Who is Herbert Spencer?

He is a British sociologist and social psychologist. He was the first truly functionalist sociologist in sociology. In fact, while E. Durkheim is widely considered the most important functionalist of positivist theory, much of his analysis is distinguished from the work of H. Spencer, particularly his “Principles of Sociology” (1874-96). In Spencer’s works, he avoids the tedium of reading his great works – while fulfilling the organism analogy with long passages that interpret it with reference to cells, simple creatures, animals, humans, and society – and even in his “structure of social action” (1937) “Who is reading Spencer now?” that?” There was important information that implicitly influenced most contemporary theorists, including Parsons, who asked.

The core of his theory is 19th century. It is an evolutionist model different from evolutionist theorists, it is cyclical. The onset of difference and the increasing complexity of an organic or superorganic (Spencer’s term for the social system) body is followed by a fluctuation that is an expression of equilibrium and instability (or an expression of adaptation and adaptation), and as a result, the phases of disintegration and dissolution. follows. Therefore, following the population principles of Thomas Malthus; Spencer concludes that society faces a constant pressure of choice, and that the internal structure that rises through differences—internal and external requirements—will force society to adapt. But any solution to a problem that causes a new form of choice pressure threatens the viability of society. What is noteworthy is that; Spencer was not a determinist. He never stated that a) election pressure will make society sensitive to change over time, b) society will be reactive and sensitive, and c) solutions will always work. In fact, he was in many ways a political sociologist (see Turner 1985). As it will be remembered, the fragmentation of authority and the degree of centralization within the government can break or restore the society’s ability to adapt. In this sense, he saw the general trend towards centralization of power, just as he saw that repression can lead to decentralization, stagnation and stagnation.

As a more special point; Spencer recalls the 3 functions needed and needed, produced selection printing; regulation, management (production) and distribution. All societies, he argues, need to solve problems of commodity production, delivery, coordination and control with new ideas, and ultimately seek methods for the distribution of resources. First, in primitive societies, the 3 functions mentioned are inseparable and the kinship system makes satisfaction in this direction the dominant structure. Most scholars state that all institutions are classified under kinship organizations (Nolan and Lenski, 2004; Maryanski and Turner 1992). However, individual nutritional problems associated with rising populations – in numbers and density – are creating new forms of organization. The abrupt division of labor and the evolving systems of resource allocation provide various coordination and control among different social associations. The solution, according to Spencer, which he saw, is that structures can be discerned to perform more specific functions. Hence, the chief or “big man” emerges, followed by a group of his right arm, and then followed by kings and rulers.

Perhaps Spencer’s greatest debated obstacle to modern sociology is the weight of social philosophy rooted in the social and historical context of Victorian England. Hence, he coined the term “survival of the fittest” to discuss a simple truth. Small tribes or societies tend to be conquered and dominated by larger societies. The irony said is too individual for someone who thinks about himself. Academics failed to distinguish humanity (as did people with a racial or gender perspective in the 19th century). As a result, the fine distinction in the discussion of political dynamics, power, and economic dynamics was unpredictable. Of course, most sociologists knowingly or unknowingly use it in their analyzes, which is particularly the case with the re-emergence of evolutionary theory.

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak.