Download A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016 pg. 1

‘evolution of sociocultural differences (Harris 1991).’
Misty Alloy
Freeman main argument again the book is how it
Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of
lumps Darwinism with Spencerism together. In
Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer.
response, Freeman spends a good part of the paper
Current Anthropology 15(3):211- 237.
contrasting Spencer’s historical support of
Lamarck’s ideologies to Darwin’s systematic
Anthropological Theory, Physical
development of natural selection. He then clarifies
Anthropology, Biology or any course which covers
that Lamarck’s view on the inheritance of acquire
evolution usually begins with a history of the people
characteristics requires that phenotypes precede
who played a part in the development of
genotypes. Since, science has not seen evidence for
evolutionary theory. Herbert Spencer is emphasized
such events, Freeman states to use a Specerian to
as the man who kicked-off the misconstruing
interpret cultural traits. He accuses Harris of using
concept of ‘survival of the fittest,’ while Charles
cultural traits as a reducing agent to the perceptions
Darwin is the naturalist who gave us the four
of cultures, instead of perceiving them as unique and
component concept of natural selection. A stark
complex. Freeman warns that this Specerian view of
contrast between Darwin and Spencer is emphasized
evolution fails to pay respect to the complexity of
because it is a common misconception of people to
natural selection and reduces evolution to a
associate the word evolution with the word
progressive notion, and prevents from giving
progress. While it is difficult for me to imagine a
‘recognition to the interaction of cultural, biological,
time when these concepts were not readily accept
and environmental variables in historical and
amongst anthropologist, Derek Freeman’s 1974
contemporary situations. (Freeman 1970).’
paper entitled ‘The Evolutionary Theories of
Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer’ demonstrates
a time when anthropologist were still having to
clarify that evolution was not a blueprint for
progress. In ‘the Evolutionary Theories of Charles
Darwin and Herbert Spencer,’ Freeman debates
Marvin Harris’ representations of evolution and
culture in The Rise of Anthropological Theory
(1968).
Freeman (1974) also disagrees with Harris’
work for attributing too much credit to Thomas
Malthus’ social science study, An Essay on the
Principle of Population to Darwin’s concept of
natural selection. Freeman attributes Darwin’s
concepts on differential survival to decades of
biological observation and refers to Malthus as
inspiration for the idea of exponential growth
amongst populations (Freeman 1974). While, Harris
By 1974, Marvin Harris had made a name for
may have been trying to emphasize the importance
himself as a cultural materialist. His work, The Rise
of learning from other fields, I agree with Freeman
of Anthropological Theory, discussed the history of
that decades of Darwin’s work should not be
anthropological thought and introduced a number of
understated because he merely respected Malthus’
Harris’ ideas on cultural materialism. The book
ideas. On the other hand, when I think back to my
emphasized an etic approach to analyzing the
own coursework, there are a number of textbooks
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 1
that still give credence to Malthus for inspiring
Harris, Marvin. 1991. The intellectual ancestry of
Darwin and paving the way for the acceptance of
cultural materialism. Current Contents. no 16:
evolutionary theory in the
mid-19th
century
(Campbell 2001; Lewis and Jurmain 2012). It may
have been difficult for Freeman and Harris to see
each other’s perception on Maltus at the time. Over
8.
http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1991/A19
91FE76500001.pdf
emphasizing the origins of Darwin’s inspiration for
Freeman, Derek. 1970. Human nature and culture.
natural selection was not just, but staying open-
In Man and the new biology. Pp. 50-75.
minded to both humanistic and scientific theories is
Canberra: Australian National University
still relevant.
Despite the intentions of Freeman or
Press.
Harris, this historical debate is an insightful period
Lewis, Barry. Robert Jurmain. 2012. Understanding
of anthropological history to revisit. It highlights
humans: an introduction to physical
how cultural studies can both misrepresent science
and benefit from science. Harris’ theory overlooks
some key elements of evolution, yet one of the main
anthropology and archaeology. Eleventh
Ed. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
goals of cultural materialism was to use science to
Malthus T. R. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of
understand culture. Freeman’s paper explains what
Population. Oxford World's Classics reprint:
Harris has overstated and demonstrates that
biology, and therefore culture, are neither strictly
xxix Chronology.
hereditary nor progressive. Whether the emphasis is
on scientific or humanistic methods, or cultural
materialism or new archaeology, it is clear that
during a time when new ‘links’ were being
discovered by paleoanthropologists, when new
studies on genetics were being released and the
Kathleen Ashton
concept of punctuated equilibrium was revealed,
anthropologists wanted to address how evolution
applied to their perceptions of culture.
FREEMAN, DEREK. 1974. The evolutionary
theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer.
Current Anthropology 15(3):211-237.
Campbell, Reece. 2001. Biology, Sixth edition.
Benjamin Cummings.
Harris, Marvin. 1968. The rise of anthropological
theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
In this article, Derek Freeman discusses the
differences between the evolutionary theories of
Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. However, he
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 2
does so with Marvin Harris’ The Rise of
and contrast of Darwin and Spencer, one must look
Anthropological Theory in mind. It becomes rather
at their work as a whole and find the similarities
apparent that Freeman’s goal in this article is not to
where they lie. I disagree with Freeman’s notion
compare and contrast the work of Darwin and
that to compare Darwin and Spencer is a frivolous
Spencer so much as to refute the thoughts and ideas
endeavor. By doing a comparison of my own, I was
of Marvin Harris.
able to see how two men with very similar ideas
were able to reach such opposing conclusions. I was
Freeman starts by looking at Harris’ idea that
also able to see how much more scientific Darwin
Darwin’s “Natural Selection” was simply applying
was in his research, while Spencer’s notion of an
the concepts from social science to biology. Freeman
“immanent power” came a little too close to being a
then goes into the biography of Charles Darwin,
matter of theology and not one of science. As much
talking about the influence that Thomas Malthus
as I agree that a comparison of these two can be
had on his work. Freeman explains that it was
enlightening, the comparison must done more
Malthus’ idea of population growth and food supply
objectively than the one Harris attempted.
that actually helped Darwin to formulate his idea of
“Natural Selection.” According to Freeman, social
While reading this article, I felt Peter
science was not the inspiring factor for Darwin’s
Peregrine’s “objective vs. subjective” debate come
work, but rather his keen observation of nature.
back into play. Freeman is making the argument
that we as anthropologists must be looking at our
Freeman then goes on to scold Harris for lumping
research with a more objective eye. This article was
Darwin and Spencer’s work together, saying that
written as a backlash against those that don’t take as
there is absolutely no way to compare the two.
much of a scientific approach. In this context, I agree
Although I do disagree with Harris’ assessment that
with Freeman. We can’t look at Darwin and Spencer
both Darwin and Spencer are “geniuses,” I do have
and say that their work was the same. One was
to admit that there could be some similarities
obviously correct in his findings and the other was
between their works. For instance, both Darwin and
not. There is no subjectivity when it comes to this
Spencer talk about an overall progression towards
matter. However, we must be just as objective when
perfection. Darwin explains that this progression
looking at the similarities in their work. Darwin’s
would be over a long period of time, expanding over
work being accepted by the scientific community
many generations. Spencer, on the other hand, is
does not negate any similarities that may coincide
more Lamarckian in his way of thinking, concluding
with Spencer’s work.
that species grow inheritable traits throughout their
lifetime.
