Herbert Spencer
The most extreme reflection of nineteenth-century individualism is to be found in the encyclopedic system of Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). Both his paternal and maternal ancestors were of a long English and French nonconformists, dissenters and rebels, and Spencer traces in his "Autobiography" his "conspicuous disregard" of political, religious, and social authority to the tradition of independence and dissent so long cherished by his family. Spencer’s education was informal, unconventional, and highly deficient in the more traditional studies of literature and history. His father encouraged his interest in the science and tecnology, and Spencer became an engineer. However, he practiced his profession for a few years, because he became increasingly interested in political economy, sociology, biology, and philosophy. He was a subeditor of The economist from 1848 to 1853, and then ventured into a full-time career as a free-lance author.
As early as 1842 Spencer contributed to the Nonconformist a series of letters called The Proper Sphere of Government, his first major publication. It contains his political philosophy of extreme individualism and Laissez Faire, which was not much modified in his writings in the following sixty years. Spencer expresses in The Proper Sphere of Government his belief that "everything in nature has its laws," organic as well as inorganic matter. Man is subject to laws bot in his physical and spiritual essence, and "as with man individually, so with man socially." Concerning the evils of society, Spencer postulates a "self-adjusting principle" under which evils rectify themselves, provided that no one interferes with the inherent law of society.
In discussing the functions of the state, Spencer is concerned with what the state should not do, rather than what it should do. Maintenance of order and administration of justice are the only two proper realms of government activity, and their purpose is "simply to defend the natural rights of man to protect person and property." The state has no business to promote religion, regulate trade and commerce, encourage colonization, aid the poor, or enforce sanitary laws. Spencer went even so far as to deny the state the right to wage war; but as he says in his Autobiogra...
... middle of paper ...
...yond the ethical sanction bestowed on it by the free consent of the citizens: " The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of the king. The functions of true Liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of parliaments."
Spencer’s political ideas hardly changed between 1842, when he published his Proper Sphere of Government, and 1903, the year of his death. The constancy of his political thought in the face of rapidly changing social and economic scene explains why the same ideas that were the last word in radical individualism in the eighteen-forties had become the orthodox conservatism by 1900. And Spencer’s appeal to the English Liberals to return to their original individualism remained unheard, but he correctly foresaw that Conservatives would become the defenders of economic individualism. Spencer failed to see that the issue of the state intervention in the economy was essentially one of means and not of objectives, and that Laissez Faire could be progressive, dynamic, and revolutionary at one time –early 19 century-, and conservative, stagnant, and sterile at another time – late 19 century-.
Overall, politics are key in determining whether this era was predominantly liberal or conservative as well as economic and social reforms. On an aside, conservatism can be defined as a political philosophy based upon tradition and social stability while liberalism can be defined in two ways. Modern Liberalism emphasizes liberty and rights but, believes in strong government intervention in order to prevent the growth of a capitalist society, while classical liberalism advocates liberty and the autonomy of the individual. With these definitions given it can be concluded that the progressive era promoted change as well as government intervention to prevent capitalism from spreading and the autonomy of the individual. In conclusion, for the most part the Progressive Era from 1901-1907 was a triumph for modern and classical liberalism.
In the late1960’s American politics were shifting at a National level with liberalism being less supported as its politics were perceived as flawed, both by people on the left who thought that liberalism was not as effective as more radical political enterprises and by conservatives who believed that liberal politics were ostensibly crippling the American economy.
Sumner was very influenced with the Spencer’s ideas. He was unclear about the Spencer’s ideas about creating a systematic science of society after his graduation. However, Spencer’s proposals aided Sumner’s ini...
One common misconception is to view the Progressive movement as a unified core of reform-minded crusaders dedicated to improving the social welfare of American society. While this viewpoint is not entirely incorrect, it is only a partial and thereby misleading assessment of the movement that categorized the early part of the nineteenth-century. What some may fail to appreciate is the duality of the period-the cry for social welfare reforms juxtaposed against the demand for optimum efficiency through scientific controls.
Following the teachings of Herbert Spencer, Captains of Industry and others like them, believed that competition...
