SOC 168 Test One

Lecture One (1/7/25)

• What is social theory? 

  • Whether we are consciously aware of them or not, our everyday life is filled with theories as we seek to understand the world around us

  • By “classical” sociological theory, we mean the era during which sociology first emerged as a discipline and was then institutionalized in universities— the mid 19th to early 20th centuries

    • Spencer 

      • Micro to macro theories

      • “Grand” theorists

      • Not done much anymore 

        • Closest theorist we know is Jonathan Turner 

          • At UCR, undergraduate that went off to Cornell and came back to teach 

    • Marx

      • Name comes up all the time, often in politicized ways 

        • Often misinterpreted 

      • Larger than life in conflict theory 

      • Really focused on economy, specifically labor relations— more micro 

        • Can be expanded to other areas

        • Not necessarily providing a model 

      • May feel very sciency at times 

    • Weber

      • Trapped in iron cage of efficiency 

      • Still not a grand theory 

  • The more contemporary we get, the more narrow sociology/sociologists get 

    • If you want to be a theorist, operating within an academic setting— rewards publications, which are easier to put out if you become an expert in a certain field 

    • At times these theories are very scientific 

• What are scientific theories?

  • Theory is a system of generalized statements or propositions about phenomena 

  • However there are two additional features that, together distinguish scientific theories from other idea systems, such as those found in religion or philosophy

  • Scientific theories (1) explain and predict the phenomena in question; and (2) produce testable and thus falsifiable hypotheses

    • Symbolic Interactionism merged in the 20th century, in part as a critique of the world being seen as static 

      • We are creating the world all the time through interaction 

      • More rigorous, scientific 

  • Compared to other scientific theories in the “hard sciences,” social scientific theories tend to be more evaluative and critical  

• Theories as applicable to real life

  • Durkheim— pandemic

    • Individualism, french theorists 

  • Understand forces that impact our lives 

  • Physical sciences and theories vs. social sciences theories 

    • Data is more deterministic, testable

      • Predictive 

      • Constantly doing science, rigorously to refine results 

    • Data itself, collection, and results is less concrete 

    • Comte 

      • Avoid sociology being subcategory of philosophy or history

      • Latched onto hard sciences

        • Most prestige 

• Some of the key structural contexts 

  • Main institutions in society

    • Economy, political system, family, religion

  • The French Revolution in 1789 had a very direct influence on sociological thinking

  • Immense social change!

    • Do away with the aristocracy due to immense inequality 

    • Handful of events does not solve the problem of inequality

      • Took a long time to come back to a sense of normalcy  

      • Difficult place to be if you lived in this period, tons of turbulence 

        • People felt out of place, untethered, not regulated by social structures and standards

          • Durkheim would call this anomie

    • Revolutions need bigger structural change over a long period of time 

  • Much of the sociological focus was on the negative effects of such drastic change (particularly among the French theorists who centered their focus on the chaos and disorder of the upheaval) 

  • A key question for all these theorists— how do we restore order to society?

    • We can’t go back, with the aristocrats in a way, everything had its place

      • Everyone did their roles— MAGA hinged on this ideology of going back to a time where things “made sense”

  • Later on, industrial revolution had a big boom

    • New way of living

    • Industrial Revolution involved many interrelated events that combined to shift society from agrarian to industrial-based systems (inanimate energy sources)

    • Many technical advancements over this period; many demographic changes; the birth of the bureaucratic form 

      • People move to cities 

        • Agrarianism to industrialization— Marx focuses on this 

      • Mass production, simplified tasks 

      • New forms of businesses, management, new ways of managing labor 

        • New ways of understanding the world and how to assign tasks 

        • Old relationships in work are gone— more individualistic, women are not paid or hired; unpaid labor of raising children and taking care of the household 

  • Rise of capitalism goes hand in hand with industrialism; the ideal of free-market was dominant. Handful of people profited while many labored long hours

    • The way workers were organized had a profound impact on society as a whole 

  • Urbanization involved large numbers of people moving from rural areas to urban areas. In large part this was due to jobs from growing industrialization. Also created a number of urban problems (overcrowding, pollution, noise, and traffic) 

    • Vices in big cities emerge 

  • Rise of socialism involves critiques of capitalism coalescing in several forms that can be lumped under the language of socialism 

  • Religious change involved many social theorists growing up religious, holding a focus on making life better for people 

    • Shows up in different ways

      • EX: Embedded in Durkheim’s theory

        • Sense of belonging and moral regulation, concerned with the idea of widespread atheism 

          • Similar to turbulence in French Revolution; freedom but at a cost 

  • The growth of science, as sociological theory was developing, science was growing as well— not just in colleges and universities but also across society in various aspects of life

Lecture Two (1/9/25)

• Review: What is social theory

  • Explaining social phenomenon, scientific oriented or not 

  • Debate regarding to what extent sociologists should be walking the path of “hard” science 

• Key structural contexts continued…

  • Feminisms: a questioning of patriarchy grew out of mobilizations against slavery and the political oppression of the middle class

  • Colonialism: many social thinkers were aware of how the spread and domination of western political, social, cultural and economic ideas across the globe (along with imperial efforts within Europe) was an important landmark in the history of the world

    • European mindset of “exploring” 

      • Involved killing, stealing, etc. 

    • In 20th century, post-colonial theorists will expand on this

• Key intellectual context: 

  • The enlightenment (1600s and 1700s c.e.)

    • Part of the way our early sociological theorists were raised, how their views evolved

    • The idea of this is just the way things are, solely due to the gods, becomes outdated/insufficient, we use surveys, historical comparison

    • There was a widespread rejection of traditionalism and acceptance of empiricism (understanding the world through your senses) 

      • Show me the evidence! Read, hear, document it

    • To different extents, theorists accepted some elements of the enlightenment while dismissing other elements 

      • More conservative, traditionalism has its time in place (particularly for early French theorists) 

      • The early French theorists (Durkheim, Comte, De Tocqueville) tended to be more dismissive and conservative in flavor than the Germans (Weber, Marx, Simmel) and the English theorists (Spencer)

        • Conservative in the sense that there is order in society, should not get rid of all these old elements

          • More on the fence with changes in society as compared to Germans

• Conservative reaction to the enlightenment

  • These theorists focused on collectivities, not the individual

    • Concerned that too much individualism causes problems 

      • Individual nature to do what we want, but we must be part of something greater than ourselves in the social world: society is more than just a collection of individuals; rather, it has its own reality that should be studied

