Evolvement and Spencer

One of the more ambitious neo-Darwinians was Herbert Spencer, whose insights antedate considerably some of the notions that are being advanced here. His most significant effort was to universalize Darwin's innovations, centering on the same idea of Complexity as I have defined. That is, the essence of Evolution is an increase in heterogeneity while maintaining homogeneity, according to Spencer. Where his theory differs from Evolvement is that it is overextended in one respect, and crucially underextended in several others. While Spencer interprets all phenomena as governed by Evolution, in the Formaterial system, not all processes are Evolvemental, e. g. generally speaking, only the 'organic' ones are. On the other hand, Spencer follows Darwin in compromising Evolutionism by subordinating it to other principles at crucial junctures. For example, he proposes that Evolutionary ascent has a terminal point of equilibrium. But that construal of equilibrium is not intrinsic to Evolutionism, because the ascent itself is in equilibrium, a balance between the diversifying and the homogenizing forces. Secondly, it is actually Spencer who coined the phrase 'survival of the fittest', his interpretation of Darwin's principle of 'natural selection', which, again, is a principle that is extrinsic to Complexity-increase, and, again, to which the latter is subordinated. The unfortunate implications of infecting Complexity with Survival and Fitness are exposed in Spencer's attempts at a social theory. He does maintain conceptual consistency to the extent that he suggests that the ideal society would be a Military-Industrial complex, literally, because social homogeneity is exemplified in Military organization, while the free enterprise activities of an Industrial sector are the paragon of heterogeneity. Sorely lacking, however, is any kind of Evolutionary concept of the individual, which leaves him stuck with an individual ideal in terms of physical fitness that he struggles to integrate into the ideality of social Complexity. The most important consequence of his shortcomings in this respect is the subsequent rise of 'Social Darwinism', with the preponderance of its emphasis on physical fitness over Complexity. Not only does my notion of Evolvement dispense with extrinsities such as a Survival and Perfection, but my extension of it to individuals will facilitate an entirely different approach to social theory than Darwin and Spencer are capable of offering.