The Relation of Spencers Evolutionary Theory to Darwins

Robert J. Richards The University of Chicago

ur i!age of "erbert Spencer is that of a bald# dyspeptic bachelor# spending his days in roo!ing houses# and fussing about govern!ent interference with individual liberties. $eatrice %ebb# who &new hi! as a girl and young wo!an recalls for us 'ust this picture. (n her diary for January )# *++,# she writesRoyal .cade!y private view with "erbert Spencer. "is criticis!s on art dreary# all bound down by the /possible0 if not probable. That poor old !an would !iss !e on the whole !ore than any other !ortal. "as real an1iety for !y welfare2physical and !ental. Told hi! story of !y stopping cart horse in "yde 3ar& and police!an refusing to co!e off his beat to hold it. %ant of public spirit in passers4by not stopping it before. /5es# that is another instance of !y first principle of govern!ent. Directly you get state intervention you cease to have public spirit in individuals6 that will be a constantly increasing tendency and the State# li&e the police!an# will be so bound by red4tape rules that it will fre7uently leave undone the si!plest duties.0* Spencer appears a !an whose strangled e!otions would yet cling to a wo!an whose philosophy would be co!pletely alien to his own# as %ebbs 8abian Socialis! turned out to be. ur i!age of Darwin is !ore co!ple1 than our i!age of Spencer. %e !ight ld Testa!ent prophet# thin& of hi! nestled in the boso! of his large fa!ily# &indly# and 'ust a little sad. The photo of hi! ta&en by Julia Ca!eron reveals the visage of an though one# not fearso!e# but !ade wise by conte!plating the struggle of life on this earth. These i!ages have deeply colored our reaction to the ideas of each thin&er. The pictures are not false# but they are cropped portraits that tend to distort our reactions to the theories of each. (f we e1a!ine the !a'or features of their respective
$eatrice %ebb# The Diary of Beatrice Webb: Volume one 1873-1892 # ed. 9or!an and Jeanne :ac&en;ie <Ca!bridge- "arvard University 3ress# *=+>?# pp. *>@4>+.
*

constructions of evolution# we !ight be inclined# as ( believe we should be# to recalibrate our antecedent 'udg!ents2'udg!ents li&e those of Ernst :ayr# who in his thousand page history of biology celebrates Darwin over nu!erous chapters of superlatives but begrudges only three paragraphs to Spencer# /because his positive contributions Ato evolutionary theoryB were nil.0> :ayrs attitude is reflected in !ost histories of science discussing evolutionary theory in the nineteenth century. Certainly nothing !uch of value can be e1pected fro! a boarding4house theorist. ur conte!porary evaluations of the ideas of Spencer and Darwin usually proceed# as :ayrs has# fro! the perspective of present4day science. .ccordingly# Spencers craft appears to have sun& without a trace# while Darwins has sailed right into the port of !odern biology. ur neo4Darwin perspective# ( believe# adds to the distortion wor&ed by our i!ages of these Cictorian gentle!en. During the latter part of his career# Spencers star had certainly achieved considerable !agnitude# such that his literary productions began actually to turn a nice profit. .nd his conte!poraries recogni;ed in his ideas co!parable intellectual capital. .le1ander $ain regarded hi! as /the philosopher of the doctrine of Develop!ent# notwithstanding that Darwin has supplied a !ost i!portant lin& in the chain.0 D (n the historical introduction to the Origin of !ecie"# Darwin included Spencer as one of his predecessors6 and he wrote E. Ray Ean&ester that Spencer /will be loo&ed at as by far the greatest living philosopher in England6 perhaps e7ual to any that have lived.0 ) Darwins evaluations of Spencer would alternate between astonish!ent at the philosophers cleverness and scorn at his inflated abstractions. 5et# the balance tipped heavily to the positive side. Darwin along with Tho!as "enry "u1ley# John Stuart :ill# Charles $abbage# Charles Eyell# Joseph "oo&er# .le1ander $ain# John "ershel# and a host of others scientists of rather less renown# subscribed to Spencers progra! of /Synthetic 3hilosophy#0 which would issue volu!es in biology# psychology# sociology# and !orality. These Cictorian coryphFes
>

Ernst :ayr# The #ro$th of Biological Thought <Ca!bridge- "arvard# *=+>?# p. D+G.

.le1ander $ain to "erbert Spencer <*@ 9ove!ber *+GD?# .thenaeu! Collection of Spencers Correspondence# :S @=*# no. G@# University of Eondon Eibrary. Charles Darwin to E. Ray Ean&ester <*, :arch *+@H?# in %ife an& %etter" of 'harle" Dar$in# ed. 8rancis Darwin# > vols. <9ew 5or&- D. .ppleton# *+=*?# >- DH*.
)