      • It was society that produces the individual, not the other way around 

      • Impulses towards individualism would be exaggerating, causing us to lose our group orientations

        • Comfort from group orientations

        • Regulation from group orientations

          • Not totally self serving 

    • Parts of society are interdependent

      • Organismic model— like the human body parts working together to function

        • Nod to structural functionalism; these early sociological thinkers would typically fall under this category 

      • Change within one means change within others

    • Society satisfies people’s needs

      • Institutions were therefore seen in a mostly positive light 

        • Note: When we get to Marx, he will tell us that these institutions exploit us; they betray us in order to protect the bourgeois and upper class 

      • Conservative french theorists believe that these groups guide us and allow for human freedom; a different analysis

    • A change in society (industrialization, urbanization, bureaucracies) have disorganizing effects and create fear/anxiety 

      • EX: Situations of urban poverty

    • A non-rational emphasis on ritual, ceremony, worship, norms

      • Theoretical emphasis on what is studied pays more attention to things that are emotional, ritualistic, normative than the rational actions (going to get a job/cost-benefit analyses) 

        • Acting with gut rather than with brain

    • Hierarchy was appreciated, it was seen as something important for society to have a differential system of status and reward

• Theoretical paradigms 

  • “Approaches,” “perspectives,” or “schools of thought” on how to make sense of social phenomena

    • Recognize how things in the world fit into different categories

    • Theory is all connected and present constantly in the world

    • Ways of seeing the world 

  • Theoretical umbrella

  • Three main sociological paradigms (not the only theories) 

  • Structural functionalism

    • Sui generis

      • “In and of itself” 

        • Society is a thing that has its own reality 

        • Exists in and of itself; not simply just a collection of people

    • Society has needs

      • Grows, changes, and adapts similar to all living things 

    • Social structures within society contribute to the balance and coherence of society 

      • Function with one another in an interdependent fashion 

    • Social structures ultimately function to promote the survival of the group 

      • Either adapt or DIE!

    • Organismic analogy

    • How is it all held together?

      • Fire example 

      • Novel challenge to adapt and come together to solve 

    • Strengths

      • The strength of such theories is pointing out how things are held together and reasoned logics for such coherence

      • It also helps us to understand some non-obvious qualities of society such as the benefits of war and poverty 

        • One of the effects of disasters, are that neighbors help neighbors

          • Strengthens the community 

    • Weakness

      • Does not examine individual agency all that well

        • Examines groups rather than individuals

          • Individuals are not as important to the theory, footnote or sidenote 

      • Does not handle social change all that well

        • Tend to focus on how existing systems maintain themselves 

      • Does not handle injustice all that well

        • Because it is so focused on what the system needs, so long as the system is maintaining a tenuous equilibrium; whatever we have is working

        • Assumes what IS is what is NEEDED, it tends to be considered relatively conservative

          • EX: Homelessness crisis, they are exceptions from the rule and the system at large is still working, largely ignoring or discounting these individuals— however potentiality that it can become an issue for the system

            • Unfortunate parts of the system that is WORKING 

  • Conflict

    • Key assumptions: 

      • Focused on groups within the system; some are more advantageous than others— language of who benefits?

      • Power and material resources are unevenly distributed in society

        • Value of resources can vary 

        • Some groups simply have more of the “good stuff”— why is that the case? And what can we do to change this?

      • Individuals and groups will have different interests based on these resources

        • Assumption here is that people will act on the basis of their particular or material interests (for Marx particularly) 

        • Will use what you can to keep/get these resources

      • These different interests will often result in conflict between individuals and groups

        • Groups are always in potential for conflict due to differential access to resources 

        • EX: Conflict theorists would say there is potential conflict for students

          • Don’t have much power to change classes 

          • Could work together to change this

          • Example of mild conflict 

    • Who benefits?

      • Why are homeless people disadvantaged, demonized

    • Strengths

      • Allows for critical evaluation of existing social structures and the promotion of social change

        • Evaluating status quo, work towards alleviating

    • Weakness

      • Explaining consensus and solidarity, which it usually attributes to false consciousness or some temporary situation in the face of external threat

        • EX: Structural functional applications to current fires, and community coming together; but also conflict applications— why are certain groups benefiting, why are resources being piled here and not here?

  • Symbolic Interactionism

    • Thinking about how social structures came to be

    • Assumptions: 

      • Reality is constructed through human interaction as people negotiate the meanings of the situations in which they are involved

        • Inner self— who we are and the thoughts we have surrounding the world

        • Outer self— self that interacts with other people

        • Using the “mind”

      • We both change society through interaction and in turn are changed by it 

      • IF we are not actively changing social structure, we are PLAYING into it and helping to maintain/strengthen that social structure 

    • What does this phenomenon mean to the people involved?

      • Thomas Theorem 

        • People act on the basis of what they believe to be true

          • What they believe to be true is true in its consequences 

        • When we create a meaning, we act on the basis of that meaning

          • EX: If you believe a social situation is a threat, you will act threatened— If you walk into a classroom and see a teacher, you will act as a student 

    • Strengths

      • Its strength lies in its focus on subjectivity and meanings in process 

        • Understanding how people make sense of the world 

        • Learn peoples’ ideas and languages 

        • People often believe in contradictory things

    • Weaknesses

      • Subjectivity 

        • Data is sometimes non-reproducible 

        • Research is hard to study 

Lecture Three (1/14/25)

• Some pointers to think about after today’s lecture…

  • Was Tocqueville a conservative? What do we mean by this term?

  • What were the relevant variables and concepts to him? Individualism or egoism?

  • Key problems: centralization of power

• Review Week One

  • Social Theory: Explaining the world from an evaluative and critical perspective. Varying degrees of scientific testability.

  • Tocqueville and Komte are less testable, more theoretical and philosophical than someone like Durkheim or Weber

  • Key structural contexts:

    • Revolutions (EX: American, French, Industrial)

    • New technologies (EX: Energy forms, bureaucratic forms)

    • Capitalism, socialisms, urbanization, secularization

    • Science, feminisms, colonialism

    • Enlightenment: rejection of traditionalism, rise of empiricism (using our senses, learning coming from experience and  observation), individualistic liberty 

      • The idea of enlightenment filters into many of our theorists

        • French theorists, most notably, pushed back on this idea of individualism/enlightenment while not wholly giving up on it

  • Paradigms: structural functionalism, conflict, symbolic interaction

    • The questions?

      • Structural functionalism: how is this held together?

      • Conflict theory: who benefits?

      • Symbolic interactionism: what is the meaning of this for the people involved?