Obviously, Darwin’s theory was accepted
while Lamarck’s, and subsequently Spencer’s work
was thrown out. However, to do a thorough compare
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 3
early theory of evolution or “transmutation” in
Kelyn Brannon
which new traits are created by striving towards
Freeman, Dereck.1974. The evolutionary theories of
some goal in their life and these traits are then
Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current
passed down to their offspring (Shapiro 2015)
Anthropology 15(3):211-237.
(Larson 2014). This is the important concept for
Spencer. Darwin’s model for evolution noted there
This article written by Freeman examines
would always be competition over resources and
fundamental differences in evolutionary theories
individuals who can compete favorably will have
between Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and Herbert
more offspring and this creates differential success
Spencer (1820-1903). He attempts and I believe
that defines natural selection (Shapiro 2015) (Larson
proves thorough a systematic and detailed
2014). Darwin called this "Reproductive Fitness"
review/analysis of the literature and documented
(Griffin 2016), Spencer was an armchair
history on evolutionary ideas in order to disprove
anthropologist and a social evolutionist. He used the
the view that an “evolutionary synthesis” exists
term ‘survival of the fittest’ but with a very different
between these two important scholars. Freeman
definition from Darwin’s. He believed that evolution
starts his discussion from the 1830’s when Charles
was progressive and moved from small to large and
Darwin commenced his voyage on the H.M.S Beagle
simple to complex organisms and that evolution was
(Griffin 2016) onwards. He specifically discusses the
driven by superior strengths, skills and traits.
impact of J. B. Lamarck (1744-1826) on these
Spencer believed this was universal and applied this
theories as well as other important theorists such as
theory to many other disciplines. If you did not have
Franz Boas, A.L. Kroeber and Leslie White while
them, you would not succeed – this is not
directly taking on Marvin Harris (1927-2001). The
reproductive fitness as you may have all the required
timing of this article is important, as Harris had
attributes and if cannot reproduced the these
recently published The Rise of Anthological Theory
favorable traits are not passed on. His version of
in 1968 that included a discussion on Spencer and
evolution believed in the inheritance of acquired
Spencer’s beliefs as a social evolutionist and the
characteristics or a Larmarkian approach not
concept “evolutionary synthesis”. This article is
through natural selection. For Spencer this was the
really a rebuttal of Harris’ theory on “evolutionary
important factor. Finally Harris who is known for
synthesis” rather than a simple re-hash of Darwin
the theory of cultural materialism, that culture copes
and Spencer’s different views on what is evolution.
with nature and his introduction of the principle of
Freeman believes there is no more important topic
infrastructure determinism e.g. etic (behavioral) and
than this for modern biological evolution and a clear
emic (mental) structures and superstructures.
understanding of natural selection in today’s world.
Freeman, from my chair clearly supports a complete
To unpack the discussion and theories put forth in
separation of the evolutionary theories of Darwin
the article I went back to grab a quick snapshot of
and Spencer. It is clear to me that Darwin and
some of the scholars in play. Larmark developed an
Spencer different greatly on the role of Lamarck’s
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 4
theory in evolution and this in itself will not drive a
Freeman, Derek. 1974. The Evolutionary Theories
synthesis approach between the scholars. .
of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current
When I read this article I reflected back on the
Anthropology 15 (3): 211-237
Peregrine discussion this week on what is science in
anthropology specifically re Lamarck. Freeman’s
article shows us that Darwin’s theory on natural
In The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and
selection and evolution with its richness of scientific
Herbert Spencer (1974) Derek Freeman delves into
data followed by decades of new discoveries in
the history of the evolutionary thought of the 19th
genetics et al. that continue to address Darwin’s
Century.
unanswered questions on how exactly variation
promoted by Marvin Harris in The Rise of
occurred and how they were inherited. Science is a
Anthropological Theory (1968) that Darwin and
process and we see that here in these theories.
Spencer’s
This
account
theories
challenges
the
view,
constitute an “evolutionary
synthesis” (Freeman 1974:211)
Griffin, Mark. 2016. Anthropology 302 notes for
Human Variation. SFSU.
Throughout the paper Freeman highlights two main
points of divergence among their theories: the
Larsen, Clark Spencer. 2014. Our Origins :
difference in their logical structures, and the degree
Discovering Physical Anthropology. Ohio State
to which they relied on Lamarckian theory of
University.
inheritance and inevitable progress. Basically he
states that Spencer's doctrine was deductive and
McGee, and Richard L. Warms. 2012. Anthropology
rested
Theory: an introductory history. New York: The
suppositions,
whereas
McGraw-Hill.
authentically
scientific,
on
Lamarck’s
general
Darwin’s
based
on
metaphysical
theory
was
facts
and
methodological analysis.
Shapiro, Amy. 2015. Anthropology 100 notes on
Human Variation. SFSU.
Firstly, Freeman describes the “systematic and
Sinervo, Aviva. 2016. Anthropology 300 notes on
extensive investigation of biological and other
Foundations of Anthropology. SFSU.
natural phenomena which culminated in Darwin's
discovery of 1838” (1974:211). His account starts in
the Beagle expedition (1831- 1836), from which
Darwin returned with a collection of scientific
materials of quite exceptional significance (1974:
Lucila Carballo
213). Later, he describes Darwin’s posterior research
and analysis in Cambridge. Then, Freeman mentions
Darwin’s encounter with Malthus’ Essay on the
Principle of Population (1798) in 1938. He highlights
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 5
that although Malthus’ theory acted as a catalyst for
science of anthropology” must be based on a model
Darwin’s theory, he was well aware of the natural
that acknowledges the relations between “cultural,
progress before that. In this way, he diverges with
biological, and environmental variables in historical
Harris who states that that Darwin's theories are an
and
application of social-science concepts to biology.
evolutionary past of the human specie” (1974:221)
Secondly, Freeman emphasizes that Spencer -as a
To conclude, I consider that Freeman’s 1974 paper
fervent Lamarckian- believed that acquired traits
is still contemporary as the “evolutionary synthesis”
were inherited, while Darwin based his theory on
of Darwinian and Spencerian theories continues
natural selection. Moreover, he also explains how
today. In this sense, Freeman’s perspective is
Spencer’s belief in progress stands in contrast to
valuable mostly because it challenges mislead
Darwin’s claim that there is “no law of necessary
assumptions about these theories so influential for
development” (1974:213).
