The Ethologists’ UnpaidDebtsto Spencerand Sumner 271ShermerVersusSpencerand Sumner
Similarly,sciencejournalistColinTudgejeersthat“Spencer’s socialDarwinismwas
wrong,” “misguided,” “foul” and definitelythe biggestof the “falsestarts” in the fieldof
studyingthe extentto whichhuman“behaviorhas evolvedby naturalselection.. .”
Tudgethengoeson to congratulatemodernevolutionarypsychologyfor beinga com-
pleterepudiationof anythingSpencermighthavedreamtup. “It is amazing,” he pouts,
“... howmanymoderncriticsof evolutionarybiologyapparentlyconflateit withSpen-
cer’s socialDarwinism.. .” Thereuponsuchcritics“manageto concludethata society
thatacknowledgesthe geneticrootsof behavioris ipsofactored in toothandclawand
can haveno respectfor humanindividualityandfreedom.” Morethananything,Tudge
opines,modernsociobiology“needsto showthatit has shakenoff its... crude,nine-
teenth-centuryforaysof socialDarwinism.” Andhenceforth“the peoplewhochooseto
rejectthe notionsof evolutionarypsychologyout of hand—convincedthatDarwinism
equalsfascismand that’s an end of it—mustattendto theirowneducation.”^29
Onceagainwe comeacrossan author’s flakyaccusationthatSpencerexhibited“no
respectfor humanindividualityandfreedom.” ThisdemonstratesthatTudgeeitherhas
not readSpencer’s politicalwritings,or, havingreadthem,did not do so for the purpose
of comprehension.Contemporarysociobiologydoeshaveclearrootsin the writingsof
putativesocialDarwinistslike Spencerand especiallySumner.Additionally,evolutionary
psychologistsactuallyconcernedaboutthe truthwouldadmitthis andcorrectthe pub-
lic’s misconceptionsaboutwhatSpencerandSumnermeant.It is suchevolutionary
psychologypopularizersas Tudge,acceptingandthencirculatingsuchmisconceptions,
whoreally“mustattendto theirowneducation.”
SciencehistorianandSkepticmagazinepublisherMichaelShermerdishesout similar
injustices,thoughin a lesssevereform.Shermerfollowsin the traditionfoundedby
Spencerand WilliamGrahamSumnerin applyinghis ownera’s knowledgeaboutnatural
selectionto gaininginsightintothe socialsciences.Wereit the casethatanyonewho
appliedevolutionarytheoriesto the socialsciencescountedas a socialDarwinist,that
wouldplaceShermerin the socialDarwinistcampas well.In fact,Shermer’s unfairnessis
twofold,as he is bothan evolutionarypsychologistandbionomicstheoristat the same
time—not a commoncombination.As Spenceranticipatedthe theoriesof bionomics,and
bothSpencerandSumnerlaidthe groundworkfor evolutionarypsychology,it follows
thatShermer’s has two majorintellectualdebtsto Spencer.But,as withpracticallyevery-
one else I taketo taskin this chapter,Shermerspurnsrecognitionof Spencer’s innovative
spirit.
Shermerprefersto referto his ideologyasevolutionaryeconomics, whichhe definesas
“the studyof the economyas an evolvingcomplexadaptivesystemgroundedin human
naturethatevolvedfunctionaladaptationsto survivalas a socialprimatespecies.. .” He
goeson that“ecologiesandeconomiesareComplexAdaptiveSystems(CAS):systemsin
whichindividualparticles,parts,or agentsinteract,processinformation,learn,and adapt
theirbehaviorto changingconditions” (emphasisShermer’s). Thathas a ringof familiar-
ity. Fromthe beginningof this chapter,we haveknownthatSpencerrecognizedecono-
miesas complexadaptivesystems.AndSumnernoticedthat the sameprincipleappliesto
societiesthatadoptcustomsin responseto the geographicand otherenvironmentalcon-
ditions.Further,Sumnernoticedthat the natural-selectionaspectof the adoptionof these
customswasparticularlyvisiblein foragersocietiesmuchlikethoseof the Paleolithic
period.
But in a bookthatarguesfrompremisesbasedon bothbionomicsandevolutionary
psychology,The Mindof the Market, Shermerregurgitatesthe sameold clichés about
Spencerextollinga ruthlesssocialDarwinism.The sciencehistorian’s workblathersthat