• 10 Statement Test

  • I am a music enthusiast

  • I am a cinephile

  • Etc…

• Palace of Versailles

  • They have so much, the rest of society has so little

• Alexis De Tocqueville (1805-1859)

  • Aristocratic family - suffered during French Revolution

    • Decade after decade of extreme poverty, disorder

      • Time of transition

      • Revolution was not seen as good by structural functionalist

• The old order had benefits; clean and clear rules and roles were set 

• High minded ideals of Enlightenment and change were very appealing yet uncertain

  • Tocqueville attempts to negotiate the idea of the function of aristocracy and order in society; even if we should not go back 

• Higher education in law

  • Travels to America to study the penitentiary system (1831). Visits much of the still-forming country

  • Publishes “Democracy in America” (1835), which was very popular and made him famous

    • Finds evidence of true democracy in Puritans, Massachusetts and similar places… however he is not certain it will last

    • Irony: French Aristocrat as an expert on American democracy!

• Related to other theorists

  • They are “talking” to each other despite not physically being present in a room together due to living in different time periods 

    • They know of each other or have similar ideals 

  • Tocqueville differs from…

    • Comte in embracing unanticipated consequences (like Weber)

    • Marx in that culture was not epiphenomenal (derivative of economy), and a general critical eye on social change movements of the masses

      • For Marx, the mode of production was everything 

      • All other systems in society were secondary 

      • Tocqueville puts primacy on culture 

    • Durkheim, in that culture was a social fact, Tocqueville theory involved too much of an individualist for a sui generis perspective 

      • Durkheim gives us a scientific method for studying sociology 

• Ask yourself going forward…

  • How does Tocqueville feel about the individual? Is society the problem, or are individuals?

    • Perspective on human nature 

  • What is freedom? How is it related to equality?

  • Do social institutions need to be strengthened, or should they be watched out for?

• Was Tocqueville a Conservative?

  • Some definitional issues:

    • Liberalism in the 1800s was often synonymous with free-market ideology. 

      • By today’s standards, this would be someone who is in favor of capitalism and letting businesses have free reign.

    • It was linked to individual freedom in the economy (in the sense of freedom for businesses/profit, and for workers to take what jobs they want), and in extreme cases, even Social Darwinism (applying the rhetoric of “survival of the fittest” to individual persons) 

      • We must take ourselves out of the current definition!

    • Note: Spencer had this sort of language, but also had important ideas to offer for sociology as a whole 

      • Important to remember: NO one ever makes a decision in a vacuum! These ideals push a narrative that individuals are singly responsible for their own life circumstances.

    • Government, in the liberal view, was a necessary evil, holding the sole purpose of regulating whatever was minimally necessary to allow for individuals to freely engage in economic and other activities. Often exemplified with constitutional governments (think Great Britain and the United States) 

      • Liberals during this time would be consistent with the most extreme libertarians today, who think we don’t need the government to help us with infrastructure; everything should be privatized!

    • This shifts in the early 1900s, when the economy collapses. Liberals, at this point, become supporters of big government solutions while conservatives reject this. 

    • Conservatives in the 1800’s were often linked with a focus on how “what was” is better than “what is”

      • Consistent still today…

    • For our purposes, it is most often linked with those who thought that we should retain monarchies

      • However, Tocqueville did not believe we should go back to a restrictive monarchy; more so just the order part

    • The (aristocratic) government’s job, for these folks, is to protect us, and to morally guide us. It is more paternalistic.

  • The short answer is YES. 

    • Tocqueville thought that democracy and equality paved the way to greater centralization of power in the government run by bureaucrats, not enlightened aristocrats. 

      • This is a problem to him

    • His work needs to be seen through a lens that understands that France was going through a painful shift from a monarchial form of government to a democratic one, and Tocqueville saw this leading to less freedom rather than more. 

• Tocqueville’s Key Variables

  • Mores: This is basically Tocqueville’s shorthand for “culture.” Defined as the whole moral and intellectual state of the people. It is mores/cultures that shape social structures like our institutions, not the other way around (Marx) 

    • What we as a group value and believe 

  • Individualism & Egoism

  • Civil Associations: Non-political in nature; viewed as important for de Tocqueville as an antidote to excessive individualism: The heart becomes enlarged

    • Emphasis on rituals and values of emotions

  • Materialism: Democracy favors the taste for physical pleasures, and it becomes addictive. “To create distinction in a largely equal world, people are driven to frenzied economic activities and an overemphasis on material goals” 

    • Durkheim has similar language for this 

    • We seek out being special, being individualistic

  • Social Change: Prior to the revolution in France, there was a base of power (the aristocratic class) who was capable, at least in part of challenging centralized political power 

    • Tocqueville argues that democratic powers, especially indirect democracies (like the U.S.) we end up becoming stagnant

  • “The material estrangement of the peasant in the old regime was replaced by a more prevalent and pernicious kind of spiritual estrangement after the revolution. We are all on our own now.”

    • We focus on consumption, we are individualistic, and do not belong to a community 

• Individualism or Egoism?

  • COVID-19 Pandemic 

    • Refusing to mask-up for the collective; in the name of individual freedom 

    • Hoarding food for ourselves

  • Egoism: “a passionate and exaggerated love of self which leads [humans] to think of all things in terms of [themselves] and to prefer [oneself] to all

    • Exaggerated situation where one ONLY thinks of themselves 

    • Endemic to all humans; babies out of the womb

  • Individualism: “a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate [themselves] from the mass of [one’s] [peers] and withdraw into the circle of family and friends’ with this little society formed to [one’s] taste, [one] gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself”

    • Choice of behavior to withdraw and isolate into enclaves 

    • Many of us withdrew during the pandemic 

      • Still trying to crack this…

  • Egoism is derived from instinct, whereas individualism stems from misguided thinking

    • Individualism, while it may feel comforting, is misguided, because we need groups to watch over and directly influence us from the instinct of egoism 

    • When we separate ourselves from groups, or enclaves we lose this sense of community

    • We need to be part of groups we don’t necessarily belong to; civil groups

      • “Bowling groups”

        • May have different beliefs, political views, walks of life but they serve an important function in being able to coexist, reigning in our egoism

    • Egoisms are about emotions, while individualism is about actions taken or not taken. Therefore, individualism is a social problem more than egoism.

      • Everyone is egoistic… but how do we stop people from being so individualistic? How do we mitigate this?

      • Social media was meant to open us up to a broader world, but has instead embedded us in a world we already belong to, an online echo chamber?