These distinctions are
anthropology. Moreover, Freemen not only sheds
accurate, as it can be traced clearly in Lamarck’s
light on the history of our discipline, but also
Zoological Philosophy (1809) and Darwin’s On the
reminds us -even though it seems obvious- how
Origin of Species (1859). On the one hand, Lamarck
important it is for researchers to base their work on
proposed that organisms were driven from simple to
the original sources and not only in their subsequent
increasingly
analysis.
more
complex
forms,
in
this
contemporary
situations,
as
during
the
evolutionary schema “everywhere and always the
will of the Sublime Author of nature and of
Ultimately, I believe that a weak point of this paper
everything that exists is invariably carried out.”
is that it encourages a dichotomist epistemology that
(Lamarck [1809] 1984:55).
On the other hand,
clearly divides between purely scientific thought -
Darwin based his theory on the idea of natural
based on facts- and a theological - based on beliefs.
selection, defined as
“preservations of favorable
Even though, Darwin's thinking is far from
variations
rejection
unfavorable
Lamarckian metaphysics, there are many gray areas
variations” (Darwin [1859] 2006:51). Furthermore,
in On the Origin of Species. The following passages of
he did not mention any “Sublime Author” and wrote
the book made me question to what extent Darwin’s
that “natural selection will not produce absolute
ideas are not also intertwined with moral beliefs.
perfection, nor do we always meet, as far as we can
Natural selections works solely by and for
judge, with this high standard under nature”
the good of each being, all corporal and
(2006:127)
mental endowments will tend to progress
and
the
of
towards perfection (…) from the war of
Finally, Freeman emphasizes Darwin’s significance
nature, from famine and death, the most
to current anthropology as a precursor of
the
exalted object which we are capable of
interactionist model, which considers cultural and
conceiving, namely the production of higher
biological factors. Freeman states that “an authentic
animals, directly follows (…) from so simple
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 6
a beginning endless forms most beautiful
Freeman begins by delving into Darwin’s
and most wonderful have been, and are
inspirations for the theory of natural selection and
being, evolved. (2006:307)
debunks any thought of plagiarism by laying out
direct connections and distinctions between
Darwin’s research of Malthus, Lyell, and Lamarck,
REFENCES
and correspondence with Huxley, Hooker, and
others. Freeman (1974) continues by noting that
Darwin, Charles. 2006. On the Origin of Species by
one of Darwin’s main obstacles was that he had no
Means of Natural Selection. New York: Dover
understanding of genetics and was therefore
confused as to the actual cause of variation, the so-
Lamarck, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet de.
called “use and disuse” (214). He notes that
1984. Zoological Philosophy: An Exposition with
advances in scientific understanding in the years
Regard to the Natural History of Animals. Chicago:
following Darwin’s death “made obsolete” “use and
University of Chicago Press.
disuse” (Freeman 1974:214), leading to a minor
modification of Darwin's theory. This led to the
formation of what Freeman (1974) calls “NeoDarwinians” (214) who stressed natural selection as
the motivation for evolution, and their foils, the
“Neo-Lamarckians” (214), who pushed the idea that
Meghann Carey
evolutionary adaptations came “from the slow
Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of
willing of animals (213).
Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current
Contrary to Darwin and Neo-Darwinians, Spencer
Anthropology 15(3):211-237.
was a believer in Lamarckian inheritance principles.
Freeman (1974) explains Spencer’s ideals as thinking
Derek Freeman’s article aims to unpack the
that individuals, plant or animal, adapt according to
discrepancies between Darwinian and Spencerian
their surroundings, that these adaptions are passed
evolutionary theory via a Marvin Harris lens. To
on generationally, and that individuals continue to
highlight their differences, he focuses on natural
adapt generation after generation. He uses Spencer’s
selection, the driving force for evolutionary change
own words from 1855 to best explain his notion of
over time based on adaptations best suited to an
adaptation as “a modified form of constitution
individual’s environment. Freeman argues that
produced by new habits of life, [that] is bequeathed
there are two competing definitions for the concept,
to future generations,” (Freeman 1974:215).
one put forth by Charles Darwin and the other by
Spencer’s concept is predicated on an intangible
Herbert Spencer. He proceeds to explain these
power, more philosophical in nature than scientific.
contrasting ideas as a window to popular discourse
Freeman (1974) goes on to discuss other ways in
in the field of anthropological evolutionary theory.
which Darwin and Spencer differ, even share in
discourse, but the main point is resounding –
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 7
Darwinian theory of natural selection as the
progress of human nature/culture. Freeman’s article
motivation for evolution has won the day, while
is a reaction and an attempt to tear down Harris’s
Spencer’s Lamarckian ideology has been proven false
theory of natural selection, while pointing to Darwin
by advances in the scientific study of genetics. That
as a dominant voice in the field. While Spencer did
the two were both “utterly incapable of separating
not reflect the way of thinking that Darwin had laid
changes in a groups learned repertory from
a foundation for. Freeman clams that Spencer takes
hereditary modifications,” (Freeman 1974:220) is
from theories of natural section from Jean-Baptiste
argued by Freeman to be fallacy. It is exactly this
Lamarckian who proposed and wrote of evolution, in
which reveals the importance of this article to
an early form, several decades before Darwin
anthropological pursuits. Evolutionary theory
published his theories.
explains not only biological phenomena, but also
“cultural transmission” (Freeman 1974:220).