>

redee!ed Spencers intellectual capital with real !oney. Irant .llens ad!iration for Spencers genius !oved hi! to poetryDeepest and !ightiest of our later seers# Spencer# whose piercing glance descried afar Down fatho!less abysses of dead years The for!less waste drift into sun or star# .nd through vast wilds of ele!ental strife Trac&ed out the first faint steps of unconscious life., %e !ay 'udge that Spencer got the poet he deserves# but we can hardly doubt that he !ade a significant !ar& on his conte!poraries. "is star# to be sure# was slow in rising and always included a reflective glow fro! Darwins own. (n what follows# ( want to ta&e the !easure of Spencers theory along three di!ensions# which will allow co!parison with essential features of Darwins conception. These are- first# the origin and character of Spencers general theory of trans!utation# and then !ore specifically# the causes of species alteration and# finally# the particular case of hu!an !ental and !oral evolution. (n this co!parison# ( thin& we will find both so!e undervalued aspects of Spencers sche!e and so!e proble!atic aspects of Darwins. $ut this reversal of fortune# if real# does produce an historiographic parado1- why the adulation of Darwin and the denigration of SpencerJ #eneral ()olutionary cheme" $oth Darwin and Spencer eased into their evolutionary notions in pursuit of their early professions# and# indeed# aided by si!ilar intellectual resources. Darwin# of course# sailed away on the Beagle to circu!navigate the globe# a 'ourney that supplied the &ind of e1periences# recollected in the tran7uility of his Eondon study# which led to the first for!ulations of his ideas about species descent. Those e1periences# however# re7uired the infusion of an ideational sti!ulant in order to crac& the shell of orthodo1y. 8or Darwin# two wor&s in particular# though hardly e1clusively# provided the conceptual energy to give for! to his e1periences- .le1ander von "u!boldts *er"onal +arrati)e
Irant .llen to "erbert Spencer <*H 9ove!ber *+@)?# .thenaeu! Collection of Spencers Correspondence# :S @=*# no. *H># University of Eondon Eibrary.
,

of Tra)el" to the (,uinocteal -egion" of the +e$ 'ontinent. which altered dra!atically Darwins view of nature# and Charles Eyells *rinci!le" of #eology# which supplied the vast ti!e scale and biogeographical suggestions for suspecting that Ea!arc&ian transfor!ation theory# which Eyell detailed in volu!e two of his wor&# !ight have !uch !ore to it than the author allowed. .nd# of course# after Darwin had returned fro! the voyage# Tho!as :althuss (""ay on *o!ulation# with its pregnant notion of population pressure# led Darwin to a /theory by which to wor&#0 as he hi!self e1pressed it. G Spencers early professional e1perience lac&ed the grand sweep of Darwins. @ .s civil engineer in his late teens# he had his curiosity pee&ed by the !any fossils he discovered while e1cavating new passages for the railroads. "is reading of Eyells *rinci!le" of #eology !oved hi!# !uch as it had Darwin# to consider seriously the Ea!arc&ian hypothesis. Eyell had# in the spirit of the ld $ailey# where he had trained as a barrister# presented a fair case for Ea!arc&s views# but assu!ed his subse7uent refutation would nullify the theory co!pletely. "e was obviously too scrupulous in the for!er e1ercise and too hedging in the latter# at least for Spencer. Spencer# though# read few boo&s to the end6 so he !ay si!ply have !issed Eyells crucial closing argu!ents. Eess significant for Spencer than Darwin# however# were the funda!ental biological aspects of develop!ent. Spencer was !ore interested in hu!an social progress# and that was the consideration that lent the tipping weight to Ea!arc&s thesis. Spencers ti!e with his uncle Tho!as Spencer# a curate who had a definite political philosophy# &ept hi! !indful of the possibilities of social develop!ent without the aid of govern!ent. 3oor Eaws# Spencer ca!e to believe# were only devious instru!ents to arrest the need to deal with un'ust distribution of the ulti!ate source of wealth# na!ely land. (n his first boo&# ocial tatic"# published at his own e1pense in *+,*# he sounded a call not unli&e that of his conte!porary# Karl :ar1- /.ll arrange!ents. . . which disguise the evils entailed by the present ine7uitable
G Charles Darwin# The /utobiogra!hy of 'harle" Dar$in# ed. 9ora $arlow <9ew 5or&- 9orton# *=G=?# p. *>H.

( have discussed Spencers intellectual develop!ent in !y Dar$in an& the (mergence of ()olutionary Theorie" of 0in& an& Beha)ior <Chicago- University of Chicago 3ress# *=+@?# chaps. G and @.

relationship of !an&ind to the soil#0 he wrote# /postpones the day of rectification. . generous 3oor Eaw is the best !eans of pacifying an irritated people. %or&houses are used to !itigate the !ore acute sy!pto!s of social unhealthiness. 3arish pay is hush !oney. %hoever# then# desires the radical cure of national !aladies# but especially of this atrophy of one class and the hypertrophy of another# conse7uent upon un'ust land tenure# cannot consistently advocate any &ind of co!pro!ise.0 + could the society avoid ar!ed insurrection. Spencer s&etched out that natural develop!ent of society in his boo& ocial tatic" and in his *+,> essay on /The Theory of 3opulation.0 Ei&e Darwin# Spencer e!ployed :althuss notion of population pressure in a way antithetical to the parsons own dreary conclusions. Spencer argued that as populations grew# individuals would have to acco!!odate the!selves to increasingly difficulty circu!stances6 habits would have to be developed to articulate !en to these circu!stances6 and these habits# as well as the anato!ical changes they would induce# would sin& into the heritable structure of organis!s# and so individuals would increasingly adapt to the re7uire!ents of society and eventually achieve perfect biological acco!!odation. This was a &ind of utopian evolutionis!# the goal of which Darwin hi!self would have acceded to2and# in fact# did# but only with a ga;e beclouded with as !uch doubt as hope. Spencer# in his essay# !entioned another feature of population pressure that echoes of Spencerian tragedy and Darwinian triu!ph. "e wrote- /(t is clear# that by the ceaseless e1ercise of the faculties needed to contend with the! Ai.e.# the co!ple1ities of societyB# and by the death of all !en who fail to contend with the! successfully# there is ensured a constant progress towards a higher degree of s&ill# intelligence# and self4 regulation2a better co4ordination of actions2a !ore co!plete life.0 = Thus the principle of natural selection oo;ed out of Spencers :althusian thought# but it i!!ediately dried up. (n later years# Spencer would point to this passage as indicating his clai! to
"erbert Spencer# ocial tatic". or the 'on&ition" (""ential to 1uman 1a!!ine"" !ecifie&. an& the 2ir"t of them De)elo!e& <Eondon- Chap!an# *+,*?# p. D*G. A"erbert SpencerB# /. Theory of 3opulation# deduced fro! the Ieneral Eaw of .ni!al 8ertility#0 We"tmin"ter an& 2oreign 3uarterly -e)ie$ *@ <*+,>?- ,HH.
= +