      • Egoism is a “vice as old as the world,” a kind of hardwired and therefore relatively stable thing. Individualism is of democratic origin and grows with the more equality we have in the world. 

  • Clearly our role of applying social control on others is key for Tocqueville

  • In an aristocratic world, people are almost always involved in something greater than themselves (we all have a role for ourselves in relation to society), it was easier to forget about ourselves 

    • Provide a moral model for us 

    • Egoism is mitigated in such a system

  • In a democratic system, our duties to others are less common; It’s all about the individual 

    • Emphasis on everyone having a voice and say, and doing what they would like to do individually

    • Egoism thrives

• Key Sociological Problems: Stagnation

  • Stagnation: Americans do not get as caught up in collective passions, and therefore collective passions become stagnant

    • Passions are more individually/independently motivated 

      • EX: Passions can become polarized on either side, in current times and the context of the election 

    • We as Americans don’t know specific policies and laws; push buttons for people rather than law and underlying forces that will affect our lives

  • “The prospect really does frighten me that [Americans] finally become so engrossed in a cowardly love of immediate [individual] pleasures that their interest in their own [collective] future and in that of their [collective] descendants may vanish, and that they will prefer tamely to follow the course of their destiny rather than make a sudden energetic effort to set things right.” (95)

    • We are unlikely to get involved in the day-to-day effects of my life 

    • We enjoy our individualistic enclaves

  • Equality: in a society in which we all think that we should be seeking to be the same, we spend less time thinking of others and instead we focus on “how equal am I?”

    • EX: LA fires exemplifying common humanity, good consequences of tragedies 

      • Sense of helping each other 

  • Aristocratic societies were simply less self-interested

  • In addition, equality stifles freedom. If we are all equal and walking the same path, it becomes more difficult for any of us to walk faster because the crowd keeps up back. It leads to a loss of creativity and excellence and instead a growth of stagnated mediocrity.

    • Common conservative talking point; if we remove capitalism, we remove incentives for human productivity 

    • Tocqueville is arguing similarly that equality holds us back; limits creativity and individuality, causes stagnation 

  • Despotism (cruel leaders with absolute power)

    • In aristocratic countries, aristocrats direct and control the citizens when national interests are on the line (war for instance); in all other respects citizens are left to freely choose for themselves. Coercive power with narrow concerns 

      • Strong coercive power

    • Alternatively, in democratic countries, leaders have made themselves responsible for much of the behavior and fate of their citizenry. Soft power with broad concerns 

      • Less coercive, more bureaucratic (not forcing you to do things)

      • Still controlling through different means

    • In addition, as we become more individualistic, we become more disinterested in the broader affairs of state (and much more interested in [choose your current distraction]) and therefore leave paths open for despots to usurp power (Trump)

  • Centralization: de Tocqueville’s main concern

    • Assumption: the instinctual desire of every government is to take more power

    • As monarchs are beheaded, and governments get larger and more equal, bureaucracies grow, and we ironically (unanticipated consequence) lose freedom

    • Bureaucratic structures allow for multiple levels of clerks for us to surrender our freedom to. Tocqueville argued that we have given power over to these bureaucrats at a greater level than any European monarch 

    • This new form of power is faster, more powerful (in a particular way), and independent; it is more inquisitive and more minute; it degrades us rather than torturing us; it is a “soft power” like the kind parents have over children

    • “It does not break [a person’s] will, but softens, bends, and guides [it]; it seldom enjoins, but often inhibits action; it does not destroy anything but prevents much from being born; it is not at all tyrannical, but it hinders, restrains, enervates, stifles, and stultifies so much that in the end each nation is no more than a flock of timid hardworking animals with the government its shepherd” (98)”

• Conclusion

  • In the end for de Tocqueville, there was less freedom after the French Revolution than before it because there was less centralization under the king than in more “modern” governments

  • But he was not advocating for a return to the past.

  • Tocqueville was advocating for wholly new form of government: associations of plain citizens (civil associations) that have influence and challenge centralized power in the government, though people in groups maintaining an interest and knowledge in the broader social forces that impact their lives 

    • Concern about indirect democracy, once it gets wider

    • More likely to become individualistic and stagnant

      • Pushes for egoism and selfishness while also opening up space for tyranny

      • Sees modernity and advancements as a problem in this sense 

Lecture Four (1/16/25)

• Review: Tocqueville 

  • American civic and political numbers are very low

  • These days we focus on spectacle and story, and rather on people than policies  

  • NOT a “grand theorist” focused more narrowly on freedom

    • Spencer closest to a grand theorist in this class 

  • Methodologically, he was an empiricist (although he did not do it particularly well)

    • Mostly observation mixed with philosophy 

    • Set of ideas 

  • Democracy in America had real potential, exemplified in direct democracy seen in the Massachusetts small town/Puritan meeting halls

  • However, like France, the overall trend of democracy lends itself toward despotism, centralization of power, egoism and stagnation 

    • We end up replacing old aristocracy with bureaucracy 

      • Infiltrate into every part of our lives— he is a social conservative 

• Auguste Comte: 1789-1857

  • One of the earliest theorists; Marx was writing early stuff here

    • Not quite over  lapping with Durkheim

    • Overlapping a bit with Weber, Spencer

  • Father was a government bureaucrat; mother came from a family of physicians. Devout Catholics and “ardent royalists”

    • Worried about revolution, supported aristocratic class

    • Being a marginal figure in society is a useful position for sociologists 

  • Small and frail child; frequent illnesses 

  • Good student, attended the “Lycee” (private highschool), a boarding educational system, founded by Napoleon to educate a class of loyal administrators and army officers. Outstanding student, especially in Mathematics and attends all of the elite schools

  • Became known for his “prodigious memory… he could repeat a hundred verses after a single recital and could recite backwards the words on a page he had once read” 

  • In schooling, Comte was somewhat bullied, but also a leader both intellectually and politically, not much social success.

    • Nicknamed the “philosopher” by peers

    • He was difficult to get along with and eventually dropped out

  • Comte moved to Paris and met Henri Saint-Simon (an important and “socialist” reformer of the time). Collaborates with Saint Simon for a time (productive, but unfriendly). Begins his work on the “Positive Philosophy”

    • They start fighting, and split ways

  • This break up with the more established Saint Simon, puts Comte on the margins of intellectual society

  • Marries Caroline Massin, small bookshop owner and perhaps ex-prostitute (but probably not). Like the relationship with Saint Simon, this relationship was also “stormy and conflictual.” Still, this lasted 17 years.

