Returning the “Social” to Evolutionary Sociology: Reconsidering Spencer, Durkheim, and Marx’s Models of “Natural” Selection

Abstract

Sociology can no longer avoid engagement with biological ideas, but it can incorporate them where they are useful. Most biologically inspired explanations of sociological processes from outside the discipline are simple and, moreover, too reliant on biological rather than sociological models of social processes. Yet, it is possible to engage these efforts by developing sociological concepts and theories that meet those using evolutionary theory from biology. This paper argues that the heavy reliance on Darwinian natural selection limits sociological explanations, although this approach can help sociologists understand the evolved behavioral propensities of humans as evolved apes. These behavioral propensities cannot, however, explain the evolution and dynamics of the layers of sociocultural phenomena studied by sociologists, and efforts to do so with Darwinian notions of natural selection on individual organisms will always be inadequate. As an alternative, we propose that there are other types of natural selection inherent in the organization of what Herbert Spencer termed superorganisms. We label these Durkheimian, Spencerian, and Marxian selection, and they explain what Darwinian selection cannot: the dynamics and evolution of sociocultural phenomena.

Neo-tribal elements in policies forthe creative industries: A theoretical proposition and some Nordicexamples

“…In this regard, the book resembles recent sociological studies on the evolutionary background of human cognition (e.g. Turner and Abrutyn 2017, Turner and Machalek 2018. But the book does not, at least explicitly, take a normative stance for or against the social forces that it examines.…”

Biology and American Sociology, Part II: Developing a Unique Evolutionary Sociology

“…To be sure, of course, the pathogens in a pandemic are also selecting on immune systems and other biological traits of the individual, but this selection is mediated and accompanied by selection on various levels of sociocultural organization, which is seeking to be another type of sociocultural immune system. Thus, it is important to determine both the type of non-Darwinian sociocultural selection (see Turner and Abrutyn 2017; working on institutional systems and all of their components as well as the nature of the Darwinian selection working directly on individual phenotypes and underlying genotypes. Depending on our purposes, we may emphasize Darwinian selection on individual phenotypes in an evolving gene pool of the population or non-Darwinian selection on sociocultural formations that are evolving.…”

“Integrity, Sportsmanship, Character”: Baseball’s Moral Entrepreneurs and the Production and Reproduction of Institutional Autonomy

“…It has long been a sociological assumption that societies vary across time and space in terms of how distinct the major institutional domains or spheres of social life are from each other (Durkheim 1887(Durkheim [1993 ;Weber 1946a;Habermas 1973Habermas [1976; Merton 1979). In particular, this line of thought was fundamental to structural-functional accounts (Parsons and Smelser 1956;Parsons 1971), and continues to inspire theoretical insights on institutions or institutional spheres (Turner 2010;Abrutyn 2009Abrutyn , 2014Turner and Abrutyn 2017), their level of self-reflexivity or autonomy (Luhmann 1995), and the uniqueness of their "logic" (Friedland et al 2014). On the macro-level, the idea that units of analysis like institutional spheres can become (relatively) discrete structural and cultural spaces underscores a fundamental source of societal variation found across time and space, while at the micro level different types of autonomous spheres imply variation in the ways in which actors orient their emotions, attitudes, and behaviors.…”