolerance and love. No one around the globe would want all the social injustice happening around us and would do anything to eradicate it, so what Bellamy proposes is a dream of millions of people around the world. The world would have to undergo many changes to arrive at a point envisioned by Bellamy. References Bellamy, E., & Schuster. (2000). Looking Backward from 2000-1887. Massachusetts: Antioch Bookplate Company. Hofstadter, R. (1992). Social Darwinism in American thought. Boston: Beacon Press. Wee, A. (2002, October 11). Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). Retrieved from Victorian Web: http://www.victorianweb.org/philosophy/spencer/spencer.html Read More