Judd Owen, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Emory University, attempts to defend the liberal interpretation of Hobbes’s political philosophy by demonstrating his promotion of a “liberal politics of toleration” (pg. 133). Owen begins by asking the following question: “How can Hobbes’s political philosophy be directed to a tolerant regime, and yet be hostile to the granting of unconditional freedoms or rights?” (pg. 134). In truth, those who enter into a commonwealth via the social contract forfeit almost all of the rights and liberties that they possessed in the state of nature (except the right to self-defense). However, Owen proceeds to explicate how the aim of Hobbes’s civil society is not the alienation of individual liberties (although individual rights are in fact alienated). Rather, this forfeiture of rights is only a means by which to secure the greatest amount of liberty that can actually be enjoyed by the individual. In other terms, human beings possess unrestricted liberty rights in the state of nature, but they are neither free enough nor secure enough to enjoy them without constant threat of violence or death. Thus, individuals consent to engage in civil society because it is the only condition in which they can enjoy a modicum of liberty and true freedom of will. Although the subjects of a commonwealth must give up their claims to absolute liberty, the sovereign authority and civil law allow for a great deal of individual toleration. For example,
The Modern and Classical strands of liberalism share similar principles – indeed if they did not, it would be wrong to classify them as two strands of the same ideology. It seems the fundamental differences between them rely on the ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ views, which define them and which lead on to the fundamental opposition inherent in liberalism: the role of the state.
...aust. He saw his race as superior because of its ability to concur not its strength to survive. Herbert Spencer also believed that human advancement was taking from, or destroying other less advanced human races. Examples of this are the colonisation of Australia and India by the British in which they had no problem treating the people of these countries in a bad way. Colonial Britain could justify this racism with Social Darwinism on the basis that they had the power to take over therefore had the right. These ideas were popular in the west in the 19th century because it was a time of much colonisation and Social Darwinism justified the mistreatment of others. Social Darwinism was basically an excuse for racism and although based very roughly around Darwin’s Origin of Species it was used putting the person writing as the superior subject, never in a scientific way.
Ball, Stuart and Ian Holliday. Mass Conservatism: The Conservatives and the Public since the 1880s. London: Frank Cass Publishers. Print.
The pieces on liberalism and conservatism has shown how different the two ideologies mean compared to the labels we see in American politics. The media has made it seems as though conservatives (which in the U.S. is becoming synonymous with Republican) is all against change, while liberals (Democrats) lie in the exact opposite of the spectrum: promoting changes. However, the essays by Locke, Berlin, and Oakeshott showed us how the two ideologies are much deeper than that. It is not just a manual of how to govern a nation, but rather ideals and philosophies. Furthermore, while contemporary politics have created an illusion that there is a clear and definite distinction between liberalism and conservatism, these essays show that they actually do overlap in many ways. In "Two Concepts of Liberty", Berlin categorizes liberty as "positive" and "negative". Positive liberty defines freedom as an individual being able to control his life and decisions in his own interests. On the other hand, in negative liberty, freedom exist when an individual is free from external interference. The major difference between the two concepts of liberty is that positive liberty focuses on the capability of an...
Hultberg, Nelson. "Is Individualism Dead? | Nelson Hultberg." FEE. Foundation for Economic Education, 01 June 1994. Web.
The concept of Social Darwinism was a widely accepted theory in the nineteenth-century. Various intellectual, and political figures from each side of the political spectrum grasped the theory and interpreted it in various ways. In this paper, we will discuss three different nineteenth-century thinkers and their conception of Social Darwinism. The conservative, Heinrich von Treitschke, and liberal Herbert Spencer both gave arguments on the usefulness of competition between people on a global scale. The anarchist, Peter Kropotkin, refuted the belief of constant competition among members of the same species and emphasized mutual aid.
Emile Durkheim is another sociologist who used Herbert Spencer’s theory to explain the change in society. He believed that society is a very intricate system of interrelated and interdependent parts that work together to maintain stability (Durkheim 1893). This ensures that the social world is held together by shared values and languages. He wrote the Division of Labor.
The emergence of this political philosophy started around the end of the nineteenth century with John Stuart Mill's ideas in his book Principles of Political Economy. The philosophy became an ideology in the twentieth century with the main points of enh...
In order to enforce it, however, ideal liberalism calls for mass action. This is due to the fact that the government holds power to execute administrative functions of a state, meaning that an individual has minimal bargaining power. All types of liberalism are founded on this aspect of democracy. Examples include classic liberalism and modern American liberalism. Classic liberalism is based on the limitation of state power. (Hansen 1). This type of liberalism recognizes the state as a powerful being and therefore a threat to individual freedom. On the other hand, modern American liberalism advocates for an advancement of social justice and the rights of individuals. (Hansen 1). The common factor between the two is the need for mass action to enforce them. Therefore, in order to protect the rights of individuals, people have to take it upon themselves to voice concern for violation and to address the risks to their