nly if govern!ent

would step aside and allow natural develop!ent to ta&e its course# Spencer suggested#

e7uitable partnership in authoring the theory of evolution that !ore and !ore beca!e associated with Darwins na!e. The final aspect of his reconfiguration of :althus is unadulterated Spencer. "e relied on so!e very anti7ue ideas ulti!ately ste!!ing fro! "ippocratic notions of pangenetic heredity. (n ancient !edical treatises# connections were !ade between the production of pangenes fro! various regions of the body# including the nervous syste!# and the reproductive organs. The "ippocratics i!agined that seeds fro! all parts of the body# bearing the hereditary !aterial# collected in the brain and slid down the spinal !arrow to the generative organs. (n the early !odern period this ancient view gave rise to the notion that !asturbation could cause insanity2a great e1penditure of seed would virtually !elt away the brain. Though Spencer !ay have been oblivious to the physiological theory behind the wobbly speculations of an ancient !edical tradition# he added so!e loose causal observations of his own to propose an inverse ratio between biological conception and !ental conception- the greater the !ental co!ple1ity of the organis!# the fewer the nu!ber of offspring. "ence# as hu!an society progressed !entally toward perfection# population pressure should decrease. So :althuss atte!pt to put the brea&s on hu!an i!prove!ent by reason of over population would be thwarted# at least theoretically# by Spencerian se1ual frugality. Though Darwin wrote a co!pli!entary letter to Spencer on receiving a copy of the essay on population# he did thin& that the principles of reproduction Spencer assu!ed were co!plete rubbish2after all# he did have his own large fa!ily as counter evidence. *H $ut today# we &now that Spencer was uncannily correct2greater !ental wor& generally yields fewer biological progeny. The reasons for this# however# are not e1actly those he supposed. Spencers socialist attitudes lost their vigor with age. $y the *+=Hs# he averred that biological adaptation to the social state !ust di!inish in force as the approach to perfect adaptation increased# so that only in infinite ti!e would the utopia of his youthful radicalis! be reali;ed. .nd as his own !odest wealth increased# he beca!e

Charles Darwin to Charles Eyell <>, 8ebruary *+GH?# in 'orre"!on&ence of 'harle" Dar$in# ed. Sidney S!ith et al# *D vol. to date <Ca!bridge- Ca!bridge University 3ress# *=+,4?# +- *H=4**H- /( have 'ust read his Essay on population# in which he discusses life L publishes such dreadful hypothetical rubbish on the nature of reproduction.0

*H

considerably less enthusiastic about co!!unity ownership of land# finding individual ownership !ore e7uitable in the long run. +atural election )" 2unctional /&a!tation" a" 'au"e of ()olution (n his early writing on the develop!ent hypothesis# Spencer relied e1clusively on habit and the inheritance of conse7uent anato!ical !odifications to e1plain adaptations. $ut with the publication of the Origin of !ecie" in *+,=# he ca!e# as he ad!itted to Darwin# to appreciate the power of natural selection. (n his letter of ac&nowledg!ent# he also !entioned to Darwin# lest it be overloo&ed# that he hi!self had advanced a si!ilar idea# but confined his considerations to hu!an i!prove!ent. ** (n his boo& 2ir"t *rinci!le"# published in *+GH and the initial volu!e in his series ynthetic *hilo"o!hy# Spencer relied on the idea of an e7uilibration between outer environ!ental circu!stances and inner biological conditions in order to e1plain adaptations. The balancing ad'ust!ent of an organis! would occur as it adopted new habits to deal with an altered environ!ent. These habits would# in their turn# produce heritable anato!ical changes and so realign the organis! with its e1ternal circu!stances. (n his *rinci!le" of Biology# which he began issuing in fascicles in *+G># he had to recogni;e# however# two significant causes of adaptation# what he called /direct e7uilibration02the Ea!arc&ian idea2and /indirect e7uilibration#0 natural selection# or as he preferred to call it- /survival of the fittest.0 *> "e ad!itted that survival of the fittest could account for !any traits of plants and the si!pler acco!!odations of ani!als and !en. $ut he stoutly re'ected the suggestion that it could e1plain !ore co!ple1 co4adaptations. "e illustrated his argu!ent with the case of the great# if e1tinct# (rish el&. (n order for its huge rac& of antlers to have evolved# its s&ull !ust have thic&ened# its nec& !uscles strengthened# its vascular networ& enlarged# and its
"erbert Spencer to Charles Darwin <>> 8ebruary *+GH?# in 'orre"!on&ence of 'harle" Dar$in# +=+4==. Spencer used the phrase /survival of the fittest0 for the first ti!e in his *rinci!le" of Biology4 "e introduced the ter! in a 7uite casual way# suggesting that only later it occurred to hi! as a felicitous e1pression. See "erbert Spencer# *rinci!le" of Biology# > vols. <9ew 5or&- D. .ppleton# *+GG?# >- ,D/natural selection will favour the !ore upright growing for!s- individuals with structures that lift the! above the rest# are the fittest for the conditions6 and by the continual survival of the fittest# such structures !ust beco!e established.0
*> **

