Jump to content

Social Darwinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Please Don't Block (talk | contribs) at 05:06, 2 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Social Darwinism is a term used to describe a style or trend in social theory which holds that Darwin's theory of evolution of biological traits in a population by natural selection can also be applied to human social institutions. Initially expressed in the writings of English philosopher and author Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 – 8 December 1903), and William Graham Sumner, Social Darwinism first became popular in the late 19th century and continued in popularity until the end of World War II, though some claim that contemporary sociobiology could be classified as a form of Social Darwinism. The application of the term to 19th and 20th century modes of thought, however, generally did not occur until after the publication of American historian Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought in 1944, which codified the concept in the sense it is generally used today. Thus the term is an anachronism, although it is still widely used by historians.

Historically, proponents of Social Darwinism often used the theory to justify social inequality as being meritocratic, and it has also been used to justify racism and imperialism, in a cultural application of Herbert Spencer's idea of the "survival of the fittest." Thus, Herbert Spencer's notion of the evolution of society and man's moral faculty had been altered to something quite contrary to his philosophy. Social Darwinism itself does not necessarily engender a political position. Some Social Darwinists argue for the inevitability of progress and social reform, while others emphasize the potential for the degeneration of humanity. To a certain extent, Social Darwinism, like Darwinian evolution, has been associated with the controversial field of eugenics.

While Social Darwinism applies the concept of evolution and natural selection to human cultural systems, the extent to which the ideologies related to it are a part of Darwin's biological theory of evolution or Spencer's classical liberal philosophy is arguable.

History

Darwinism and theories of social change

Theories of social evolution and cultural evolution are common in European thought. The Enlightenment thinkers who preceded Darwin, such as Hegel, often argued that societies progressed through stages of increasing development. Earlier thinkers also emphasized conflict as an inherent feature of social life. Thomas Hobbes's 17th century portrayal of the state of nature seems analogous to the competition for natural resources described by Darwin. Social Darwinism is distinct from other theories of social change because of the way it draws Darwin's distinctive ideas from the field of biology into social studies.

Darwin's unique discussion of evolution was distinct in several ways from these previous works: Darwin argued that humans were shaped by biological laws in the same way as other animals, particularly by the pressure put on individuals by population growth, emphasizing the natural over the supernatural in human development. Unlike Hobbes, he believed that this pressure allowed individuals with certain physical and mental traits to succeed more frequently than others, and that these traits accumulated in the population over time to allow the emergence of a new species.

However, Darwin felt that 'social instincts' such as 'sympathy' and 'moral sentiments' also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that he wrote about it in Descent of Man:[1] Thus it seems Darwin did believe that social phenomena were shaped by natural selection.

Theorists and sources of Social Darwinism

Herbert Spencer.

Despite the fact that Social Darwinism bears Darwin's name and Darwin's works were widely read by Social Darwinists, the theory also draws on the work of many authors, including Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton.

Herbert Spencer's ideas, like that of evolutionary 'progressivism', stemmed from his reading of Thomas Malthus, and his later theories were influenced by those of Darwin. However Spencer's major work in the field of Social Darwinism, "Progress: Its Law and Cause" was released two years before the publication Darwin's "Origin Of Species", and his second, "First Principles", was printed in 1860. In regards to social institutions, however, there is a good case that Spencer's writings might be classified as 'Social Darwinism'. He argues that the individual (rather than the collectivity) is the unit of analysis that evolves, that evolution takes place through natural selection, and that it affects social as well as biological phenomenon.

In many ways Spencer's theory of 'cosmic evolution' has much more in common with the works of Lamark and August Comte than Charles Darwin. Darwin's theory is concerned with population, while Spencer's deals with the way an individual's motives influence humanity. Darwin's theory is probabilistic, i.e. based on changes in the environment that sooner or later influence the change of individuals, but do not have any single, specific goal. Spencer's is deterministic (the evolution of human society is the only logical consequence of its previous stage), fatalistic (it cannot be influenced by human actions), single path (it travels a single path, cannot skip any stages or change them) and progressively finalistic (there is a final, perfect society that will be eventually reached). Darwin's theory does not equal progress, except in the sense that the new, evolved species will be better suited to their changing environment. Spencer's theory introduces the concept of social progress - the new, evolved society is always better than the past.

Thomas Malthus.

Spencer's work also served to renew interest in the work of Malthus. While Malthus's work does not itself qualify as Social Darwinism, his 1798 work An Essay on the Principle of Population, was incredibly popular and widely read by Social Darwinists. In that book, for example, the author argued that as an increasing population would normally outgrow its food supply, this would result in the starvation of the weakest and a Malthusian catastrophe. According to Michael Ruse, Darwin read Malthus' famous Essay on a Principle of Population in 1838, four years after Malthus' death. Malthus himself anticipated the Social Darwinists in suggesting that charity could exacerbate social problems. Another of these social interpretations of Darwin's biological views, later known as eugenics, was put forth by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, in 1865 and 1869. Galton argued that just as physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, so could be said for mental qualities (genius and talent). Galton argued that social mores needed to change so that heredity was a conscious decision, in order to avoid over-breeding by "less fit" members of society and the under-breeding of the "more fit" ones.