Freeman immediately takes apart Harris
Additionally, Freeman concludes that “non-genetic
claim of the similarities between Spencer and
transmission has a genetic foundation” (221), and
Darwin by pointing out that their theories were
even Darwin had a basic understanding of that. It
unrelated due to the differences and era of the origin,
can be deduced from Freeman’s article, through the
the logical and structural differences in their
guise of evolutionary theory, that the current sub-
theories, as well as the degree to which they
fields of anthropology are actually in conflated
“supposedly” relied on the framework laid down by
positions that overlap and necessarily inform one
Lamarckian with the mechanisms of inheritance and
another.
evolutionary change. Freeman also makes the claim
that Darwin was strictly a naturalist in his time and
then Freeman proceeds explain a process that
Darwin went through in which he wanted to avoid
prejudice so he spent decades working n this theory.
Further more he proceeds to point out that Darwin
Rebekah Dennison
was no follower of Lamarckian and that Darwin’s
Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of
Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current
Anthropology 15(3):211- 237.
natural selection theory had given rise to a more
modified structure of natural selection. Darwin’s
theory of evolution by means of natural selection
depended on the presence of variation in natural
Freeman’s purpose for writing the article is a
populations. Freeman explains that the idea of
reaction to Marvin Harris and his claim to the
cultural evolution according to Darwin was a
similarities in the evolutionary theories of Charles
process in which human societies was of actual no
Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Harris makes the
“invariable rule” and that the process of progress
claim that Darwin and Spencer are similar in their
depended on favorable conditions. Freeman
theories on natural selection as well as the cultural
compares the progress of human variation to the
process of the evolution of society, in which these
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 8
process relied on favorable and conditions as well as
the need for certain traits or parts of society that
Freeman’s (1974) response to Harris’s (1968) work
needed to change for the continuation of a society as
that includes the comparison between Darwin’s
a whole.
natural selection and Spencer’s “inheritance of
acquired characteristics” is a multilayered reaction
Freeman reacts to Harris in a way that he
appropriate for that time period. In 1974,
seems to want tear apart his theory in anyway he
poststructuralism was a dominant school of thought
can, essentially this is an article in which he idealizes
within Western science. Poststructuralism was in
Darwin to an extreme. While Darwin was a great
direct opposition of the three-century ruling school
academic in furthering theories such as evolution
of thought, Cartesian. Cartesianism Dualism
and natural selection there were others in the field
professed that the human mind and body are
that added to the foundation, such as Lamarckian.
separate, and that the mind is more superior than the
Freeman also tries to make the claim that the social
body because it has the potential to discover God.
context of the time had no bearing or influence on
Poststructuralism offered an alternative perspective
Darwin’s theory, yet it is clear in anthropologic
to approach the science of human variation and
history that these theories were heavily influenced
behavior, a perspective of which Freeman is clearly
by the social hierarchies of the eras. Human
passionate. A Spencerian perspective may suggest
variation, migration, and human social orders where
that the idea of social evolution can be explained not
heavily influenced by the idea of human evolution
only biologically, but theologically (Freeman
and that races evolved differently. The other factor
1974:217). This approach falls in line with the
in this reaction of Freeman is during the 1970’s
foundations of Cartesian thought. Perhaps, Harris
academia is in the middle of a post structuralism
attempted to align Spencerian perspectives of
wave of theory. Freeman is pushing back against
evolution theory with Darwin’s, during an era that
Cartesian movement that is popping up again during
increasingly opposed social evolutionary theories, in
the era; the post structuralism is a reaction to the
an effort to protect his theory of cultural
cartisan. Freeman is attempting to push against the
materialism.
influence of religious ideology in anthropology with
Darwin acknowledges human agency in the process
a scientific approach.
of procreation, "I am convinced that intentional and
occasional selection has been the main agent in the
production of our domestic races..." (Freeman
1974:221; Darwin et al 1930:51). The reason why
modern anthropologist glean towards Darwin’s
Stella Dugall
evolution theory over Spencer’s is because the
complexity Darwin permits in his analysis of the
Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of
relationship between learned and biological behavior
Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer.
(Freeman 1974:221). The theory of evolution can be
Current Anthropology 15(3):211- 237.
synthesized by the agreement that change exists in
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 9
living organisms throughout time caused by slight
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1982. Darwinism and the
or immense variations externally and/or within a
expansion of evolutionary theory. Science
population (Darwin et al. 1930 and Freeman 1974 ).
216:380-387.
Contrary to this simplistic synthesis, the division
occurred when Spencerian thought would not
distinguish between learned and hereditary
behavior. Spencerian framework included that all
variation and progression can be teleologically
Megan Hall
explained, rather than through an empirical and
geneticist perspective (Freeman 1974 and Gould
Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of
1982).
Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current
Freeman (1974) and Alland (1974) both made
Anthropology 15(3): 211-237.
arguments against the inaccurate comparison of
Spencerian and Darwinian evolutionary theories.
Freeman begins this article by stating that his aim
While post-structuralist and postmodern readers
is to explore the differences between Charles Darwin
may not disagree with Freeman’s reaction to
and Herbert Spencer when it comes to their theories
Harris’s critique of Darwin and Spencer, it may be
on evolution. He then goes on to state that he will be
difficult to follow due to its organization and overly
looking at the two views through the perspective
bias tone. Alland (1974) provides a more clear
that Marvin Harris takes on them in his book, The
response to the inaccurate comparison that his
Rise of Anthropological Theory. By starting with
opposition, Carneiro (1973), presented. Peregrine’s
Darwin’s discovery, Freeman uses Harris’ own
contemporary concern of the major divide of
words in describing what grounds Darwin was
methodology between humanity and science is
coming from when he made it by stating
grossly related to the opposing approaches of neo-
“…Darwin’s principles ‘were an application of social-
evolutionism.
science concepts to biology.’” (Freeman 211).
Throughout this article, Freeman refers to Darwin
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
as a naturalist more than once, and yet again repeats
Alland, Alexander. 1974. Why not spencer?. Journal
himself through the previous statement of Darwin’s
of Anthropological Research. 30(4):
observation through a more social-science concept
within biology. With Darwin’s theory of natural
271-280.
selection which explains the variation within a
Darwin, Charles, Alfred Russel Wallace, George
natural population, it is noted that he breaks with
Sarton, and Charles Lyell. 1930. Discovery of
Jean Baptiste Lamarck’s view of evolution, which is
the theory of natural selection. Isis 14(1):133-154.
as Darwin wrote “ ‘a tendency to progression,’ and
‘adaptations from the slow willing of animals,’”
(Freeman 213). Upon further research, Darwin’s
theory of evolution can exist in one society together,
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 10
with the stronger, more adaptable traits being
and social evolution of the species relied on
passed on. Freeman makes it seem as though when it
inheriting certain characteristics over others. This
comes to Lamarck’s theory, the species in question
then in turn provided an evolutionary theory to not
progresses on a slower scale, causing adaptation to
only animals, but humans as well.
progress at a slower rate.