nervous connections increased. 9one of these traits# however# would be of any selective value without all of the others2large nec& !uscles# for e1a!ple# would be useless without the great rac& of antlers. 5et it would be highly i!probable that all of these traits would have si!ultaneously appeared as spontaneous variations to be selected.*D Their e1planation# according to Spencer# had to be found in the gradual and !utual ad'ust!ent of different habits# which would ulti!ately instill co4adapted anato!ical attributes. Eater# in the *++Hs# as the heat strea!ing fro! the ultra4 Darwinians2such as .lfred Russel %allace and .ugust %eis!ann2began to be felt# Spencer elaborated his argu!ent based on co4adaptation in a large# two part article entitled /The 8actors of rganic Evolution#0 the ai! of which was to show the insufficiencies of natural selection.*) ( note in passing that this is e1actly the argu!ent that conte!porary advocates of (ntelligent Design have atte!pted to re'uvenate with !ouse glands and unleash as a new &iller refutation of Darwinain evolutionary theory. Darwin hi!self answered this &ind of ob'ection2and Spencer specifically2when he spelled out# in his Variation of /nimal" an& *lant" un&er Dome"tication. how natural selection !ight operate to produce co4adaptations. $ut the si!ple reply# which he also furnished# is that artificial selection can obviously produce the &ind of co4adaptations that Spencer attributed solely to direct e7uilibration. .fter all# !ultiple# !utual adaptations also go into the construction of pouter pigeons and sporting hounds. *, %allace urged Darwin to replace the ter!s /natural selection0 with Spencers version /survival of the fittest.0 "e thought Darwins ter!s too !etaphorical and apt to !islead. .s we &now# Darwin de!urred# saying that his original designation had beco!e en!eshed so tightly within the fabric of the whole theory that it could not be e1tricated without confusion. "e did# though# !ention Spencers e1pression in the fifth and si1th editions <*+G= and *+@>? of the Origin. ( thin& Darwin was right to re'ect Spencers alternative# since these two evolutionists were utili;ing co!pletely different
*D

(bid.# *- )),4,@.

The articles were drawn together in a s!all boo&. See "erbert Spencer# The 2actor" of Organic ()olution <Eondon- %illia!s and 9orgate# *++@?. Charles Darwin# Variation of /nimal" an& *lant" un&er Dome"tication. >nd ed.# > vols. <9ew 5or&- D. .ppleton# *+==?# >- D>@4>=# and D>@n.
*,

*)

conceptions. The difference hinged on the locus of the creativity of nature. 8or Spencer# survival of the fittest !eant the eli!ination of inferior types6 it was a negative process. The real creativity of nature# in Spencers view# ste!!ed fro! functional adaptations and coordination through habit# with the inheritance of ac7uired characters !olding the structure of organis!s. :oreover# survival of the fittest# Spencer e!phatically !aintained# did not !ean survival of the better or the favored. "e urged that /very often that which# hu!anly spea&ing# is inferiority# causes the survival. Superiority# whether in si;e# strength# activity# or sagacity# is# other things e7ual# at the cost of di!inished fertility02and here he har&ened bac& to his population theory. "e continued- /and where the life led by a species does not de!and these higher attributes# the species profits by decrease of the!# and acco!panying increase of fertility. . . Survival of the better does not cover these cases# though survival of the fittest does.0*G So# for Spencer# survival of the fittest !eant# generally spea&ing# eli!ination of inferior traits# not the selection of favorable attributes and the building up of progressively better adaptations. The creativity of evolution# in Spencers sche!e# was left to Ea!arc&ian functional acco!!odations. $ut for Darwin# natural selection was creative and produced better# !ore progressively advanced creatures. Darwins conception of the operations of natural selection had its ger!ination in the theory of nature that he e!braced during his Beagle voyage and that ca!e to invest the Origin of !ecie". %hile on the voyage# he read and re4read the wor&s of .le1ander von "u!boldt# particularly the young Ier!ans *er"onal +arrati)e of Tra)el to the (,uinoctial -egion" of the +e$ 'ontinent # an account of his 'ourney to South and Central .!erica in the years *@== to *+H). "u!boldts understanding of the character of nature both in the large and in creatures ste!!ed fro! his engage!ent with various !e!bers of the early Ro!antic !ove!ent in Jena. *@ "u!boldt depicted a nature pregnant with !oral and aesthetic values# and governed by archetypal relationships. (t was a nature open both to scientific articulation and to artistic intuition# each
*G "erbert Spencer# /:r. :artineau on Evolution#0 in -ecent Di"cu""ion" in cience. *hilo"o!hy. an& 0oral". >nd ed. <9ew 5or&- D. .ppleton# *++>?# pp. DD=4)H.

