This paper describes the main ideas of J.Turner related to his concept of Spencer selection. In his concept, he made an attempt to formulate the basic principles of Spencer selection, and also provided an argument showing how H.Spencer's evolutionary approach, contrary to popular belief, can be relevant for sociology today. J.Turner believes that the main driving forces of human evolution strengthened (or introduced) certain cognitive, motivational and behavioural tendencies, and people used these tendencies purposefully to create a certain culture and social structure. H.Spencer's explanation does not directly ignore sociological explanations of the dynamics and evolution of social systems, unlike simple modern evolutionary explanations of institutionalisation in terms of evolving behavioural tendencies based on the concept of natural (Darwinian) selection. The latter are used in evolutionary psychology and sociobiology based on implicit assumptions about the automatic nature of the process of transforming neurological reactions and behavioural tendencies into social structures and institutions. The basis of Spencerian selection is formed by a certain set of needs of people (individual level) and social differentiation of institutional organisation (reproduction, regulation, production and distribution) as the population grows (societal level), as well as changes caused by war with their specific dynamics. Thus, Darwinian ideas about the natural selection of individual organisms can be counted as sufficient for understanding and explantion of the evolution and dynamics of the layers of sociocultural phenomena traditionally studied by sociologists. For this purpose, it is necessary to turn to a special type of selection of superorganisms, formulated by H.Spencer in his works at the dawn of the formation of sociology itself as a separate science. In addition, in itself, such a combination of sociological and biological models of social processes is promising for the development of individual multidisciplinary research programmes that can subsequently significantly strengthen and enrich the social sciences as a whole.

Herbert Spencer, Jonathan Turner, evolutionary sociology, natural selection, needs, environmental adaptation, functionalism

1. Zdravomyslov A. G. Pole sociologii v sovremennom mire [The field of sociology in the modern world]. Ed. by N. I. Lapina. Moscow, Logos, 2010: 410 (in Russ.).
2. Kravchenko S. A. Metamorphoses: Essence, increasingly complex types, place in sociology of knowledge. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 2017: 10: 3–14 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.7868/S0132162517100014
3. Kravchenko S. A. Development of the subject of sociology: From monodisciplinarity to inter- and post-disciplinarity. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 2020: 3: 16–26. (in Russ.). DOI: 10.31857/S013216250008794-6
4. Kravchenko S. A. Uslozhnyayushchiesya metamorfozy: sociologicheskie poiski otvetov na vyzovy [Complicated metamorphoses: Sociological searches for answers to challenges]. Moscow, Znanie-sila, 2019: 236 (in Russ.).
5. Spenser G. Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative. Trans. from Engl. by N. A. Rubakina. Vol. 1. Minsk, Sovremen. literator. 1999. Accessed 04.04.2018. URL: http://lib.ru/FILOSOF/SPENSER/opyty1.txt (in Russ.).
6. Spenser G. Essays: Scientific, Political, and Speculative. Trans. from Engl. by N. A. Rubakina. Vol. 3. Minsk, Sovremen. literator, 1999. Accessed 04.04.2018. URL: http://lib.ru/FILOSOF/SPENSER/spenser3.txt (in Russ.).
7. Spenser G. Foundations of Sociology / Transl. from English: in 2 vols. St. Petersburg, 1898: 1172 (in Russ.).
8. Cherezova K. V., Serikov A. E. Herbert Spencer's social evolutionism and Darwinism. Vestnik Samarskoy gumanitarnoy akademii. Seriya “Filosofiya. Filologiya”, 2014: 16 (2): 99–115 (in Russ.).
9. Shuvalov V. I. The Theory of the historical process in the context of views of Herbert Spencer. Izvestiya PGPU im. V.G. Belinskogo, 2012: 27: 1140–1143 (in Russ.).
10. Barbalet J. M. Emotion, social theory and social structure: A macrosociological approach. Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2001: 224.
11. Berry J. W. Ecological perspective on human behaviour. Socio-economic environment and human psychology. Ed. by A. Üskül, S. Oishi. Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2018: 3–32.
12. Buss D. M., von Hippel W. Psychological barriers to evolutionary psychology: Ideological bias and coalitional adaptations. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 2018: 6(1): 148–158. DOI: 10.1037/arc0000049
13. Fincher C. L., Thornhill R. Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: The cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2012: 35 (2): 61–79. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X11000021
14. Layton R. Why social scientists don’t like Darwin and what can be done about it. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 2010: 8(2): 139–152.
15. Leonard T. C. Origins of the myth of social Darwinism: The ambiguous legacy of Richard Hofstadter’s social Darwinism in American thought. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2009: 71(1): 37–51.
16. Meloni M. The transcendence of the social: Durkheim, Weismann, and the purification of sociology. Frontiers in Sociology, 2016: 1(11): 1–13. DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2016.00011
17. Offer J. Herbert Spencer and social theory. London, United Kingdom, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010: 382.
18. Oishi S., Komiya A. Natural disaster risk and collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2017: 48 (8): 1263–1270.
19. Parsons T. Evolutionary universals in society. American Sociological Review, 1964: 29: 339–357. DOI: 10.1177/0022022117719496
20. Perri 6. What is there to feel? A neo-Durkheimian theory of the emotions. European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, 2002: 5(3): 263–290.
21. Schutt R. K., Turner J. H. Biology and American sociology, part I: The rise of evolutionary thinking, its rejection, and potential resurrection. The American Sociologist, 2019: 50(3): 356–377. DOI: 10.1007/s12108-019-9403-y
22. Spencer H. An autobiography (2 vol.). London, United Kingdom, Watts & Co, 1924: 613.
23. Spencer H. First principles. London, United Kingdom, Williams and Norgate, 1862: 559.
24. Spencer H. Social statics. London, United Kingdom, John Chapman, 1851: 476.
25. Spencer H. The principles of biology. London, United Kingdom, Williams and Norgate, 1864: 1079.
26. Takács K. Discounting of evolutionary explanations in sociology textbooks and curricula. Frontiers in Sociology, 2018: 3 (24): 1–14. DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2018.00024
27. Turchin P., Currie T. E., Turner E. A. L., Gavrilets S. War, space, and the evolution of Old World complex societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2013: 110 (41): 16384–16389. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1308825110
28. Turner J. H. Durkheim’s and Spencer’s principles of social organization: A theoretical note. Sociological Perspectives, 1984: 27 (1): 21–32.
29. Turner J. H. Herbert Spencer: A renewed appreciation. Beverly Hills, CA, Sage, 1985: 160.
30. Turner J. H. Macrodynamics: Toward a theory on the organization of human populations. New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 1985: 242.
31. Turner J. H. Theoretical principles of sociology (Vol. 1). Macrodynamics. New York, NY, Springer, 2010: 512.
32. Turner J. H., Schutt R. K., Keshavan M. S. Biology and American sociology, part II: Developing a unique evolutionary sociology. The American Sociologist, 2020: 51 (4): 470–505. DOI: 10.1007/s12108-020-09448-y
33. van de Vliert E. Human cultures as niche constructions within the solar system. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2016: 47 (1): 21–27.
34. van Lange P. A. M., Rinderu M. I., Bushman B. J. Aggression and violence around the world: A model of Climate, Aggression, and Self-control in Humans (CLASH). Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2017: 40 (75): 1–12. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X16000406
35. Wilson E. O. Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1975: 720.