When discussing Herbert Spencer’s theory of
evolution, Freeman refers to him as being a NeoLamarckian, pointing out that Spencer leaned more
Sophie Minnig
towards his ideas. He states that in his research
Spencer theorizes that organic forms had
Freeman, Derek. 1974. The Evolutionary Theories
“progressive modifications” that could be inherited.
of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer.
Through this, the theory of a slower evolution in a
Current Anthropology 15(3):211-237.
society is once again brought up. The differences
between Darwin and Spencer are then mentioned by
Freeman (1974) attempts to correct
Freeman, by means of comparison within their
misconceptions of Darwin and his theories of natural
theories. He states that Darwin’s theory of evolution
selection. He declares it necessary for
was highly scientific, based on factual evidence. On
anthropologists to have an accurate understanding
the other hand, Spencer’s theory of evolution rested
of natural selection and other biological theories laid
on a more metaphysical supposition to the idea that
out by Darwin, and highlights the importance of
evolutionary changes were due to a ‘power’ that was
understanding foundational research that shaped
‘unknown and unknowable.’ The evolution of a
contemporary anthropological ideologies. As Carl
species was caused by characteristics inherited from
Jay Bajema says in his comments about Freeman’s
generation to generation, which in turn were
paper, “the resurgence of interest in evolutionary
modified within human nature. Freeman than brings
theories among anthropologists makes Freeman’s
up the point that though Darwin and Spencer’s
paper very timely,” (Bajema 1974:221). This
theories differ in a number of ways, they are still
resurgence is surely a byproduct of the post-
thought of as being ‘indistinguishable’ by some
structuralist movement, which held prominence in
scholars. It is up to the academic community to see
the 1970s. Freeman’s reaction to Harris – a known
the differences in the theories if they are to study
structuralist – is clearly an attempt discredit Harris’
evolution and natural selection. By providing these
ideologies, but also a blatant reaction to structuralist
two theories, readers are not only exposed to
thought.
Darwin and Spencer, but Lamarck’s ideas as well to
Post-structuralism emphasizes historical context
see where Spencer was coming from. Not only does
and the importance of understanding the
this article provide differences between the two ways
progression of knowledge, utilizing such historical
of thought, but Spencer does bring up the evolution
context to better deconstruct cultural and societal
of Homo sapiens as well, by stating that the mental
systems. Harris acknowledged fixed stages of
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 11
progression and structure, which he assumed to be
separation of the spiritual and physical world.
cross-culturally and cross-temporally applicable.
Descartes’ publication surely opened up the
Freeman’s emphasis on the importance of
possibility to further examine biological sciences and
understanding Darwin, as he existed in his time is a
biological evolution. Another person Freeman could
post-structural analysis of Darwinism and natural
have considered in analyzing the development of
selection. Freeman’s critique largely draws from
Darwin’s natural selection is James Hutton. Hutton
direct quotes by Darwin, but as Harris says in his
published Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge
reaction to this paper, Freeman fails to contextualize
in 1794 and discusses biological evolution and
many of those excerpts, leaving Freeman’s argument
natural selection. Though Hutton and Descartes
lacking in substantial evidence.
may not have directly influenced Darwin, the fact
Freeman’s glorification of Darwin as pure
that these investigations were being published prior
naturalist with original thought fails to give credit
to Darwin seems to be important in considering
to researchers who came before him and likely
historical context.
influenced his development of natural selection and
publication of On the Origin of Species. Freeman
REFERENCES
briefly mentions Alfred Wallace and his working
Descartes, René. 1647. The Description of the Human
with Darwin, but Harris – in his reaction to
Body.
Freeman’s paper – makes clear that Wallace outlined
the theory of natural selection prior to Darwin. It is
Hutton, James. 1794. Investigation of the Principles of
also worth mentioning that in 1858, one year before
Knowledge. Thoemmes Press.
the publication of On the Origin of Species, Darwin
and Wallace co-authored a paper discussing species
Darwin, Charles and Alfred Wallace. 1858. On the
variation and natural selection, a fact that Freeman
Tendency of Species to form Varieties
does not acknowledge in his paper.
and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species
Freeman’s differentiation between Spencer, Darwin,
by Natural Means of Selection. Proceedings of the
and Lamarck is critical as they do represent different
Linnean Society 3:45-62.
approaches in explaining biological evolution.
Freeman’s critique of Spencer also falls in line with
his critique of Harris, as both Spencer and Harris are
commonly criticized for widely applying limited
Hailie Norman
theories in explaining human nature, culture, and
society. However, Freeman further neglects to
discuss other theories that came before Spencer,
Lamarck, and Darwin, which may have sparked their
interests in biological evolution. Cartesian Dualism
Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of
Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current
Anthropology 15(3):211237.
was a major concept in the 16th century, declaring a
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 12
Freeman begins by stating his aim for
(that cells in an organism can produce particles of
comparing “crucial differences” between Darwinian
gemmules which congregate in the gonads and cause
and Spencerian theories. Freeman then responds to
variation), and formed his theory based on the
Marvin Harris’s notion that the theories of Charles
scientific method. Then Freeman notes that, after
Darwin and Herbert Spencer create “a single law of
Darwin’s theories were published he gained a
evolution”, or “evolutionary synthesis” by stating the
following of Neo-Darwinians that believed that
history behind the discovery of Natural Selection by
Natural Selection was the cause to evolution, and
Darwin. Freeman began with Darwin’s history as a
that there were Neo-Lamarckians who believed
well-known Naturalist who went abroad the H.M.S
Lamarck’s theory that evolution occurred through
Beagle to the Galapagos islands. While on this
inheritance of acquired characteristics. Freeman
expedition Darwin concluded that the decent with
states that Herbert Spencer was among the Neo-
modification was present among the Archipelago.
Lamarckians. Then, Freeman explains Herbert
Once Darwin was back in England he developed the
Spencer’s history. Spencer believed in Lamarckian
theory of transmutation of species, but was unable to
evolution, deductive reasoning, and theorized that
explain it until he read Malthus’s essay On the
evolution was due to an outside “power.”