  • The “Positive Philosophy”

    • 4000 pages

      • Suggests a type of personality here, very self-important

      • Unified all science under one rubric 

  • Right when he was on the precipice of success (he books a series of lectures), he has a mental breakdown and can’t lecture

    • Hospitalized from an attempted suicide

    • Never held steady employment

    • Constantly had depression

  • In his later years, he practiced “cerebral hygiene”— meaning that he would not read anything by any of his contemporaries, so that his mind would not be contaminated with their ideas

  • Died in 1857 as a bitter man…

• Key Takeaways

  • First(ish) person to use the term sociology (Henriette Martineau- another early sociological theorist- was using the term at the same time) 

  • Comte wanted to call it social physics to combat what he saw as the anarchy of the enlightenment philosophy. Wanted to model sociology after the hard sciences. 

  • Comte was a bit concerned with the after-effects of the French Revolution

    • Ushered in a lot of turbulence politically, socially, economically

    • Enlightenment thinkers focused on the liberty and equality parts 

      • Spencer argues for capitalism on this basis

      • Marx critiques it; against capitalism and Enlightenment thinkers 

  • Comte is interested in prestige… so he wants to model sociology after what the scientists were doing 

  • Did not encourage revolutionary change; was an evolutionary theorist, since society, he felt, would naturally reform for the better (although reforms were needed occasionally to help process along). 

    • Differs a bit from simple adaptation in Darwinian thinking; Comte believes things are constantly evolving to be BETTER

  • Big thinker- he thought sociology would eventually become the dominant science since it had the distinct ability to interpret social laws that could help cure society’s ills. But this also had implications for being an ethno-centrist, racist, and an academic elitist. 

• Drawing upon enlightenment philosophers

  • Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755)

    • Humans are formed in society 

    • Institutions and groups are sui generis (reality all their own- observable empirically). Sui generis society can be studied in the same way you study natural phenomena. 

    • Society has scientific laws (positivism). Laws at the bottom of the hierarchy are more deterministic and laws at the top are more probabilistic. 

      • Laws of the natural/physical world are definite

      • With human behavior, there isn’t as much certainty = probabilistic 

        • New argument in the SOC world, there actually isn’t much difference between sociology and the hard sciences as this can have less certainty as new information comes out as well…

• Philosophical background continued…

  • Anne Jacques Turgot (1727-1781)

    • “On Political Geography”

      • Three stages of human development

      • Each stage has its own statics and dynamics

      • Religion helps keep order in society

  • Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1789)

    • Student of Turgot

    • Argued that the development of a human science could be used to direct the future of humanity toward perfectibility 

  • NOTE: 

    • Comte is trying to explain how the world works, talking about things that are static and things that are dynamic and changing

    • He also has an idea of three stages

    • He is embracing positivism 

      • Predictable laws of behavior 

      • By understanding these things, humans will make society better (using science, evolutionary theory, etc.) 

  • Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825)

    • The study of humankind was to be a positivist discipline

    • Specifically, the study of society would fall under physiology because society would be likened to an organism

    • Believer in historical evolutionary points. The mind passes through stages just as animals do, and so too does society. 

    • There is a natural evolutionary quality to society 

• Comte Social Physics 

  • Statics and Dynamics

    • Statics: the study of understanding the interrelated parts in a system

      • Essentially structural functionalism

      • Society is composed of different parts functioning together

      • What doctors are to the human body, social scientists are to society

        • Figuring out key problems in society and their solutions

      • Key units of a society for Comte…

        • Individuals are flawed from birth as inherently driven towards egoism more strongly than altruism. Thus, to have a society; we need to…

        • What are institutions doing to curb this?

          • We need to constrain the individual

          • We need to bond us together 

            • These are both functions of “The Family” (basic building block- the “smallest society”) 

            • This provides a moral regulation for us as well…

              • Anti-EX: Lord of the Flies

            • Then, “Religion”, becomes the most important institution for Comte

            • Next, “Division of Labor” can bond us together and allow for interdependency 

              • Think… How do we eat food? We need many people doing many different things— farmers, shippers, packers.

                • This both constrain us and bond us together

            • Finally, we share a “Common Language”

    • Dynamics: society is always changing, but the change is orderly- it happens in evolutionary stages 

    • Today, we do not conflate evolution with moral progress. But not so for Comte; he argued that we are becoming over time, more intelligent, more loving, and more active

      • In the 1800s, they are a bit ethnocentric; would claim France is the most evolved

    • The pace at which we move towards this varies from one society to another. But the pattern is always the same. 

    • What does this mean about the countries that have not adopted industrialism and modernism as Comte’s France?

      • Not as evolved… but consider are practices in France and countries similar holding them back?

  • Positivism

    • Refers to the use of invariant natural laws, like those in other hard and natural sciences (physics, chemistry) for social life

    • Today, we think of positivists as hardcore scientists who only  see the world through empirical data. That was not Comte’s version. Comte’s version was a mix of empiricism guided by speculative theory.

    • He also meant the term in a more literal sense- it was the opposite of negativism (e.g., the negativity endemic to the social disorder and chaos in his home France). Positivism was a positive solution to this time of confusion. 

  • Hierarchy of the Sciences

    • Comte was ultimately looking to legitimize sociology by making it a science, pushing it in line with the hard sciences and pulling it away from the humanities (history and philosophy) 

    • He arranged sciences in a linear way; from what he considers simple to complex (remember- evolutionary thinker)

      • Differentiated over time from simple to complex 

    • At the bottom is math, then astronomy, then physics, then chemistry, then biology, and at the top was the “queen science” sociology

      • Sociology is to be the new religion— religion was antiquated and based on old dogmas and morals

      • Significance: Sociology houses all things under it in this hierarchy

        • Human bodies, those who study science

        • Chemistry

        • Mathematics 

      • In a sense, sociology is not generalistic as sciences such as biology since it is mainly only applied to human societies— it is more probabilistic 

        • You can be less deterministic the more complex something is 

          • Can be applied to many different things

  • Law of Three Stages

    • The “law” (positivism) of “three stages” (evolution)

    • The world (as well as societies, groups, and individuals) have all gone through three intellectual stages throughout its history. Each stage sets the stage for the next. (You cannot skip stages, you go sequentially from one stage to the next.) 

