Offer John
School of Applied Social and Policy Sciences, Ulster University, Coleraine, United Kingdom.
Front Sociol. 2019 Feb 12;4:1. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2019.00001. eCollection 2019.
This article attempts to retrieve important aspects of Spencer's sociology from the general neglect and misrepresentation which threatens to overwhelm it all. It does touch on many such highly dubious contentions as that he was a "social Darwinist," but the prime focus is to deal with three linked themes. First, the article examines the significance of his attribution to individuals of "social self-consciousness" as part of sociality, thus distancing it from Durkheim's influential but suspect reading of Spencer's individuals as egoistic. Second, it rescues his concept of "the social organism" from misinterpretation. His own writings show it to be a more rigorous and suggestive attempt to configure the morphology of "the social" than commonly assumed. Third, it reconstructs the status of his contrast between "militant" and "industrial" social forms as a contrast between different but more general forms of social life that those descriptions in fact register. With the focus on these three linked themes the article improves the historical accuracy of our understanding of Spencer's sociology. It also repositions key aspects of it as not alien, quaint and a spent force, but ontologically challenging and possibly prescient for debates about the meaning of "the social" today.
本文试图从普遍的忽视和歪曲中找回斯宾塞社会学的重要方面,这些忽视和歪曲有可能将其全部淹没。它确实涉及到许多此类极具争议的观点,比如他是一个“社会达尔文主义者”,但主要关注点是处理三个相互关联的主题。首先,本文考察了他将“社会自我意识”归因于个体作为社会性一部分的意义,从而使其有别于涂尔干对斯宾塞个体的有影响力但值得怀疑的利己主义解读。其次,它从误解中拯救了他的“社会有机体”概念。他自己的著作表明,这是一次比通常认为的更为严谨且富有启发性的尝试,旨在构建“社会”的形态学。第三,它重构了他关于“军事”和“工业”社会形式之间对比的地位,将其视为对不同但更为普遍的社会生活形式的对比,而那些描述实际上记录了这些形式。通过关注这三个相互关联的主题,本文提高了我们对斯宾塞社会学理解的历史准确性。它还将其关键方面重新定位为并非陌生、古怪且过时的,而是在本体论上具有挑战性的,并且可能对当今关于“社会”意义的辩论具有先见之明。