Spencer insisted on regarding the State as an organism, although his conclusions could not be supported by the facts of the case. Firstly, he found only-resemblance or similarity between the State and the organism, but could not prove that they are identical in nature. Analogy is no proof. Secondly, the main weakness is that even the resemblance is not complete.
Spencer was himself forced to point out two chief differences between them. Natural organism is “concrete,” while the State is ‘discrete’ in structure, and that there is no one centre of consciousness in the State This lack of consciousness and will on the part of the cells of the animal organism, and its presence in the human individuals is one of the instances where the analogy breaks down.
We may, therefore, conclude that by insisting upon the identity or likeness of the State and the organism which he failed to prove in all respects, Spencer has, as Barker puts it. “Hid his head in the sands of metaphor”.