Principle of Population. Freeman states that from this
essay Darwin gained that populations increase by a
mathematical ratio. From this Darwin discovered
natural selection, which is that there is that
organisms most suited to their environments will
live longer enabling them to produce more offspring,
which will eventually lead to evolution. Freeman
notes that Darwin thought of Natural Selection as
the main cause in evolution. This section on
Darwin’s history explained that Marvin Harris
underestimated Darwin by stating that Darwin got
the theory of natural selection solely from Malthus’s
essay.
Freeman concludes by stating that
understanding the differences between Darwinian
and Spencerian evolution is important to
anthropology because it explains that in culture
there is learned behavior and symbolic systems that
are factors in human evolution and history. Natural
selection is the basis for cultural understanding
because it is unique and does not occur in
predetermined ways. Also, the theory of Natural
Selection opposes the view of generic human nature.
Freeman notes that, while Darwin believed in
Natural selection as the guiding force of evolution,
Spencer believed in Lamarckian evolution and that
In response to Harris’s claim that Darwin’s
and Spencer’s theories of evolution synthesize into a
single law of evolution. Freeman then goes into
farther detail of Darwin’s history. Darwin was a
Naturalist, thought over his theory for decades
before publishing, broke away from Lamarckian
ideas of the inheritance of acquired characteristics,
concluded that variation occurs due to pangenesis
systems went from simple to complex in a way that
was controlled by an outside power.
In the comments to this article Marvin Harris states
that pangenesis is a Lamarckian idea. Then Harris
further counters Freeman by stating that Darwin
only published because Wallace, who had discovered
the theory of Natural Selection solely through
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 13
reading Malthus’s On the Principle of Population, was
favored the use of genetics (Gould 1982:382). Gould
about to publish his own findings.
goes on to contextualize the debate of what he refers
to as the Darwinian core, which focuses on Darwin’s
work as the elements of evolution theory from 1940
to the 1950s. While in 1982, Gould sites that the
evolution theory of the modern synthesis was
Paula Ochoa
incorrect and incomplete, Ernst Mayr, also wrote
about the gaps that filled the evolution theory and in
Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of
particular hypothesized that it would be a challenge
Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current
for scholars in light of the great controversy (Mayr
Anthropology 15(3): 211-237.
1984: 154). Mayr argues that two of the competing
In this article, Freeman examines Charles Darwin’s
paradigms of the time were between the
and Herbert Spencer’s evolutionary perspectives and
“experimental-mathematical geneticists” and the
certainly to draw clear distinction of a synthesis
“naturalists-systematists” (Mayr 1984:145).
(211). Freeman critiques Marvin Harris’s revival of
According to Mayr, experimental-mathematical
“Spencerism,” in particular to ideas presented in The
geneticists, centralized their study on the gene, an
Rise of Anthropological Theory (1968). Freeman
approach termed as reductionists (Mayr 1984:145).
contends that Spencer’s foundation of Lamarck’s
As opposed to Naturalists-systematists, which
Fourth law, which refers to the inheritance of
focused on examination of distinct populations
acquired characters is faulty, so they must be
(Mayr 1984: 145). These diverging views challenged
acknowledged as so. That is that Darwin’s theory of
each other and created their own schools of thought
natural selection should not be referred to similarly
and connect to Peregrine’s et al (2012) discussion
as Spencer’s, as Freeman argues they are distinct
about anthropologists failed attempts to understand
(218). Freeman proposes that Charles Darwin’s
the distinct methods and paradigms present in the
natural selection theory of evolution was scientific
discipline. Freeman’s article engages in the
because Darwin’s theory contained a hypothesis,
discussion of evolution theory and how it gave rise,
empirical evidence, prolonged analysis, and
and provides an example of the divide between
replicable results (215). As opposed to Spencer, who
paradigms still present in anthropology.
Freeman argues is a proponent of social human
Works Cited
evolution, and the progression of species (221).
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1982. Darwin and the expansion
Weismann’s discovery of the germ-plasm, Freeman
of evolution theory. Science. 216: 380-387.
contends strongly debunked Spencer’s argument of
Mayr, Ernst. 1984. What is Darwinism today?
acquired characters (216). The evolutionary
Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of
perspective and the rise of genetics in anthropology
Science Association 2:145-156.
gained greater momentum with the rediscovery of
Gregors Mendel’s studies of peas, which Stephan B.
Gould notes created the modern synthesis that
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 14
approach, Darwin proposed “natural selection”, in
which individuals with favorable traits are more
likely to survive and reproduce. This was what
Sarah Pardee
Darwin considered to be to predominant reason for
Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of
modifications in species. What he could not figure
Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current
out, however, was the way in which these new traits
Anthropology 15(3):211-237.
were inherited, a process that was later uncovered
by Weissman. Contrary to natural selection, Spencer
Freeman’s main goal of his article was to
clung to Lamarck and even proposed that evolution
explain the differences between the theories
had a direction, that progress was unavoidable.
proposed by Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer.
Darwin did not agree with the idea that change had
According to Freeman, the two have often been
a force behind it or that progress was necessary.
erroneously lumped together to form an
Spencer’s theory of evolution was largely discounted
“evolutionary synthesis”, as advocated by Marvin
by the scientific community after the Weissman’s
Harris. However, according to Freeman, if the
discoveries.
intricacies and influences of both theories are
It is fairly evident from his writing that Freeman
carefully examined, it is readily apparent that this
has a bias toward Darwin. While this is, in part,
could not be further from the truth. He goes on to
understandable due to the fact that we now know
explain the many incorrect assertions put forth by
that natural selection is in fact an agent of change,
Harris.
Freeman’s bias does skew a few facts, as pointed out
One of these assertions was that Darwin, while on
in the comments section. While many of the writers
his journey on the Beagle, was heavily, and directly,
applaud Freeman for bringing this topic to the
influenced by the work of Malthus. While this
forefront, several disagree with his argument and
influence has been academically proven, it is also
representation of Spencer. It is repeated several
known that it was more of a latent inspiration rather
times that Freeman made it look as if Spencer
than direct, as Harris asserts. The main thing that
stubbornly stood by his theories despite mounting
Darwin took away from his study of Malthus was
evidence against them. On the contrary, Spencer,
the ratio in which subsistence and human
according to Robert Carneiro, did change his
populations increase. Darwin applied this theory to
theories over time and was not against natural
animal populations in order to explain how weaker
selection. He goes on to point out that Freeman
individual, or those less fitted to changing
made Spencer look extremely abstract while
conditions, do not survive and reproduce nearly as
portraying Darwin as strictly scientific. This is
well.
echoed by Marvin Harris who claims that Darwin’s
Spencer was, in his earlier years, a staunch believer
theory of pangenesis was just as speculative as
in Lamarckian evolution, which Darwin strongly
Freeman was accusing Spencer of being.
disagreed with. Rather than a “use it or lose it”
Another main point that was repeated several times
was that Darwin and Spencer’s theories were not as
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 15
mutually exclusive as Freeman would have us
However, one very important key concept
believe. Attention is also drawn to the fact that
that was brushed over by Freeman is the terming of
Spencer was the first to use the phrase “survival of
the phrase “survival of the fittest,” which was coined
the fittest”. This idea of struggle was also used often
by Spencer and later adopted by Darwin when
by Darwin to describe competition. It should also be
defining natural selection (Freeman: 222). At the
noted that Darwin himself said “The conclusions I
same time, although Freeman mentions a lot of big
am led to are not widely different from his; though
names in his paper, he could have mad a better
the means of change are wholly so” (F. Darwin
attempt at including George Wallace a bit more.