( have discussed the early Ier!an Ro!antic !ove!ent and "u!boldts particular views in !y The -omantic 'once!tion of %ife: cience an& *hilo"o!hy in the /ge of #oethe <Chicago- University of Chicago 3ress# >HH>?.

*@

co!ple!enting the other. The ordering of "u!boldts cos!os did not co!e fro! a personal Creator# but fro! the fecund and intelligent resources of nature herself. Spino;a# a favorite philosopher of the Ier!an Ro!antics# had epito!i;ed this view with the phrase /Deus sive natura02Iod and nature were one. During the Beagle voyage# Darwin absorbed this depiction and rendered in his account of his 'ourney nature !uch after the !anner of the Ier!an Ro!antics. "e reflected on his debt to "u!boldt during his return voyage bac& to England# when he wrote in his Diary.s the force of i!pression fre7uently depends on preconceived ideas# ( !ay add that all !ine were ta&en fro! the vivid descriptions in the 3ersonal 9arrative which far e1ceed in !erit anything ( have ever read on the sub'ect.*+ (n the *+)Hs# when Darwin was atte!pting to for!ulate for hi!self the character of natural selection# he e!ployed a potent !etaphor. "e li&ened the operations of selection to an all powerful beingEet us now suppose a $eing with penetration sufficient to perceive differences in the outer and inner!ost organi;ation 7uite i!perceptible to !an# and with forethought e1tending over future centuries to which with unerring care and select for any ob'ect the offspring of an organis! produced under the foregoing circu!stances6 ( can see no conceivable reason why he should not for! a new race <or several were he to separate the stoc& of the original organis! and wor& on several islands? adapted to new ends. .s we assu!e his discri!ination# and his forethought# and his steadiness of ob'ect# to be inco!parably greater than those 7ualities in !an# so we !ay suppose the beauty and co!plications of the adaptations of the new race and their differences fro! the original stoc& to be greater than in the do!estic races produced by !ans agency. *=
Charles Darwin# Beagle Diary# ed. R. D. Keynes <Ca!bridge- Ca!bridge University 3ress# *=++?# p ))D <Septe!ber *+DG?. These re!ar&s were reprinted in Charles Darwin# 5ournal of -e"earche" into the #eology an& +atural 1i"tory of the Variou" 'ountrie" Vi"ite& by 14 04 4 Beagle <Eondon- "enry Coburn# *+D=?# p. GH). Charles Darwin# /Essay of *+))#0 in The 2oun&ation" of the Origin of !ecie"# ed. 8rancis Darwin <Ca!bridge- Ca!bridge University 3ress# *=H=?# p. +,.
*= *+

*H

"ere Darwin# through a telling trope# wor&ed out for hi!self the character of the operations of natural selection- it acted with /forethought#0 designing adaptations# not si!ply of utility# but of aesthetic beauty as well. %hen this sa!e creature !ade its appearance in the Origin of !ecie" fifteen years later. it had shed so!e of its garb# but none of its deep vitality and !oral te!per:an can act only on e1ternal and visible characters- nature cares nothing for appearances# e1cept in so far as they !ay be useful to any being. She can act on every internal organ# on every shade of constitutional difference# on the whole !achinery of life. :an selects only for his own good6 9ature only for that of the being which she tends. . . . (t !ay be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutini;ing# throughout the world# every variation# even the slightest6 re'ecting that which is bad# preserving and adding up all that is good6 silently and insensibly wor&ing whenever and wherever opportunity offers# as the i!prove!ents of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. >H Through !eans of a literary device# an aesthetic instru!ent# Darwin infused his conception of nature with /the sta!p of far higher wor&!anship02higher than any hu!an contrivance could evince. 9atural selection# in Darwins i!age4driven language# patently displayed attributes that Spencer would have denied. 9ature did not destroy# rather she creatively directed develop!ent in an altruistic and progressive way- /as natural selection wor&s solely by and for the good of each being# all corporeal and !ental endow!ents will tend to progress toward perfection#0 says Darwin in the Origin4>* Darwins notion of natural selection as a dyna!ic# creative force instilling value into nature undoubtedly has had a subtle# even preconscious appeal to the readers of the Origin# satisfying a deep need to find so!e solace in a world fro! which a creator Iod had fled. Spencer# by contrast# left his readers with a colder# dar&er view of the destructive power of nature.

>H

Charles Darwin# On the Origin of !ecie" <Eondon- :urray# *+,=?# pp. +D4+). (bid.# p. )+=.