      • First Stage; Theological Stage: supernatural powers rule things and religious thought dominates

        • Past; blind faith

        • Most primitive for Comte 

        • Not about measurement or empiricism

      • Second Stage; Metaphysical Stage: abstract forces like nature dominate and philosophical thinking dominates 

        • Transitory stage

        • From theological to philosophical 

        • Using logic and analysis 

      • Third Stage: Positivistic Stage: belief in science was dominant. The scientist was to concentrate on empirical observations of the social and physical world in search of the “laws” governing them.

        • Society in which Comte was living; he believed this was the most advanced’

    • See Table

    • Comte is still making the argument here that morality trumps all; it used to be religion, which will eventually evolve into philosophers, and later scientists 

      • Theological— Religion; Comte sees fetishism as most primitive religion of theological stage, then polytheism, then monotheism as most advanced

        • Spirits all around us

        • Single God is “most advanced” in this category 

      • Metaphysical— Recognizing nature as the causes of everything, the “essence of truth” 

      • Positivistic— Recognizing nature leads to understanding natural laws as causing phenomena, then finally abstract natural laws that govern society 

    • Moreover, different stages can overlap

      • Post revolutionary era in France: in the first decades of the 1800s, we are still struggling through the transitional metaphysical stage. Theology and metaphysics were in the decline and positivism was still being formed. 

    • Our minds are also evolving:

      • Theological: childhood (accepting the world; very emotional)

        • We accept what our parents tell us

      • Metaphysical: adolescent (challenge the world; less emotional) 

        • We start to ask questions

          • Practicing interaction with the world around us

        • Try different roles 

      • Positivistic: adulthood (understand the world; replace emotion with reason) 

  • The Positive Philosophy

    • Tocqueville saw disorder in post-revolutionary France as a cultural problem and saw the solution structurally, in the form of civil associations— organizational forms that were capable of being power bases that could challenge the despotic tendencies of bureaucratic centralization

    • Comte saw it as a crisis of ideas— the current muddled mix of stages that could be solved by the rising dominance of positivism, which would provide intellectual and social order as well as lay down the groundwork for society based on scientific progress

      • Science will be the savior of society

  • High Priest and Founder of the Religion on Humans

    • Comte was nothing if not self-obsessed, eccentric, and vain

    • In his later years, he started to think about his positivism as a secular religion and indeed the only “true” religion, because it was the only one that was both capable of handling emotion and reason. In his previous stages, emotion would dominate

    • And of course, he and his main followers would become priests of humanity. The focus of worship then was not God or gods but the “great being” of humanity 

    • Comte noted that while society undergoes different stages when theology, metaphysics, and positivism dominate, all three are often present at the same time, operating alongside each other

    • Which do you think is the most predominant in the United States right now and why?

    • What quality dominates our thinking? Religion? Data?

      • Declining levels of public trust in scientists 

        • 2019-2023

          • Note; COVID era 

          • All adults have declining amounts, declined especially during the pandemic 

          • Attitudes towards science are partisan!

            • Republican-leaning tend to NOT trust scientists

      • What percentage of Americans believe in GOD?

        • Mean numbers here are dropping 

    • We are trying to figure out what is going on— we may be going through a metaphysical stage?

      • We may be going back (although Comte says we cannot!)

Lecture Five (1/21/25)

• Review: Comte - The Grand Theorist

  • A positivist philosophy: causal laws (e.g., Law of Three Stages) with…

    • Structured beliefs of this era were filled with scientific racism, “hardcore trad-wife core”, sexist and gendered beliefs, manifest destiny…

      • Filtered its way into elite/academic society 

  • Real people making decisions in a room towards politics cannot last for long 

  • When everyone gets a say, everyone becomes the same, and then there is nothing to do but flow along

    • Increasingly move into our private worlds/enclaves, individualism and ego thrives 

    • Eventually, the fear is to become ruled by distant people with levers of power 

  • Comte

    • Believed he would be the grand priest of humanity 

      • Started giving us ideas of how society is organismic and statics 

        • A positivist philosophy: causal laws (e.g., Law of Three Stages) with…

          • A morality (hierarchy of the sciences; evolutionary progress

          • Statics (organismic analogy), and dynamics (Law of Three Stages 

        • Calls it a “positive” philosophy— the world is going to be more fit over time for our environment, constantly getting better (most advanced societies = better societies) 

          • These ideas can be abused by elites

            • If these places are less advanced anyways, we can take their natural resources and allow them to develop under our guidelines

    • Review: Law of Three Stages

      • Theological

        • ​​The earliest stage, where people explained the world through religion, myths, spirits, and magic.

      • Metaphysical

        • A transitional stage where people used abstract concepts to explain the world.

      • Positive

        • The modern stage, where people use scientific knowledge to explain the world.

• Guiding Theme for Spencer: Utilitarianism and Methodological Individualism

  • Individualist perspective is that social order (society) is comprised of individuals (sometimes called “methodological individualism” or “nominalism”) Contrast to our sui generis

    • Extreme version that ignores that there is a group or society

      • When we think this way, it is almost impossible to solve societal, broad-scale issues 

        • Only about individual choices!

    • Theorists are products of their time, Spencer was shaped greatly by the industrial revolution…

  • Utilitarian: the best outcome for everyone will be obtained if each person is free to achieve their individual goals 

  • Was Tocqueville either of these? How about Comte? You might ask yourself: What were Tocqueville and Comte interested in studying, the individual or something more collective? What is it, if not utilitarianism, that holds society together. 

• Herbert Spencer: a deep dive (1820-1903) 

  • Biography

    • English theorist, contemporary of Comte, Marx (middle third of the 1800s). Considered to be both brilliant and contentious 

    • Father was a “schoolteacher, well known for his quirkiness, non-conformity, and strong sense of individuality… [he] never tipped his hat to anyone, refused to use titles… and he wore earplugs when there was a conversation he did not wish to hear.. all habits his son adapted” (“Cerebral Hygiene”)

    • Mother was opposite of father: soft, gentile, kind “ingrained conformity and constitutionality averse to change… ordinary intelligence… high moral nature and conservative”

    • Overall spencer draws from his parents with a conservative set of ideas plus emphasis on individual freedom 

    • Completely educated outside of the educational institution. Privately tutored whole young adulthood.

