Herbert Spencer and the Invention of Modern Life [Hardcover]

Mark Francis (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: May 24, 2007

The ideas of the English philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) profoundly shaped Victorian thought regarding evolutionary theory, the philosophy of science, sociology, and politics. In his day, Spencer's works ranked alongside those of Darwin and Marx in their importance to the development of disciplines as wide-ranging as sociology, anthropology, political theory, philosophy, and psychology. Yet during his lifetime-and certainly in the decades that followed-Spencer has been widely misunderstood. Both lauded and disparaged as the father of Social Darwinism (it was Spencer who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest"), and as an apologist for individualism and unrestrained capitalism, he was, in fact, none of these; he was instead a subtle and complex thinker.In his major new intellectual biography of Spencer, Mark Francis uses archival material and contemporary printed sources to create a fascinating portrait of a man who attempted to explain modern life in all its biological, psychological, and sociological forms through a unique philosophical and scientific system that bridged the gap between empiricism and metaphysics. Vastly influential in England and beyond-particularly the United States and Asia-his philosophy was, as Francis shows, systematic and rigorous. Despite the success he found in the realm of ideas, Spencer was an unhappy man. Francis reveals how Spencer felt permanently crippled by the Christian values he had absorbed during childhood, and was incapable of romantic love, as became clear during his relationship with the novelist George Eliot. Elegantly written, provocative, and rich in insight, Herbert Spencer and the Invention of Modern Life is an exceptional work of scholarship that not only dispels the misinformation surrounding Spencer but also illuminates the broader cultural and intellectual history of the nineteenth century.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Victorian biologist and social philospher Spencer has largely been neglected in the literature, and Francis remedies that here. He covers well the many problems in Spencer's life: e.g., his conflicts with his overbearing and troubled father, his inability to form and consummate loving relationships with the women in his life (notably, novelist George Eliot), and his battles with depression, melancholia, insomnia, and hypochondria. Although Francis prefers to call this an "intellectual biography"-and it certainly is that, because much of it deals with the ideas and controversy surrounding the nature of evolution-what sets it apart is its insight into Spencer's inner conflicts and aspects as well. Ours is often referred to as the Age of Anxiety, and in this sense, the picture of the troubled person who emerges here indicates why the author places him squarely in 'modern life.' Recommended for most collections."-Library Journal

"A stunning revelation of a personality and thinker whom even most well-informed Victorianists evaluate largely from misinformation. This book presents an entirely new understanding of Spencer. Scholars from a number of fields-philosophy, literature, history, and history of science-will quite simply never be able to think of Spencer as they have before. Wonderfully and persuasively revisionist, backed up by superb research, this will be the book on Spencer for the present and next generation."-Frank M. Turner, John Hay Whitney Professor of History, Yale University

"A major new study of Herbert Spencer, revealing aspects of his personality and thought previously little explored. It is an impressive work of scholarship and interpretation that no scholar of nineteenth-century thought can afford to neglect."-David Boucher, Professor of Political Theory, Cardiff University

From the Back Cover

"A stunning revelation of a personality and thinker about whom even most well informed Victorianists evaluate largely from misinformation. This book presents an entirely new understanding of Spencer. Scholars from a number of fields--philosophy, literature, history, and history of science--will quite simply never be able to think of Spencer as they have before. Wonderfully and persuasively revisionist, backed up by superb research, this will be the book on Spencer for the present and next generation."--Frank M. Turner, John Hay Whitney Professor of History, Yale University

"A major new study of Herbert Spencer, revealing aspects of his personality and thought previously little explored. It is an impressive work of scholarship and intepretation that all scholars of nineteenth-century thought cannot afford to neglect."--David Boucher, Professor of Political Theory, Cardiff University

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 464 pages
• Publisher: Cornell University Press; First Edition edition (May 24, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0801445906
• ISBN-13: 978-0801445903
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.1 x 1.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.9 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,326,707 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Reader beware: unsupported claims and questionable scholarship, October 1, 2010

By 

Syd - See all my reviews

This review is from: Herbert Spencer and the Invention of Modern Life (Hardcover)

The author has taken upon himself a Herculean task: to write about the life, mind and work of a man whose collected works encompass some thirty volumes, most of which are hefty tomes covering almost all fields of human inquiry.

Considering the enormity of the task, it is reasonable to expect some errors of omission. Errors of commission, however, are never justifiable. Unfortunately, this book seems to be making false claims from its very beginning. These errors are glaring, and they must be mentioned lest the author gets away with this shady work of bad scholarship.

On page 17, the author writes that "Spencer's An Autobiography was an act of expiation, and a warning to others to avoid his fate." On page 33 the author writes "The mature Spencer regarded his inability to follow his feelings as a loveless tragedy, and wrote An Autobiography to warn others of his plight."