>*

**

1uman 0ental ()olution Spencer initially wor&ed out his theory of evolution in light of his utopian socialist vision2a gradual acco!!odation of hu!an beings to the re7uire!ents of social living# so that the greatest a!ount of intellectual and ethical satisfaction !ight be achieved. :etal evolution was thus a principal concern right fro! the very beginning of his evolutionary theori;ing. The first boo& of his to achieve so!e public attention was the *rinci!le" of *"ychology# published in *+,,. Spencer had outsi;ed aspirations for this treatise. "e predicted that his boo& would achieve the sa!e intellectual pro!inence as 9ewtons *rinci!ia2at least he so confided this hope to his father.>> "e believed he had resolved a dispute between the followers of Eoc&e and those of Kant2a dispute then at the boil in the e1changes between John Stuart :ill and %illia! %hewell on the status of universal &nowledge clai!s. The Eoc&eans !aintained that all &nowledge was ac7uired fro! e1perience# while the Kantians held that so!e propositions of universal and necessary !odality were innate and deter!inatively valid. (n his *rinci!le" of *"ychology# Spencer argued in Solo!onic fashion and ca!e to a conclusion that !any philosophers and psychologists today2especially those traveling under the na!e of /evolutionary psychologist02would endorse. "e asserted that certain ubi7uitous relationships in the e1perience of our ancestors concerning space# ti!e# and causality had beco!e i!pressed on their nervous syste!s# and rendered heritable by dint of constant i!pregnation. So today those episte!ological connections would stand as intrinsic !ental structures and serve as the foundation for a !riori propositions in !athe!atics and physics. Spencer thus offered an evolutionary Kantianis! as the revolutionary account for the foundation of the sciences. Spencer sent Darwin a copy of his *rinci!le" of *"ychology in early *+,G# undoubtedly because he had heard fro! his friend "u1ley that the reclusive naturalist was also wor&ing on descent theory. >D Darwins !arginalia indicate he certainly read the boo&# if without deep penetration. "e never !entioned Spencers wor& in the early editions of the Origin or in the De"cent of 0an# where# in this latter# he revealed his own
>>

David Duncan# %ife an& %etter" of 1erbert !encer# > vols. <9ew 5or&- D. .ppleton# *=H+?# *- =+. Darwins note of than&s for the boo& <** :arch *+,,? is in 'orre"!on&ence of 'harle" Dar$in# G- ,G.

>D

*>

theories of hu!an !ental evolution. Just after the publication of the De"cent. Spencer wrote his .!erican pro!oter Edward 5ou!ans to co!plain- /.s no one says a word in rectification# and as Darwin hi!self has not indicated the fact that the *rinci!le" of *"ychology was published five years before the Origin of !ecie"# ( a! obliged to gently indicate this !yself.0>) The !essage finally got ho!e to Darwin# and in the last edition of the Origin. in *+@># he altered a concluding passage to say- /3sychology will be securely based on the foundation already well laid by "erbert Spencer# that of the necessary ac7uire!ent of each !ental power and capacity by gradation.0 Despite Darwins appraisal of Spencer# he see!s to have been little directed by Spencerian ideas# nor was Spencer greatly influenced by Darwinian notions on 7uestions of !ental evolution. $oth# nonetheless# developed closely parallel conceptions. .s early as the *+)Hs# Spencer had proposed that the continued develop!ent of society and the slow adaptation of its !e!bers to the social state would produce /!ental and !oral and through the!# the social perfection of the hu!an race.0 >, %hen he began constructing his Synthetic 3hilosophy so!e twenty years later# he retained the conception of the evolutionary process in nature cul!inating in the !oral perfection of hu!an beings- his assess!ent of cos!ic evolution in the initial volu!e of his syste!# his 2ir"t *rinci!le"# and of biological# psychological# and social evolution in subse7uent volu!es2these all had the purpose of grounding a science of !orals in evolutionary processes. "e brought his syste! to a close in *+=D with the publication of his *rinci!le" of (thic". . co!parable tra'ectory can be !ade out for Darwin. Though his initial thoughts were directed to ani!al adaptations# he 7uic&ly swung to the notion that the highest activity of the hu!an ani!al2!oral behavior2had to be given account by his new theory. "is early 0 and + noteboo&s# and his so4called / ld and Useless0 noteboo&s# &ept fro! *+D@ to *+)H2all of these contain reading notes and theori;ing about hu!an !ental and !oral transfor!ation# leavened with recollections of his recent e1perience of the behavior and !ental condition of the South .!erican (ndians# the 8uegians and the
>)

"erbert Spencer to Edward 5ou!ans <, June *+@*?# in %ife an& %etter" of 1erbert !encer. *- *=@. "erbert Spencer# /Eeter C((#0 +onconformi"t# *= ctober *+)>.

