My friend Steve Davies, the great historian at Manchester Metropolitan University, describes "Spencer’s Law." And here it is, in the words of Herbert Spencer himself:
Yet while elevation, mental and physical, of the masses is going on far
more rapidly than ever before—while the lowering of the death-rate
proves that the average life is less trying, there swells louder and
louder the cry that the evils are so great that nothing short of a
social revolution can cure them. In presence of obvious improvements,
joined with that increase of longevity which even alone yields
conclusive proof of general amelioration, it is proclaimed, with
increasing vehemence, that things are so bad that society must be
pulled to pieces and re-organised on another plan, In this case, then,
as in the previous cases instanced, in proportion as the evil decreases
the denunciation of it increases; and as fast as natural causes are
shown to be powerful there grows up the belief that they are powerless.
This quotation is found on page 6 of the 1981 Liberty Fund reprint of A Plea for Liberty, edited by Thomas Mackay, and originally published in Great Britain in 1891. Spencer wrote the Introduction. Here’s Liberty Fund’s on-line version of Spencer’s essay.
Share
{ 17 comments }
Sure. Isn't that what creative destruction is all about? Isn't society today hardly recognizable to someone living a century ago, and isn't this revolution most apparent in the freest economies? I'm a libertarian and not a conservative precisely because I want society continually reorganized.
There were many similar complaints during the campaign of Andrew Jackson. See Age of Jackson by Schlessinger.
martin brock: "Isn't that what creative destruction is all about? Isn't society today hardly recognizable to someone living a century ago"
I didn't understand "creative destruction" to mean "pulling society to pieces".
I'm not sure how you mean that society would be hardly recognizable to someone living a century ago. Millions of American families still survive by exchanging their labor for dollars and benefits from profit-seeking businesses. Innovations which most improve quality of life are still developed by profit-seeking organizations. Price is still the most efficient method by far for allocating scarce resources. Organized religion still provides moral direction for at least half of Americans, if not more. Voters, through their elected representatives, are still regulating and prohibiting private behavior which they deem to be harmful to society.
In what ways has society been reorganized that would make it unrecognizable to early 20th century Americans?
The pessimists will always be concerened with empty even as the cup runneth over. It's the same old headline: dark clouds lift but sky falls; news at 11!
Isn't society today hardly recognizable to someone living a century ago, and isn't this revolution most apparent in the freest economies? I'm a libertarian and not a conservative precisely because I want society continually reorganized [especially while an economy is in its apparent freest state. Did I mention that I'm a libertarian?]
Martin Brock;
The key word in that passage is plan, not re-organised. Yes we want a flexible society constantly evolving, but not through central planning.
Is it me or Spencer pick up the point of a wealthy society succumbing to ideology? If poor societies risk being forever poor due to crime and short-term personal planning preference, do rich societies fail from having it too easy such they forget where they came from and get lazy? Likewise the problem of easy money from the resource luck – Saudi Arabia get trillions from being lucky to be sitting on heaps and heaps of oil and, knowing their oil income won't last another century, create a great many projects in the hope that the income from their investments will pay for their lifestyles when the world goes off oil. Economically speaking since their wealth came too easy the Sauds investment ability should be quite poor because they have so much money coming in they don't know the value of a poor investment – "oops that investment lost $100 million dollar, oh well plenty more where that came from". Similarly I hear (a.k.a. anecdotely) the Sauds want results in a way they practicaly throw a blank chequebook to construction firms. But whist the Saud don't know the value of a dollar the various hanger-on firms and they bring with them the cheapest labour they can find. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but it seems the Sauds are going to get a rather nasty surprise in 50 or so years when they find out for real whether or not they investing their money wisely. One 'look into the future' nation has been the island of Nauru which got rich quick from their phosphate deposits which found its way to Australian and New Zealand farms. They too had the idea of investing their wealth in the hope of living off their investments and they bellyflopped.
I wonder how important it is that American political forces are organized into two opposing armies? If the Republican party were indeed in its death throes, would all those who have traditionally regarded themselves as Republicans suddenly disappear upon its demise? Or is it possible that they would, like a phoenix, rise from from Republican ashes to form a coalition within the surviving Democrat party?
Thanks for the illuminating post. In a short passage, Spencer proves to be the inspiration of so much modern libertarian thought. I am currently reading "The Vision of the Anointed" by Sowell, and he make a strikingly similar point. This post helps place Sowell's contribution in a larger context.
gappy: "I am currently reading "The Vision of the Anointed" by Sowell"
Loved the book. Gained much from it.
Considering that Spencer was a social darwinist with all the nastiness that resulted, I sure wouldn't use him as an example of anything save what to avoid.
What was wrong with Spencer's form of Social Darwinism? He advocated a passive form of Social Darwinism – scrap welfare and charity and let people make their own way. Considering most people here would agree that economic hangover must not be spared then why not social hangover? Isn't the coverse true – charity and welfare creates a dysgenic society where hard work doesn't get results?
Gil,
If you don't understand the evil unleashed in history by social darwinism and its adherents, then I almost despair for you. Survival of the fittest when applied to human societies reduces us to the level of bloody savagery.
I said 'passive' Darwinism not 'pro-active' Darwinism which I'm presuming you mean as to be rounding up people and killing or sterilising them. But so what? Social Creationism had its adherents where they could round up those they didn't like because others were 'heretics' and burn them at the stake.
Gilduck,
Please, this is embarassing, disabuse yourself of any notion that I am coming down on your side of any argument…..despite all evidence to the contrary.
David P. Graf,
I am not sure I understand your reasoning here:
"Survival of the fittest when applied to human societies reduces us to the level of bloody savagery.
Posted by: David P. Graf | May 20, 2008 8:31:49 AM"
It would seem to me that the evidence is clear that natural selection, survival of the fittest, produced the level of civilization, techinical and social, that most of mankind enjoys today and which I might add lifted us above the level of the bloody savage.
So how does survival of the fittest reduce us when it has elevated us?
We keep changing what "fittest" means.
Creative destruction is pulling society to pieces. Any form of creativity has its toll on humans
"I'm a libertarian and not a conservative precisely because I want society continually reorganized." Whoa, Nelly! Curious statement that. For what purpose do you want "continual reorganizations?" Some famous value-free advocates of "continual reorganization" include Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, and maybe "Hope and Change"-man himself come November. It might be a wise idea to take a long and leisurely public look at the moral and ethical dimensions of these grand "reorganization" proposals first.