We may briefly describe the defects of the Organic theory of the State as presented by Spencer and other advocates of this theory. Individuals are not like the cells in a natural organism. Every individual has a will and consciousness of his own, but the cells do not possess them.
“When we speak of an organism we mean (1) a living structure composed of parts different in kind (1) that those parts by reason of the difference are complementary to one another mutually dependent (3) that the health or the whole consequently depends on the healthy discharge ot each parts of its own proper function The stale is, not an organism, but ii is like an organism It is not an organism because it is not a physical structure It is a mental structure a union of different minds in a common purpose But this mental structure is like an organism, because…the attainment of the common purpose depends on the discharge of reciprocal functions by the different parts,” Ernst Barker, Political Thought in England from Spencer to Today.
Man possesses mind, but the cells do not. In this respect there is no resemblance between an animal body and the State or society. As Spencer has himself point to out, the former is a ‘concrete’ whole, while the latter is a ‘discrete’ one.
1. An individual has a life of his own and can exist without the State, but the cell or any other part of an animal body or plant cannot exist at all if it is cut off from the body If it is said that there are some plants whose small parts, if cut off and planted once again, can grow and become full plants, even then the analogy breaks down, because if the individuals are separated from the State, they may not develop into a new State.
2. The State is not an organism in the physical sense. If we regard the State as consisting of the individuals, then each one of them is himself an organism. In this case the State is a strange monster; it is an organism consisting of innumerable organisms. If we regard the State as consisting of various associations, then it is one among many organisms.
3. Unlike the living organisms, the State has no process of birth, growth, decay and death. The State does not grow; it changes. An organism comes into existence by the union of two organisms, male and female, but a State is not born in this manner. All organisms grow from within and their growth cannot be influenced much by external environment. But the State does not grow due to some internal, unconscious and natural forces. It changes by the conscious efforts of its members and due to the needs and requirements of the people.
A plant or an animal cannot stop its growth even if it tried to do so, but the State will not change or develop if its people do not like change or progress. Lastly, organisms die, but the State is permanent. “Growth, decline and death are not necessary processes of State-life though they are inseparable from the life of the organism. The State does not originate or renew itself as a plant or an animal does”. Here, again, the organic theory is proved to be false and misleading, because the supposed resemblance or parallelism does not exist in fact.
4. State is a social organisation, and not a physical organism. The State is a concept, an abstract entity, while the organism is a concrete body. We can observe the animal body and study its parts or cells under a microscope, but we cannot see the State and say, “There goes the State so-and-so,” or put any part of it under a microscope.