>,

*D

(ndians of the 3a!pas. During the despicable effort of the Spanish to e1ter!inate the (ndians of .rgentina# Darwin detected noble and altruistic behavior e1hibited by individuals who! the colonials regarded as little better than ani!als. .nd the (ndians e1hibited !oral courage without benefit of the Christian religion. Darwin thought his theory could e1plain such behavior6 and he felt the urgency to do so# lest a crac& be left open for the Divinity to creep bac& into biology. .s Darwin wor&ed out his early theory of !oral evolution# he stu!bled across a proble! that threatened his account# not only of hu!an behavior# but of his entire theory. This was the difficulty of the social insects2ants# bees# and ter!ites. Soldier bees# for e1a!ple# would sacrifice their lives for the welfare of the hive# yet since they were neuters# their behavior could not be inherited by their offspring6 !oreover# even if they could reproduce# such altruistic behavior would have the sa!e effect as if they were neuters2dead bees dont leave progeny. "ence# natural selection could not# it see!s# e1plain the altruistic behavior of such insects. Darwin worried about this potentially crucial ob'ection to his theory right through the late *+,Hs. $ut 'ust before the publication of the Origin. he hit upon the solution- natural selection would operate on the entire hive or co!!unity of insects. "ence# those hives that by chance had !e!bers e1hibiting altruistic behavior would have a selective advantage# and their !e!bers# who would include the relatives of the self4sacrificial soldiers# would survive to propagate another day. >G Darwins solution to the proble! of the social insects beca!e the !odel for his e1planation of hu!an !oral behavior in the De"cent of 0an. The e1planation was elegant and one that !any of us would still endorse. "e wrote(t !ust not be forgotten that although a high standard of !orality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual !an and his children over the other !en of the sa!e tribe# yet that an advance!ent in the standard of !orality and an increase in the nu!ber of well4endowed !en certainly give an i!!ense advantage to one tribe over another. There can be no doubt that a tribe including !any !e!bers who# fro! possessing in a high
( have given an account of Darwins crucial difficulty with the social insects in !y Dar$in an& the (mergence of ()olutionary Theorie" of 0in& an& Beha)ior. pp. *)>4,>.
>G

*)

degree the spirit of patriotis!# fidelity# obedience# courage# and sy!pathy# were always ready to give aid to each other and to sacrifice the!selves for the co!!on good# would be victorious over !ost other tribes6 and this would be natural selection.>@ Though he focused on hu!an !oral acts as that &ind of behavior !ost elegantly e1plained by his theory of co!!unity selection# he found the !odel to be generali;able. (t could also e1plain growth in hu!an intelligence. . tribe that by chance had a pri!itive 9ewton in its !idst would profit by adopting his inventions and conceptual notions. This would give the tribe an advantage in co!petition with other tribes and so it would be selected# along with that ersat; 9ewtons relatives. >+ .gain# !ental traits that !ight not see! to be greatly advantageous to an individual !ight yet be selected at the co!!unity level and thus continue to advance. Though Spencer retained the notion that co!ple1 traits of organis!s2including co!ple1 !oral behavior2re7uired a theory of direct e7uilibration for their e1planation# he yet yielded to the attractions of Darwins notion of co!!unity selection# so powerful was it. (n the first part of his *rinci!le" of (thic"# which was initially published as Data of (thic" in *+@=# Spencer distinguished two levels of altruis!- one &ind directed to the fa!ily and another to the larger society. "e obviously found Darwins conception of co!!unity selection# now narrowed to the fa!ily# a fit e1planation for altruistic advantage given to children and !ore re!ote relatives. "e yet held that self4sacrificial behavior operating for the benefit of the larger society could only be e1plained by gradual acco!!odation to the social state2his long standing e1planation dependent on direct inheritance of social characters. "e perhaps recogni;ed that group selection on unrelated individuals would not yield heritable advantage. Darwin# by contrast# ca!e to believe that group selection !er "e could occur even without individuals being related.>= The proble! of group selection still bedevils !odern biology.
>@

Charles Darwin# De"cent of 0an an& election in -elation to e6 <Eondon- :urray# *+@*?# *- *GG. (bid.# p. *G*.

>+

(n the final edition of the Origin of !ecie" <*+@>?# Darwin invo&es group selection 7uite clearly- /(n social ani!als it Anatural selectionB will adapt the structure of each individual for the benefit of the co!!unity6 if the co!!unity profits by the selected change.0 See The Origin of !ecie" by 'harle"

>=

*,

Darwins account of hu!an !orality largely depended on his theory of co!!unity selection# while Spencers still fell bac& on the inheritance of ac7uired characters. 5et Darwin# could as easily revert to direct inheritance when the situation de!anded. This was the case when he focused on the proble! of !ans big brain. %allace had pointed out that for sheer survival# hu!ans needed a brain hardly larger than that of an orangutan# that is# about the si;e# as %allace suggested2about the si;e of that of the average !e!ber of a $ritish gentle!ans club. $ut if a large brain were not needed for survival# what accounted for the superfluous cerebral !atter that !ost hu!ans carried aroundJ Darwin# after reading so!e recent Ier!an literature# concluded that our ac7uisition of language !olded the brain into !ore co!ple1 patterns# which would beco!e heritable over ti!e. Thus the hu!an brain would grow with the co!ple1ity of language. DH This &ind of Darwinian position# though we !ight cavil about it today# yet reveals that deeper truth which both Spencer and Darwin recogni;ed- na!ely# that hu!an evolution ta&es place in society and that social relations beco!e inscribed in the develop!ent of the individual. (t has so!eti!es been suggested that the phrase /social Darwinis!02a phrase that carries a large negative valence2be altered to the !ore historically correct /social Spencerianis!#0 as if Darwin hi!self should be e1onerated of any application of evolutionary theory to hu!an beings. This suggestion obviously lac&s all !erit. 9either Darwin nor Spencer thought the hu!an ani!al e1e!pt fro! evolutionary understanding and conse7uent theoretical construction. 'onclu"ion Darwin and Spencer relied on the sa!e devices to e1plain hu!an !ental and !oral evolution2that is# natural selection and direct inheritance of ac7uired relations. Each# however# e!phasi;ed that causal account about which each felt !ost proprietary 2certainly no surprise there. 9o conte!porary biologist would# though# be thoroughly
Dar$in: / Variorum Te6t# ed. :orse 3ec&ha! <3hiladelphia- University of 3ennsylvania 3ress# *=,=?# p. *@>. See !y /The Einguistic Creation of :an- Charles Darwin# .ugust Schleicher# Ernst "aec&el# and the :issing Ein& in 9ineteenth4Century Evolutionary Theory#0 in (6!erimenting in Tongue": tu&ie" in cience an& %anguage# ed. :atthias DMrries <Stanford- Stanford University 3ress# >HH>?# pp. >*4)+.
DH

