Suchergebnisse

It has long been assumed by political theorists that there are two opposed characterizations of the state. One is expressed by the individualistic school of thought, in which the individual is primary and the state is secondary. The other is expressed by the organicist school of thought in which the state is primary and the individual is secondary. Herbert Spencer appears to straddle both schools of thought, in that his doctrine includes elements of both individualism and organicism. As a result, Spencer has been much criticized for conceptual confusion and contradiction. Such criticism is misconceived: Spencer successfully reconciles individualism and organicism in his theory, and thereby exposes the falsity of the alleged antithesis between these two concepts in political theory

Political theorists generally contrast two theories of the state: the individualist, for which the individual is primary & the state secondary; & the organicist, for which the reverse is true. Herbert Spencer is often criticized for inconsistency because his published works adhere to both viewpoints. It is argued that, in fact, Spencer successfully reconciles individualism & organicism, which are not so opposed as is typically believed. In Spencer's main theoretical contrast, between industrial & militant societies, industrial societies appear as both individualistic & organic, & militant societies as neither. Modified HA