Having read Spencer's autobiography (D. Appleton & Company, 1904) in its entirety, I have found nowhere in these approximately 1,200 pages any evidence supporting either of these claims. Spencer's autobiography is written in a fairly neutral (and often self-satisfied) tone, with almost no expressed feelings of bitterness, loss, tragedy, plight, missed opportunities, or avoidable fate. The only chapter whose overall tone is negative is Chapter LVI, "A Grievous Mistake", and this chapter deals with a specific error Spencer had made, not with a series of lifelong mistakes. In the last chapter, Reflections, Spencer states that his tendency to criticize and point out the negative has damaged his social life, but this is a far cry from supporting the statements made in the book.

On the other hand, there is positive evidence that Spencer did not regret the choices he had made, or the life he had led.

On page 538, Spencer states: "Little, then, as I should encourage another to follow my example and throw prudence to the winds, it will readily be understood that, as things have turned out, I find no reason to regret the course I took and the life I have passed: very much the contrary, indeed."

On page 539: "Even taking into account chronic disturbance of health, I have every reason to be satisfied with that which fate has awarded me."

On page 540: "Thus, if I leave out altruistic considerations and include egoistic consideration only, I may still look back from these declining days of life with content." Later in the page, he mentions that one drawback of the path he had chosen is that he had never gotten married, but he concludes on the same page: "After all my celibate life has probably been the best for me, as well as for some unknown other."

Taking these facts into consideration, I must conclude that it is very unlikely that Professor Francis has ever read Spencer's autobiography. It is astonishing that he chose to make such outlandish comments regarding a book about which he seems to know nothing. These claims call the entire scholarly integrity of the book into question, and they raise the question of whether Professor Francis is at all familiar with Spencer's work. After all, it is far easier to read about Spencer that it is to read Spencer. Professor Francis may have capitalized on the fact that many readers of this book will be satisfied with a second-hand account of Spencer's life and thought, and will not bother to sweat through Spencer's tomes to study the real Spencer in his own words, and to pick up on Francis's errors in the process.

I had contacted Professor Francis and asked him to clarify the issues discussed above, but I received no response. It is therefore appropriate that I warn Professor Francis's potential readers of his questionable scholarship.

5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A Particular View of Herbert Spencer: It Makes the Reader Think, May 25, 2010

By 

Dr. Terrence McGarty (Florham Park, NJ) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Herbert Spencer and the Invention of Modern Life (Hardcover)

The biography of Spencer entitled "Herbert Spencer and the Invention of Modern Life" by Mark Francis is a recent addition to the body of works of an interesting 19th century polymath. Spencer was both a philosopher and advocate of Darwin's evolutionary ideas as well as one who opined frequently on matters of political import. In many ways Spencer was a true polymath, one who wrote seminal works on psychology and sociology and wrote extensively on biology and integrated that with the new ideas promulgated by Darwin. Spencer was praised by many of his contemporaries and was also in many ways the typical Victorian, hardened in that period but also having his views shaped by it also.

Overall the book addresses Spencer, his life and his views. However, the author, in my opinion, is more interested in detailing how Spencer fits his personal view of Spencer than Spencer truly was as a person and as an influence on his world. Spencer, in his most lasting work, The Man Versus The State, clearly is an individualist and as such in many ways has become a major cornerstone for many libertarians. Yet Francis seems to reject this view and, for the most part, this book is a tirade against that position of individualism which Spencer clearly took.

Spencer was well known for his views on psychology, sociology, biology, and especially the views on Darwinism and individualism. For Spencer all of life, all of existence was a continually evolving process. The author continually returns to that fact in all of its aspects.

Spencer was well read from the time he started to write through the 1930s. Then he was attacked unjustly by the left wing in American academia, centered at the time at Columbia University, a hotbed of Communists and Marxists. For it was in the mid 1940s that Spencer was vilified by the one-time Communist history professor at Columbia University, one Richard Hofstadter.

Hofstadter in his book Social Darwinism uses Spencer's ideas on Darwin in a somewhat self serving and twisted manner to attack both Spencer and the free market capitalism as it evolved over the century from 1850 to 1950. Hofstadter was well known in leftist circles as one who could readily take a few apparently disconnected points and with what could be at best described as shabby research methods produce polemics against the conservatives and right wing advocates in the body politic.

Hofstadter was also well know to write "soft" history, what we would expect in a New Republic piece, rather than hard academic history. Hofstadter was polemical in his style and greatly deficient in primary sources. He was all too often just a recorder of old press clippings using these as the window to the world he wanted the reader to see rather than addressing the reality via primary sources.

In a recent work by Prof. T. Leonard at Princeton University (See Origins of the Myth of Social Darwinism: The Ambiguous Legacy of Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought ) Prof. Leonard states about Hofstadter and Spencer the following, while reviewing the issues in "Social Darwinism in American Thought", also called "SDAT":

"Richard Hofstadter, like many New York intellectuals in the 1930s, embraced radical reform. He joined Columbia University's Communist Party unit for a brief period in 1938. The more mature Hofstadter grew disenchanted with radical politics, indeed came to see it as hostile to scholarship. But SDAT, which revised his doctoral dissertation published in 1939, preserves Hofstadter's earlier world view, that of a precocious scholar, still much influenced by his mentors, Merle Curti and Charles Beard, who could say to close friends, "I hate capitalism and everything that goes with it" ... SDAT also bears the historiographic imprint of Beard's "rule" that historical interpretation must assume that "changes in the structure of social ideas wait on general changes in economic and social life" ... SDAT is thus sprinkled with unadorned Beardian claims, such as "Herbert Spencer and his philosophy were products of English Industrialism"..."