    • Loved studying the natural world: constantly trying to classify the botanical and biological world

      • Traveled to Naples in 1868 to watch Mt Vesuvius erupt

      • Went to Egypt to study the weather 

    • Besides being book smart, he was an inventor

      • Created and patented a new fishing rod

      • Bed for persons with physical handicaps

      • Improvements for presentation of geometry in textbooks

      • A cephalogram (measures the head)

        • Used for purposes of scientific racism 

      • Created a velociraptor

    • Despite accomplishments, Spencer had several problems…

      • Nervous condition (hypochondria) leading to severe insomnia

      • Heavily addicted to opium

      • Sever breakdown at 36 that lasted a year and a half

      • Lifelong bachelor 

  • Brief Timeline

    • Father was extremely passionate about science. So strong that he left the Wesleyan Church and refused to allow young Herbert to read literature, poetry, or any other works of imagination 

    • What young Herbert does inherit is a very strong working knowledge of natural history and physical science. By age 13, he had a strong background in physics, chemistry, entomology, zoology, physiology, experimental design, knew multiple languages, etc. 

    • In 1837, he goes to work for a railroad as a civil engineer— planned railroad routes. Afterwards (1841) goes back home to Derby and begins writing like crazy

    • We start to see his explicit libertarian political opinions

      • For example: The whole field of human activity, except for policing, should be left ot private enterprise

        • Seeing individualism themes here 

    • Becomes sub-editor for The Economist in 1848 (the same year as the Communist Manifesto) 

      • In 1851 he writes Social Statics and becomes known as a high skilled private scholar, then 1862 First Principles (his most widely appreciated book)

      • Becomes very well established and celebrated in the scientific/British community. Begins letter writing to Darwin!

  • Historical and Intellectual Context

    • Industrial revolution: effects were strongest in England

      • Rural to urban demographic shift

      • Very high poverty levels

      • Relatively higher standards of living in urban England, compared to agrarian societies

      • Prosperity linked with evolutionary thinking; ethos of the day was “optimism” and “progress”

        • Most people were supportive of capitalism

        • Even in these exploitative conditions, this was much better than working in fields 

          • Generally an understanding that we were going in the right direction

          • Spencer embraces this!

  • Thomas Malthus & “Survival of the Fittest”

    • From the industrial revolution, Spencer takes a bias towards laissez-faire economics— especially the idea that open (unregulated) competition was healthy

    • From Thomas Malthus, Spencer understands that population growth leads to social problems (Malthus emphasized the conflict, starvations, pestilence, and death) “Malthusian Corrections”

      • Survival of the fittest, overpopulation, more death, disease, etc. 

        • Strain upon the existing resource base: Not enough food, water, space in population base 

        • Fighting over space: wars and violence, cramped quarters cause disease, higher rates of crime 

        • Human societies are just like every other animal society

          • EX: Thanos is applying a “malthusian correction” 

    • Spencer will say that sometimes people need to die for society to keep moving: He replaces Malthus’ apocalyptic components with the idea of “survival of the fittest” within a free-market society 

      • “You fell through the cracks, that’s on you!”

        • Not fit enough to survive in this context, so society will instead consist of those who can 

  • Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

    • Evolution is a process of development from an incoherent, undifferentiated, and homogenous mass to a differentiated and coherent system of coordinated structures

    • Spencer argues that this works on the super-organic level (societal) in the same way it does for the organic level (the organismic analogy)

      • Super-organic 0909 = society 

    • The language of survival of the fittest and natural selection provides a level of scientific legitimacy to Spencer’s laissez-faire political beliefs 

    • Note: Content taken from: 

      • Ritzer & Stepnisky 8th edition

      • Turner, Beeghley & Powers 6th edition

      • Ashley & Orenstein 1st edition 

Lecture Six (1/23/25)

• Notes for Quiz

  • 30-ish questions, 45 minutes 

  • No Marx

    • Will have info on Comte, Spencer, etc.

      • Not info about parents, relevant info on theory 

      • Might ask who were the moral leaders of Comte’s three stages 

        • Theological Stage (fictional)

          • Priests

        • Metaphysical Stage (abstract)

          • Philosophers 

        • Positive Stage (scientific)

          • Scientists 

    • Asking about the L.A. fires 

      • Application questions 

  • Syllabus Questions

  • Taken in Sections 

• Charles Darwin

  • Evolution is a process of development from an incoherent, undifferentiated, and homogenous mass to a differentiated and coherent system of coordinated structures

  • Spencer argues that this works on the super-organic level (societal) in the same way it does for the organic level (the organismic analogy)

    • Super-organic 0909 = society 

  • The language of survival of the fittest and natural selection provides a level of scientific legitimacy to Spencer’s “social Darwinism” and laissez-faire political beliefs 

  • Marx

    • Would declare that he is NOT an evolutionary theorist, however it is inevitable that this seeps through his life in his world 

  • On the other hand, Spencer really engages with Darwin’s work

    • Attempts to bring an understanding to the social /organismic world similarly to how this applies to our “super-organic” life 

    • Analysis of the role of institutions in societal development 

• Comte

  • Agreed with Comte on the term “sociology” and the overall goal that it should be a scientific study of society. Also agreed that you can look at the parts (structures of society) and focus on how they function to maintain a sense of societal equilibrium. Thus, both Comte and Spencer should be thought of as early structural functionalists.

  • Spencer disagreed with Comte in terms of positivism. They were both positivists, but Spencer didn’t agree with the hierarchy, nor the secular religion of the humanities stuff. For Spencer, all the sciences were interdependent and interconnected. 

    • Still, like Comte, he did see Sociology as the most complex of the sciences

    • Spencer considered himself to be an objectivist- describing the social structures and things in the world. Whereas he saw Comte as a subjectivist- focused on the ideas of individuals. 

    • The evolution of structures and function v. the evolution of ideas

      • Spencer was speaking to Comte, telling him to sort of focus more on the evolution of structures 

  • Comte wanted centralization of power! Not in the way that Tocqueville warned about. But centralization of the positivistic queen science (A society run and controlled by people who want to use abstract scientific laws to create an orderly society). He thought that sociologists would be saviors of society!

    • Spencer was against centralized control- he thought that it was very dangerous. For him, the smallest government allowed for more human freedom.

      • Supporter of industrial capitalism!

      • Unapologetic supporter of laissez-faire (hands-off) industry 

        • Need to leave businesses alone to let them run things as they wish, let them do what they want to do, less taxes, less regulations and restrictions 

        • This is a strain of political thought that has been around for a long time, since before Spencer— although Spencer really honed this point 

          • Resurgence of neoliberalism! (Even in current times with President-elect) 

  • Comte felt that morality could be taught and incorporated into society by the positivist “religion”. Human nature is born flawed, it is rather our social structures that teach us good. For Durkheim, Comte, individuals are problematic, and we reign this in and control it through our social workings, groups, families, etc. We can’t have a world in which everyone is doing what they individually desire and institutional structures are needed for this purpose. 

