This paper post will continue the conversation in my last paper post and will be continued in the next post as well. In this post I will discuss Spencerian selection and the next post will cover Marxian selection. Once defined and discussed I will then lay out the wholes that I have identified and where I will add a separate analysis, adding onto the discussion that the authors have discussed in their paper.
Spencerian Selection:
Spencerian selection coined by Turner and Abrutyn is defined as two different types of selection. The first type is based on Spencer’s argument that when societies evolve they become more complex in their variances of social structures. These complexities are labeled on axes defined as production, reproduction, regulation, and distribution. The scholars define these as:
- Production of resources needed for humans to survive and build social structures
- Reproduction of individuals and the sociocultural formations organizing their activities;
- Regulation through the (a) consolidation of power, (b) codification of belief systems, and (c) formation of structural interdependencies through markets.
- Distribution through the expansion of (a) infrastructures of moving resources, information, and people across territories, and (b) markets facilitating exchanges of resources, information, and even people.
When there are needs not being met there is pushback from “actors” (which can be from the individual or corporate level) to create new ways to handle identified problems revolving around these four fundamental axes. This makes type one Spencerian selection be driven by needs, motives, interests, and power which can change the “sociocultural phenotype”.
The second type of Spencerian selection is based on societal interaction in warfare. It is a brutal version of “survival of the fittest” and showcases how societies can change based on war outcomes. The author points out that it is typically countries with higher levels of economic and military resources, such as technology, economic surpluses, and other warfare advantages that might aid in war tactics that typically have the upper hand. This can have varying outcomes for local cultures, creating “subordinate societies” and sometimes even redefining geographical information. The authors do discuss how conquest increases inequality and these inequalities then coincide and relate back to type one Spencerian selection. Which then puts pressure on new forms of regulation in institutional systems such as polity, law, economy, and religion.
I do think that this explanation accounts for some aspects of societal interactions on the basis of societal evolution but I believe it places too much trust in the true adaptability of structural institutions. While it does explain some social inequalities in some settings it does not showcase how institutions adapt in ways that still keep the status quo in power and does not emphasize power relationship dynamics to “change” for the needs of others but rather reinvent inequalities. Tactics such as these have been used across countries and cross-culturally to keep the powerful in power while “catering” to what the “actors” identify without giving too much resources.
Returning the “Social” to Evolutionary Sociology; Reconsidering Spencer, Durkheim, and Marx’s Models of “Natural” Selection by Johnathan Turner and Seth Arutyn