1903:41). While Spencer and Darwin’s theories
Freeman also mention the unnecessary act of
definitely have their distinctions, predominantly in
lumping together the evolutionary theories of
that Spencer drew from Lamarck and Darwin did
Darwin and Spencer considering that they are
not, they perhaps were not nearly as contentious as
unrelated in their origins.
Freeman has represented.
Additionally, Freeman makes the continued
reference of Darwin being a “naturalist” above all
and was no follower of Lamarck. For Darwin,
Natural Selection had given rise to “all the more
Adreanna Rodriguez
important modifications of structure,” where Spencer
was more concerned with his ideas of society being
Freeman, Derek. 1974. The Evolutionary Theories
of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current
Anthropology 15(3):211- 237.
like an organism.
When putting the article into perspective,
the first thing that comes to mind is the post
structuralist movement of the 1970’s. Having been
written in 1974, Freeman’s piece can be seen as
The evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin and
pushing back against Cartesianism, which at the
Herbert Spencer
time was being transitioned out. Overall, one can
Derek Freeman’s piece, The Evolutionary
“takeaway” from Freeman’s historical account of
Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer
these two Big Thinkers it is that we should be well
discusses some of the main differing views between
versed in Darwinism.
Darwin and Spencer’s evolutionary theories,
however it is obvious that he is weighing heavily in
favor of Charles Darwin. The evolutionary concepts
of Lamarck are also heavily referenced by Freeman
and can be seen as prime importance for his paper,
David Rodriguez
specifically when referencing species theory and
“progress.”
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 16
Freeman, Derek. 1974. The evolutionary theories of
other contributors surround (1) Darwin and
Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current
Spencer’s definitions of “evolution” and “progress,”
Anthropology 15(3):211-237.
(2) debate on the validity and reach of Spencer’s
evolution as compared to Darwin’s, and (3) if these
Derek Freeman digs into Darwin’s steps to
two theories of evolution are in
discovery and thought processes along the way in an
opposition/permanently divided due to non-
effort to differentiate his contributions to our
commensurable differences in methodology.
contemporary ideas of “evolution” as separate from
the contributions of Spencer. Specifically, Freeman’s
goal is to reassure us that evolutionary thought from
the 1830’s does support the “evolutionary synthesis,”
that Harris’ Rise of Anthropological Theory would have
us believe. In fact, Freeman claims that Harris’
notion of inevitable evolutionary synthesis (between
Darwin and Spencer) is “unwarranted” due to their
disparate definitions of “progress,” beliefs on the
“inevitability” of progress or whether it even exists,
and perhaps most importantly, the mechanisms of
change that creates this difference in phenotype or
character in the first place.
It’s essential to point out, as Carl Bajema highlights,
that different definitions of progress led to different
definitions of evolution. Darwin saw progress as “no
invariable rule” while Spencer followed a more
Lamarckian perspective in that progress is carried
out by a metaphysical force of nature that is
“unknowable.” Similarly, Spencer defined evolution
as a change in a particular direction, change of
simple into complex (homogeneous into
heterogeneous). Darwin essentially considered
evolution to be any hereditary change occurring
within a species over time (descent with
modification) regardless of the direction of change.
The extent to which Darwin’s inspiration for
Dobzahnsky expresses that Culture, now perhaps
“natural selection” came from Malthus’ work
the most powerful proponent in evolution, is
remains a point of contention. Freeman explains that
acquired and transmitted not through genes but
Malthus’ influence served solely as “maieutic
through symbol formation and symbolic language;
stimulus” while both Harris and Gillispie reiterate
yet this non-genetic transmission does indeed have a
Darwin’s reliance on social theory as the foundation
genetic, natural selective, foundation. Darwin has
of his realization for mechanisms through which
expressed this belief time and again, but Freeman
evolution functions. Specifically, Gillispie states that
fails to realize that Spencer also expands on this
the theories and language explaining political
later in his career. According to Carneiro, Spencer’s
economy (profit, increments, persistence,
Principles of Sociology shows how cross-cultural
inheritance, saving, utility, and progress through
awareness and analysis led to changes in his own
competition) in An Essay on the Principle of Population
“stubborn” beliefs, like that of his a priori
greatly affected Darwin’s ability to realize and
“inheritance of acquired character” theory which is
communicate the mechanisms of natural selection.
unfortunately still exploited in efforts to disprove
However, sources of inspiration aside, the main ideas
Spencer’s theories from biology to the social
at issue here between the Freeman, Harris, and the
sciences.
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 17
Lastly, it is invaluable to show that no matter how
2004). Freeman believes that Harris imprecise in his
empirical Darwin’s studies are defined to have been,
analysis, and that natural selection was theorized by
regardless of Harris’ argument that there was no
Darwin “prior to his reading of Malthus” (Freeman
uninterrupted observation of speciation under the
1974: 213). To this point, Ernst Mayr, a figurehead
effect of natural selection, and however deductively
in modern evolutionary synthesis, writes to affirm
philosophical and rhetorical Spencer’s “cosmic”
Freeman’s analysis that Darwin did not take the idea
evolution is seen (even by Darwin himself) there was
of natural selection from Malthus and rather only
some level cooperation, evidenced by the borrowing
took his ideas on the mathematics for exponential
of expressions like “survival of the fittest.”
growth of populations to bolster only one aspect of
natural selection theory (Freeman 1974: 227).
Further, Freeman writes of his
disagreement to Harris’ notion of the congruency of
Darwin and Spencer’s work into a singular
Saliem Shehadeh
evolutionary synthesis. Freeman writes that Darwin
Freeman, Derek. 1974. The Evolutionary Theories
of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current
Anthropology 15(3):211- 237.
and Spencer come from two very different
perspectives on evolution and scientific mechanisms.
