From the biological to the social world

What did society mean to Herbert Spencer?

Sometimes, the simplest way to understand a society is to imagine it as a living body. Like any organism, society has its own pulse, veins, nerves, and organs. Its rhythm is set by laws, its breath by culture, and its memory by history. When one part of the body is injured, other parts adapt, altering their functions to maintain balance. Society behaves in much the same way: when struck by change or crisis, it develops new patterns of behaviour, rules, and ways of thinking. The analogy between the human body and social life is no accident; it reflects the movement, change, and order found in nature mirrored within the social realm.

For the nineteenth-century thinker, “evolution” was not confined to biology. It appeared as a universal key for understanding all processes of the world. Science and philosophy were drawing closer together, and social phenomena began to be explained through biological principles. Society was no longer seen merely as a collection of individuals. It became a living system, breathing, changing, and striving to preserve itself. This idea gained particular resonance against the backdrop of the profound social transformations brought about by the Industrial Revolution. The growth of cities, the reshaping of individual social roles, and the increasing complexity of economic relations seemed to reconstruct the social body itself.

Within this intricate system arose a central question: how does society survive? What gives it life? Is it the individuals themselves, or the relationships between them? Just as a body’s vitality does not come from its organs alone but from their harmonious interaction, the health of society is measured not by the number of its members but by the quality of their interdependence.

It was from this perspective that Herbert Spencer sought to explain social reality through biological principles. To him, society was a “living organism,” complete with its own circulatory system, nervous network, and defensive mechanisms. Spencer’s idea was more than a simple metaphor. It was an attempt to read human social life in the language of nature’s laws. Perhaps for this reason, he is regarded as one of the earliest systematic architects of sociology.

For Herbert Spencer, society was not merely a structure composed of individuals. He saw it as a living system, operating as an integral part of nature. At the heart of this system lay functional interdependence: every element of society (whether an individual, an institution, or a norm) played a role in ensuring the survival of the whole organism. In his seminal work, “Principles of Sociology” (1876), Spencer wrote that “the connection between different parts of society resembles the connection between organs in the body, each functioning for the continuity of the whole.”

Spencer’s approach was influenced by Darwin’s principle of natural selection, yet he diverged by applying the concept of evolution not only to biology but also to social structures. Just as living organisms are born, grow, mature, and sometimes decline, so too can societies. In this sense, Spencer introduced an evolutionary perspective to sociology. Societies evolve from simple to complex forms, progressing from early communal groups to modern state structures.

In Spencer’s view, society was the body, and individuals were its cells. While not identical, each cell was essential to the body’s overall survival. Similarly, in society, individuals occupy different roles, yet all are necessary to maintain the continuity of the social system. For instance, the economic sphere acts as the “nutritional system,” ensuring material circulation. Political institutions function as the “nervous system,” managing governance. Culture and moral values serve as a “defensive mechanism,” protecting society from moral fragmentation.

According to Spencer, the increasing complexity of society reflects its level of “evolution.” In simple societies, such as tribes or early communal formations, social functions are closely intertwined: political, religious, and economic activities are often performed by the same structure. As societies develop, these functions differentiate, forming distinct, autonomous systems. Spencer called this process “functional specialization.” By differentiating its organs, the social body becomes more efficient, stable, and capable of sustaining itself over time.

For Spencer, this idea carried not only scientific significance but moral weight as well. He viewed individuals within society as components of a broader biological harmony. Social order, he argued, should arise not from coercion but through natural adaptation. This perspective underpinned his liberal philosophy: the role of the state should be minimal, allowing society to regulate itself. Change within society, in his view, unfolded through what he called “voluntary evolution” (see Spencer, “Social Statics”, 1851).

The strength of Spencer’s concept lay in its dynamic vision of social systems. Every individual and institution had a role crucial to the health of the larger social organism. Yet, this approach carried inherent contradictions. Spencer often accepted inequality among individuals as a natural law and regarded notions of social justice as contrary to the principle of natural selection. These tensions made his theory both influential and controversial. For him, the truest way to understand society was to examine its evolutionary laws. He believed that all forms of existence (biological, social, and cultural) were governed by the same universal principles. From simple to complex, from chaos to order, from uniformity to differentiation, this evolutionary movement formed the foundation of his sociology.

In “The Study of Sociology” (1873), Spencer wrote that “the progress of society, like the progress of life itself, is measured by the increasing interconnection and specialization of its parts.” In other words, the maturity of a society is reflected in the depth of functional relationships among its various sectors. In primitive societies, political, religious, and economic systems were closely intertwined, but as societies evolved, these functions became specialized, forming distinct structures within the social body. Change, in Spencer’s view, occurred not only in social but also in moral dimensions. Society, he argued, existed not merely to survive, but to achieve self-awareness. Adaptation, therefore, was not only a struggle for life but also a process of moral and intellectual development. In this ongoing evolution, society creates new values, transforms old structures, and develops mechanisms of self-regulation from within.

In this respect, Spencer’s theory of social evolution carried not only scientific but also ideological significance. He regarded human freedom and individual initiative as the driving forces of evolution. Excessive state intervention, he argued, disrupts this natural process, because the healthy development of society depends on individuals freely adapting to their environment.

Yet this perspective also invited criticism. Many sociologists, including Émile Durkheim and Karl Marx, argued that Spencer’s view subordinated social justice to the laws of natural selection. Durkheim maintained that society is not merely an extension of nature but also a moral system, and therefore social order cannot be fully explained through biological laws alone. Nevertheless, despite such critiques, Spencer’s ideas played a foundational role in the formation of sociology, teaching scholars to view society not simply as a mechanism but as a living organism.

This approach continues to resonate in contemporary sociology. Ecological systems, information networks, and even financial markets are often analyzed today as “self-regulating organisms.” Spencer’s concept of social evolution, therefore, extends far beyond the intellectual currents of the nineteenth century, influencing social models well into the twenty-first.

Thus, Spencer’s idea that “society is an organism” is not just a relic of nineteenth-century scientific romanticism. It remains a lens through which to examine twenty-first-century realities. But a question arises: can the society we inhabit today. Can a society in which bodies are augmented by technology, memory is stored in artificial intelligence, and emotions are shared on social media still be considered a living organism, or has it become a purely mechanical system?

Nigar Shahverdiyeva
Sociologist, Research Writer