But let me return to Francis and his book. He sets his tone for the entire biography on p. 2 when he writes:

"...the greatest source of popular confusion about Spencer does not arise from national prejudice, but from writers who have explained his theories by reference to those of Charles Darwin as if the former were a simple version of the latter. This misidentification has been so common that its correction would be an obligatory as well as unpleasant task for any Spencerian scholar. There are two reasons why it is painful. First it forces me to write about Darwin....also, it is slightly obtuse to explain an intellectual phenomenon such as Spencer's...by reference to something it is not."

This statement clearly lays forth the attitude of the author going forward, cumbersome as the use of the language is. First, there is the almost arrogant exposition of Spencerian evolution not being akin to Darwin and then the outcry of having to endure the unpleasant task of education of the reader, specifically what appears to be the less well educated readers who, frankly as per the author, should know better. Francis seems to bemoan the fact that he must tell the readers things that they should have know ab initio about Spencer. As such one wonders what audience Francis had in mind for his book. Perhaps it is meant for the small cadre of fellow Spencerian academics.

The last phrase in the above quote is at best condescending and at worst insulting to the readers since it implies that each reader should be approaching the biography already well educated in Spencer as well as in Darwin. This shrill tone of the author's style continues to resonate throughout the book.

The next interesting comment is on p 3 which frankly refutes the entire basis of the Hofstadter diatribe on Social Darwinists. In Hofstadter SDAT, he accuses Spencer of being a pure Darwinian and as such lacking in any human emotions. However Francis states:

"...First there was Graham Wallas....to him Spencer was merely an early and hasty generalize on the subject of evolution....secondly, there was Richard Leakey...he possessed the same information as Wallas except ...he was praising not condemning Spencer....After Darwin had explained his theory...Spencer quipped that it might as well be called "survival of the fittest"....if either Wallas or Leakey had read Spencer...(he) was unsympathetic to Darwin's theory..."

Thus Spencer was not a pure Darwinian. As Leonard states:

"Darwinian defenses of laissez-faire among scholars, who were more likely to have read Darwin, are not much easier to find. Bannister and other revisionists point out that even Hofstadter's social Darwinist exemplars, Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner, were not especially Darwinist. Spencer certainly invoked the evolutionary advantages of competition among men. And, Spencer's extraordinary intellectual prominence in the last third of the 19th century also made him a large target for reform scholars. But Spencer would have rejected the label of "Darwinist," in part because his own theory of evolution differed from and was published before Darwin's On the Origin of Species. The catch-phrase "survival of the fittest" was Spencer's and Darwin did not adopt it as a synonym for "natural selection" until Alfred Russell Wallace convinced him to do so in the fifth edition of the Origin (1869).

Importantly, Spencer was a Lamarckian with respect to human inheritance. He imagined that competition induced human beings to actively adapt themselves to their environments, improving their mental and physical skills - improved traits that would then be inherited by their descendants. Spencer's view was that, in the struggle for existence, self-improvement came from conscious, planned exertion, not from the chance variation and natural selection that are the heart of Darwinism. As a result, evolution is progressive in Spencer, whereas, for Darwin, at least the early Darwin, evolution means only non-teleological change. Spencer's fundamental belief in human progress via Lamarckian bootstrapping was at odds with Darwinian natural selection's randomness and its openness to non-progressive change.

Spencer, in fact, was not just a Lamarckian, he was a leading Lamarckian, taking up cudgels against the neo-Darwinians such as biologist August Weismann, whose watershed finding in 1889--that mice with their tails cut off do not bear short-tailed progeny--was seen by many as a crucial-experiment refutation of Lamarckism. Spencer's status as a defender of Lamarckism in the 1890s was such that that progressive Lamarckians, such as Lester Frank Ward, often found themselves in the awkward position defending Spencer, a man whose individualism and laissez-faire economics they loathed, and dedicated their lives to opposing."

Thus the fundamental basis of the Hofstadter argument against Spencer has no merit. Francis begins by throwing the cudgel down early on in the biography as to his apparent dislike of free markets and then continues to pound the cause home.

On p. 13 the author begins to position Spencer as a non-individualist, by redefining what he believed Spencer meant by his individualism. The author commences what appears to be his personal repositioning of Spencer as not the one lauded by many 21st century libertarians but as a mainstream 21st century liberal. Although he defines "individualist" as the "natural antonym" of the term "state" the author commences the rehabilitation of Spencer from his point of view.

The most published work of Spencer, his small but compelling book, "The Man Versus the State", is a well read treatise which clearly and unambiguously states the position of the... Read more ›