Introduction

For many people the name of the English philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) would be virtually synonymous with Social Darwinism. Not only did Spencer coin the expression ‘the survival of the fittest’ and apply it to social evolution, he was also instrumental in popularising the term ‘evolution’ in its modern sense. Although his influence waned in the twentieth century, during the last three decades of the nineteenth century he enjoyed a world-wide reputation: his books were translated into many languages and at times there were over a million copies in print. Spencer appears to be not only a quintessential Social Darwinist, therefore, but also a highly influential one.

As was noted in the introduction, however, this identification of Spencer with Social Darwinism has been questioned by modern historians who have denied the existence of specifically Darwinian elements in Spencer's thought. Some commentators have gone so far as to suggest that to interpret Spencer as a Social Darwinist is to misrepresent and even to caricature his work. Others focus upon Spencer's political theory and pay less attention to his evolutionary arguments. Contrary to both these tendencies, I am going to argue, first, that Spencer was a Social Darwinist; and second, that the relation ship between Spencer's evolutionary and political thought is fundamental for an understanding of this latter aspect of his work.

At the age of sixteen, Spencer published a defence of the new Poor Laws in which he invoked scriptural authority for his assertion that the idle and improvident should not be allowed to prosper at the expense of the thrifty and diligent.