Freeman writes that while Darwin was a natural
scientist, used the scientific method, and broke away
with Lamarckian theories of evolution, Spencer, on
In this article Freeman lays out and clarifies
what he deemed common misconceptions and
inaccuracies of Darwin and Spencer within Marvin
Harris’ The Rise of Anthropological Theory (1968).
Freeman notes that Harris attributes Darwin’s
theories of natural selection to Malthus’
mathematical theories on population growth, and
that it’s wider framing “were an application of social
science concepts to biology” (Freeman 1974: 211).
As the National Center for Science Education page
on evolution writes, natural selection occurs when
variation in traits in a population has differing
advantages in environmental conditions and will
lead to differential reproduction and heredity of
traits, over time, the more advantageous trait will be
more common in the population; this is but one of
the 4 mechanisms of evolution (Natural Selection
the other hand, was a philosopher with hats in many
subjects, his work was not rooted in empirical
methods, and he was a firm supporter of Lamarckian
theories. Lamarckian theory dictates that an
organism can inherent characteristics that their
parents’ have acquired over their lifetimes; Darwin
supported Lamarck’s theory on ‘use and disuse
inheritance’ and rejected the other aspects.
Interestingly for evolutionary studies, while
Lamarck’s theories have been replaced with
Mendelian theory, there is an ongoing debate on
whether the field of epigenetics is Lamarckian
theory viewed with a new light. Further, Freeman
argues that the Darwin’s and Spencer’s theories
differ in their theorizations on the relationship
between development, evolution and complexity to
which Darwin argued there is no law of development
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 18
and Spencer argued this relationship is the evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/articl
of an organism from simple to complex. For these
e/evo_25, accessed September 2, 2016
reasons, Freeman finds it incorrect for Harris to
presume a singular evolutionary synthesis among
Darwin and Spencer.
This, however, is a much heated debate in
Philip Whitfield
evolutionary studies. Robert Carneiro, a prominent
social evolutionist, wholly disagrees with Freeman,
Freeman, Derek, Carl Jay Bajema, John Blacking,
he contends that Spencer was an astute thinker and
Robert L. Carneiro, U. M. Cowgill, Santiago
scientist whose analysis is corroborated by
Genovés, Charles C. Gillispie, et al. 1974. The
contemporary evolutionary science, and that it is in
evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin and
fact Darwin who employs metaphysics in his science
Herbert Spencer [and comments and replies]
by attributing evolution in some part to his notion of
Current Anthropology 15(3): 211-237.
a Creator (Freeman 1974: 223). Michael Ghiselin, a
noted philosopher of biological evolution, widely
Critical Summary #2
agrees with Freeman but with the one clarification
Derek Freeman wrote this article to combat the
that Darwin’s reading of Malthus was indeed one in
growing interest at the time in Herbert Spencer and
which connections were made between the social and
the idea, advanced by Marvin Harris in The Rise of
biological sciences. Marvin Harris, to whom
Anthropological Theory, that there was an
Freeman addressed this article, responds that it is
Freeman who has misread and misinterpreted much
of Darwin’s and Spencer’s writings on their positons
of natural selection, Malthus, and Lamarck; and that
Freeman’s points stem from a “post-Darwinian
development” and does not analyze their positions in
their totality. (Freeman 1974: 225).
Reference Page:
Freeman, Derek. 1974. The Evolutionary Theories
of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Current
Anthropology 15(3):211- 237.
Natural Selection. 2004. Natural Selection. University
“evolutionary synthesis” between the theories of
Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer (Freeman
1974: 211). Freeman begins by outlining Darwin’s
original inspirations for the idea of natural selection.
He refutes Harris’ position that Darwin got his idea
originally from Malthus and was borrowing a theory
from the social sciences and applying it to biology.
Freeman then moves on to invalidate Harris’ belief
in the inevitable fusion of 19th century evolutionary
theory. He quotes Darwin distancing himself from
the Lamarckian view of the biological tendency
towards progress due to the inheritance of acquired
traits on a number of occasions. He notes that
of California Museum of Paleontology & National
according to Darwinism natural selection is the main
Center for Science Education.
driver of evolution. He then ties Spencer firmly to
the Lamarckian belief in the primary importance in
evolution of the inheritance of traits acquired
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 19
through the conscious will of individuals. In this way
ongoing debate about the importance of the various
he highlights the disparities between Darwin and
factors that influence evolution, including
Spencer’s respective theories. After this Freeman
epigenetics, with some scientists now arguing for a
describes the downfall of Lamarkian-influenced
new evolutionary synthesis, and that debate will
social theories such as Spencerism with the
likely never cease (Jablonka and Lamb 2008).
discovery in cytology of the non-heritability of
acquired traits. He goes on to describe more areas
References:
where Spencer and Darwin were at odds before
Bowler, J Peter. 2003. Evolution: The history of an
closing with his greatest concerns when it comes to
idea. 3rd edition. Berkeley, CA. University of
confusing Darwinism with “obsolete” ideas of
California Press
Spencer (1974: 221).
Harris, Marvin 1968. The rise of anthropological
Freeman’s section is followed by comments from a
theory. London. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
number of different academics expressing praise,
Jablonka, Eva and Marion J. Lamb. 2008. Soft
offering more context, pointing out oversights or
inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis.
manipulations in the argument, and suggesting
Genetics and Molecular Biology. 31(2): 389-395.
additional ways Freeman is right. Marvin Harris
also replies, saying that even though there are
distinctions between Darwin and Spencer, Freeman
is underestimating the similarities. Freeman ends
the article with a final reply to the comments’
authors and a defense of his viewpoint.
Lamarkian-influenced ideas of social evolution were
prevalent throughout the western world in the 19th
and early 20th centuries. These ideas can be traced to
many controversial and detrimental practices
(Bowler 2003). For followers of the Darwinian idea
of the primacy of natural selection in evolution such
as Freeman someone who advances ideas based on
the importance of acquired traits, such as Marvin
Harris’ with cultural materialism could be seen to
do, is a dangerous threat to the soundness of the
widely-accepted theory. However, the comments
included in the article point to a much more
complicated picture than Freeman paints. As Marvin
Harris notes Darwin himself did not have a full
understanding of evolution, and he believed things
we now know to be false. In truth there is an
A722: Seminar in Biological Anthropology – 7 September 2016
pg. 20