    • Spencer, saw a moral society, not as taught— but as acted out by individuals. Some individuals will practice it while others will not. 

      • He says we have very selfish drives; however evolution will be our savior! IF we all acted on our individual interests, society would tear itself apart; yet it is not. (Context: He is in Industrial England, focused on progress at the time…) 

      • Individuals will repress their own egos themselves, they will do this themselves rather than our institutions. 

        • People will be as polite as they think to be in society, and that is all that is necessary!

        • He says nothing should be institutionalized rather than a police force. He says we should let everything else be laissez-faire; denounces the importance of our groups and social structures. 

    • BUT, society demands a regression of egoism and individuality— to live socially we must use our higher morality (giving, sharing, etc.) 

    • Therefore, if left alone, moral actions will be selected to survive by society and the lower drives will not… According to Spencer!

• Positivism

  • Like Comte, Spencer thinks that society should be studied like the natural sciences. But Spencer was not a positivist in the sense that the goal of science was the reduction of complex phenomena into simple abstract laws. Instead, he wanted to integrate all knowledge from the different scientific fields. 

    • Many sociologists have “thrown” him out due to being one of the early strong voices of capitalism, industrialism, colonialism, and the like. Contributed to these ideas…

  • He wanted the “unification of knowledge” 

    • Evolutionary forces operating in the biological world, plant world, physical, psychological, etc. 

    • We will now distill this information and convert them into a set of propositions and ideals that will be integrated into causal laws that explain social society 

      • This is an effort to make a grand theory!

• Evolution

  • Everything in the universe has an order, and our job as scientists is to find that order, describe it,  and explain it.

  • The key first principles of all phenomena are: 

    • Matter moves from homogeneity to heterogeneity 

    • From undifferentiated to differentiated

      • One thing, even two or three things doing the same thing is an undifferentiated system!

      • When different structures are doing different things, there are differentiated systems!

    • From simple to complex

      • From homogeneous, undifferentiated, to complex

        • Spencer does not believe necessarily in this!

    • This principle involves all matter, including societies!

• Darwin’s Evolution

  • Brown butterflies vs. Yellow butterflies

    • Over generations, you will get more brown ones over many generations

    • Change in allele frequencies due to genetic advantage 

    • Think about what might happen if these were humans…

  • The structure or species that is most fit in terms of resources already in place will survive

  • Ecological niches: competition over desired resources; mutation across generations 

    • Note for these animals, there is nothing they can do to change their coats 

      • However humans can change this! “Spencerian Selection” 

  • The structure that innovates when resources for survival are absent will survive. Usually, social rather than individual level

  • It is more rapid than waiting for genes to mutate (works better on brains rather than on phenotypes)

    • Humans can adapt to their environment and changing circumstances 

  • Here’s the Model

    • We start with population growth, then we get differentiation; different parts doing different functions

      • More people, more problems!

    • Differentiation of structure and culture, new ideas and new meaning structures

    • Then, there are problems with integration! One thing that societies need are being able to integrate new people 

      • Sometimes this is culture, sometimes this is structure

        • The more differentiated we get, the harder it is to integrate

        • Now we have different structures, different people, doing different things; and we learn the cultures of our own individual environments  

    • Now, there is more potential for disintegration! And now, there is selection pressure. There is an intellectual knowledge— adapt or die. 

      • EX: COVID integration of different methods of instruction. We adapted despite the potential for disintegration. Markets learned how to deal with supply changes, psychological trauma, hospitals learned how to adapt to high volumes of patients…

    • If we find a solution that works, there is an integration of society. Usually— for Spencer this means a centralization of power

      • This is how our institutions find solutions to these fundamental evolutionary problems of “fitting in” 

        • Darwin would say this is impossible within a single generation!

    • Now this allows for our population to grow again, and this results in more problems. This is an endless cycle. 

  • Like everything else in the natural world, equilibrium must be reached in social life too. All evolution is geared toward disrupting the fragile equilibrium of homogeneity towards a newmore heterogeneous equilibrium. 

    • The only permanence is change!

  • Equilibrium is reached via adaptation. People adapt to the forces impacting them and their responses lead to new forms. 

    • EX: Food supply dwindles— adaptation can take the form of famine and death; or it might also take the form of new innovation to develop more food.

  • Spencer says… like societies, individuals are also involved in a struggle for existence. People must adapt to survive, and those who are best able to adapt are the “most fit”.

    • He believed such evolutionary processes (“conflict”) must be left alone to work out their own equilibrium. There should be no interference from the state. It needs to be resolved “naturally”. 

      • IF the yellow butterflies die, society is better from it.

• Social Darwinism

  • In nature, the idea of survival of the fittest suggests that only the best competitors in a competition would win, so the process meant continual improvement. And this process takes a long time. 

  • This was interpreted by Spencer to mean that we need to avoid social reform since it does nothing but interfere with nature.

  • Nothing should be allowed to interfere with the natural laws governing the world. 

    • No state supported education

    • No public works, including sanitary supervision and regulation of housing

    • No social safety net

    • No tariffs 

    • No state banking

    • No postal service

  • This is EXTREME LIBERTARIAN thinking. The captains of industry, then, the ones with the power were considered by Spencer and others to be the fittest members of society.

    • We know as sociologists that individuals do not exist in a vacuum, individual choices and abilities are affected by history and current cultures, circumstances, etc. 

    • EX: Elon Musk, Zuckerberg

      • Extremely successful, but boosted by loans, powerful/influences, luck, race/social status, etc. 

      • Spencer would call them fit! He said go figure out what they did; and if you can’t— that’s on you…

  • This term is a politically loaded term and is often associated with the ways that the powerful justify their exploitation and status.

  • Part of the issue many have with Spencer was not that he saw evolutionary principles as operating in society (this was a dominant theoretical paradigm of the time), we’ve seen it with Comte and elements of it in Durkheim and Marx as well

  • But Spencer argued that it ought to exist and be encouraged.

  • “The whole effort of nature is to get rid of such, to clear the world of them and make room for better… If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best that they should die.”

  • In 2011, Prof was at the Getaway Cafe with friends; watching debates at the time. This was run-up to the  Romney—Obama election 

    • Question: 

      • Right wing libertarian ideals are close to Spencer’s ideas

      • A healthy 35 year old man decides they don’t want to pay health insurance, but suddenly needs insurance. What now?

      • Freedom is about taking choices and individual choices/responsibilities, regardless of consequences. Let him die…

  • The only hands that should be in our structures and in government; to protect businesses and the elites of society.