Herbert Spencer

What Spencer Actually Wrote

Herbert Spencer developed an evolutionary philosophy that predated and extended beyond Charles Darwin’s work on natural selection. In Social Statics (1851), published eight years before On the Origin of Species, Spencer had already argued that human society progresses through a process of adaptation, and that hardship and the pressure of population against resources acted as agents of improvement — a view influenced by his own reading of Malthus. In Principles of Biology (1864), Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” as, in his account, an equivalent to Darwin’s “natural selection.” Darwin adopted Spencer’s phrase into the fifth edition of Origin of Species (1869) at Alfred Russel Wallace’s suggestion, which entwined Spencer’s terminology permanently with Darwin’s theory in the public mind.

Spencer extended his evolutionary framework into a general philosophy — his “synthetic philosophy” — encompassing biology, psychology, sociology, and ethics, and argued on this basis against state intervention in the economy, including opposition to compulsory poor relief, state-funded education, and other welfare measures, which he believed interfered with a beneficial process of social adaptation.

Historical Influence

Spencer was, for a period in the late nineteenth century, one of the most widely read philosophers in the English-speaking world, and his synthesis of evolution, individualism, and laissez-faire economics influenced industrialists and social theorists on both sides of the Atlantic, notably in the United States, where figures such as William Graham Sumner drew on his ideas to oppose regulation and redistribution. His language of fitness and struggle was also taken up by contemporaries working on heredity and social policy, including his correspondent Francis Galton.

Disputed Scholarly Interpretation

The label “Social Darwinism,” under which Spencer is now most commonly remembered, was applied to his work substantially after the fact. Richard Hofstadter’s Social Darwinism in American Thought (1944) did much to fix Spencer as the archetypal Social Darwinist in later historical memory, but subsequent historians, including Mark Francis and Robert Bannister, have argued that this label flattens a more complex figure: Spencer’s opposition to state welfare rested on a broader theory of social evolution toward voluntary cooperation, and he did not present competitive struggle as a program to be actively pursued so much as a process he believed already governed social change. Scholars continue to debate how much continuity exists between Spencer’s own individualist, anti-statist arguments and the more explicitly hierarchical and racialized uses to which “survival of the fittest” rhetoric was later put by eugenicists and imperialists who cited his authority.

Sources