*G

satisfied with the theories of either one. 9either Spencer nor Darwin had# by our conte!porary lights# a decent notion of heredity. Darwin had no proble!# for instance# with natural selection operating on ac7uired characters6 and# of course# his theory of pangenesis was designed to acco!!odate a Ea!arc&ian &ind of inheritance. 5et# we are all neo4Darwinians# but none of us would ad!it to being a neo4Spencerian <though we !ight charge our ene!ies with that?. %hy the denigration of Spencer and the apotheosis of DarwinJ Eet !e conclude with a few suggestions as to the answer to this 7uestion. 8irst# ( believe it is the intuitively clear idea of natural selection2at least in its later for!ulations2that we ad!ire. Ernst "aec&el was ready to regard natural selection as analytically true and thus an i!!oveable roc& upon which to build evolutionary biology. f course# Karl 3opper also regarded it as analytically true# but drew a different conclusion as to its status in science. Darwins own original conception# though# gave natural selection properties2na!ely its creative function2to which we are# ( believe# inclined to be !ore favorably disposed than to the idea of negative eli!ination. This# ( believe# is a second reason for the prospering of Darwins fortunes. ne cannot dis!iss a related aspect of Darwins evolutionary views. They see!ed to be based on large and disparate accu!ulations of e!pirical evidence. Though there is so!e illusion in this assu!ption# since the Origin of !ecie" !a&es al!ost no use of that &ind of e!pirical evidence we today would nor!ally regard as de!onstrative# na!ely the fossil record. (ndeed# Darwins first Ier!an translator# "einrich Ieorg $ronn# leveled as a !ost potent ob'ection to Darwins theory that he offered only a possible sche!e of species descent but lac&ed e!pirical evidence for the actuality of species descent.D* $ronn had a point. The Origin of !ecie" is filled with a great variety of stories about how life !ight have evolved. .nd so powerful are they# readers have been led si!ply to accept the! as 7uasi4proofs that life has actually evolved. %hat Darwin does show is that the &inds of facts with which naturalist would
D* (n the translators epilogue to the Ier!an version of the Origin# $ronn argued that Darwin had only shown that the &ind of transfor!ationis! he advocated was possible but that he had not shown that it was actual. See ". I. $ronn# ASchlusswort des Nberset;ers#@ in Charles Darwin# 7ber &ie (nt"tehung &er /rten im Thier- un& *flan8en--eich &urch nat9rliche :9chtung. o&er (rhaltung &er )er)oll;ommneten -a""en in <am!fe um=" Da"yn# <based on >nd English ed.?# trans. ". I. $ronn <StuttgartSchwei;erbart=sche Cerhandlung und Druc&erei# *+GH?# pp.. )=,4,>H.

*@

be fa!iliar all hang together in une1pected ways when viewed through the lens of his theory. Spencers leaden prose could not acco!plish the sa!e linguistic !agic as Darwins !etaphorical and i!age filled writing. . fourth reason for the ascendancy of Darwinis! is that Tho!as "enry "u1ley and I. E. :oore indicted Spencers evolutionary ethics with the charge of co!!itting a great fallacy2the so4called /naturalistic fallacy#0 that because we have# as a matter of fact# evolved to regard certain actions as good or bad# we therefore ought to regard the! as good or bad. 9either "u1ley nor :oore appeared to notice that Darwin hi!self had co!!itted# fro! their point of view# the sa!e fallacy. .s for !yself# though# ( thin& its not a fallacy# but thats irrelevant here.D> . fifth reason for the low esti!ate of Spencers progra! surely has to do with his notions about the liabilities of govern!ent interference in natural processes of hu!an develop!ent6 those notions do run counter to !ost acade!ically liberal sensibilities. Darwin !ade few preach!ents about the role of govern!ent# especially since his own social position see!ed fairly !uch in har!ony with the status 7uo of his society. 8inally# there are those indelible portraits of the sour bachelor and the prophetic sage. They do wor& on the i!agination. There is no chance that suddenly a place will be !ade for Spencer in the pantheon of great scientists. $ut a !ore historically sensitive reading !ight re!ove hi! fro! the lower depths where he now resides. "is i!pact was felt throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries# often in surreptitious ways# as 9ao!i $ec& shows in her paper. "e certainly deserves !ore than the three paragraphs granted hi! by Ernst :ayr.

( discuss the logic of evolutionary ethics and the naturalist fallacy in the second appendi1 to !y Dar$in an& the (mergence of ()olutionary Theorie" of 0in& an& Beha)ior4

D>

*+