INTEGRATIVE LEVELS 



tional differences. He certainly underrated the genetic shuffling in 

 each reproductive act. But to confuse the various vocations for which 

 individuals should, of course, be as well suited as possible, with the 

 division into classes differing according to their relation with the 

 material means of production, some controlling these means, and 

 others having access to them only by the grace and on the terms of the 

 former, was a tragic mistake, worthy to stand side by side with the 

 use of the theory of natural selection as a justification for laisse^-faire 

 economics.^ 



Now Spencer's main line of distinction in human societies was 

 between "Predatory" and "Industrial."^ The former type was one in 

 which the army and the nation had a common structure, the army 

 being the active manifestation of the nation. The latter type, though 

 possessing some defence organisation, was characterised by voluntary 

 co-operation in commercial transactions. It is clear that Spencer 

 regarded the industrial type as higher than the predatory type. In 

 describing examples of it (more or less convincing), his sympathies 

 may be discerned; thus he speaks of "the amiable Bodo and Dhimals,"^ 

 "the industrious and peaceful Pueblos,"* and the development of free 

 institutions in England.^ In conformity with his view, already men- 

 tioned, on the good of the state as against that of the individual, he 

 identifies the predatory organisation with the former and the industrial 

 organisation with the latter. In this way we arrive at the classical 

 position of nineteenth-century optimism, that all things work 

 together for good for them that love profits, and that in an economic 

 system where each man is for himself, the net resultant will always 

 be for the benefit of all. 



And now appears the remarkable, almost pathetic, naivete of the 

 synthetic philosopher. Spencer, approving of English capitalism in its 



^ On this a great deal could be written. Reference may be made to the following 

 discussions as valuable starting-points for investigation : 



C. Bougie, art. "Darwinism and Sociology" in Darwin and Modern Science, 

 ed. A. C. Seward (Cambridge, 19 lo); D. G. Ritchie, Darwinism and Politics 

 (London 1889); J. G. Haycratt, Darwinism and Race Progress (London, 1900), 

 L. Woltmann, Die Darwinische Theorie u.d. Soiialismus (Dusseldorf, 1899); O. 

 Hertwig, Zur Abwehr des ethischen, so^ialen, und politischen Darwinismus (Jena; 

 1921); J. S. Huxley, Proc. Brit. Assoc, 1936, p. 81. 



We know now that the results of intra-specific competition are by no means 

 necessarily good. As Huxley says, "tliey may be neutral, they may be a dangerous 

 balance of useful and harmful, or they may be definitely deleterious." 



2 PS, L 577, 590. ^ PS, L 585. 



' PS, L 585. fi PS, L 587. 



251 