Francis Galton.

In Galton's view, social institutions such as welfare and insane asylums were allowing "inferior" humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more "superior" humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with "inferiors." Darwin read his cousin's work with interest, and devoted sections of Descent of Man to discussion of Galton's theories. Neither Galton nor Darwin, though, advocated any eugenic policies such as those which would be undertaken in the early 20th century, as government coercion of any form was very much against their political opinions.

Thus Social Darwinism sometimes differs from Darwin's own work, and with modern theories of evolution that have developed in the century and a half since Darwin's first writings.

Influence of Social Darwinists

Europe

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among German intellectuals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Competition for empire encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of Social Darwinism then emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation.

United States

Spencer proved to be an incredibly popular figure in the 1870s, particularly in the United States. Authors such as Edward Youmans, William Graham Sumner, John Fiske, John W. Burgess, and other thinkers of the gilded age all developed theories of Social Darwinism as a result of their exposure to Spencer (as well as Darwin).

Sumner abandoned Social Darwinism by the mid 1880s, and some contemporary historians do not believe that Sumner ever actually believed in Social Darwinism.[2] The great majority of American businessmen rejected the anti-philanthropic implications of the theory. Instead they gave millions to build schools, colleges, hospitals, art institutes, parks and many other institutions. Andrew Carnegie, who admired Spencer, was the leading philanthopist in the world (1890-1920), and a major leader against imperialism and warfare.

Novelist Jack London wrote stories of survival that incorporate his views on Social Darwinism[3].

Criticisms and controversies

Liberals have alleged that conservatives used Social Darwinism to justify laissez-faire capitalism and social inequality. Others use it to justify racism and imperialism. Many used Social Darwinism crudely to argue against any sort of universal morality or any sort of altruism towards others.

At its most extreme, some pre-twentieth century Social Darwinists appear to anticipate eugenics and the race doctrines of the Nazis. Because critics tried to link Social Darwinism in the public mind with racism, imperialism, eugenics, and pseudoscience, such criticisms are sometimes applied (and misapplied) to any other political or scientific theory that resembles Social Darwinism. Such criticisms are often levelled, for example, at evolutionary psychology.

Similarly, capitalist economics, especially laissez-faire economics, is attacked by some liberals by equating it Social Darwinism because it is premised on the idea of natural scarcity, also the starting point of Social Darwinism, and because it is often interpreted to involve a "sink or swim" attitude toward economic activity.

However, there were few "Social Darwinists" after the 1880s who advocated capitalism and laissez-faire. Most of them demanded a strong government that would intervene in the economy or society to weed out inferiors. They did not believe the marketplace could do that. For example, Ludwig von Mises, an advocate of laissez-faire, argued in his book Human Action that Social Darwinism contradicts the principles of liberalism.

Social Darwinist theory itself does not necessarily engender a political position: some Social Darwinists would argue for the inevitability of progress, while others emphasise the potential for the degeneration of humanity, and some even attempt to enroll Social Darwinism in a reformist politics. Rather, Social Darwinism is an eclectic set of closely interrelated social theories -- much in the way that Existentialism is not one philosophy but a set of closely interrelated philosophical principles.

The key argument is that nature works by survival of the fittest; so does society; those who have survived or flourished did so by natural processes; it is unnatural and inefficient to try and change that through philanthropy. Success or failure is usually dependent on natural traits. But few Americans made this argument after the 1880s.

Modern legacy

In the time since then, evolutionary theory has de-emphasized inter-species competition as well as the importance of violent confrontation in general.

In its contemporary forms, Social Darwinism remains a very important social theory in the United States and in some conservative political movements elsewhere.

See also

References

  1. ^ "..at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."Descent of Man, chapter 6 ISBN 1573921769
  2. ^ "A careful reading of the theories of Sumner and Spencer exonerates them from the centure-old charge of social Darwinism in the strict sense of the word. They did not themselves advocate the application of Darwin's theory of natural selection." The Social Meaning of Modern Biology: From Social Darwinism to Sociobiology
  3. ^ "Borrowing from Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, Social Darwisnists believed that societies, as do organisms evolve over time. Nature then determined that the strong survive and the weak perish. In Jack London's case, he thought that certain favored races were destined for survival." The philosophy of Jack London

Secondary sources

  • Bannister, Robert C. Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought (1989)
  • Bannister, Robert C. Sociology and Scientism: The American Quest for Objectivity, 1880-1940 (1987)
  • Boller, Paul F. Jr. American Thought in Transition: The Impact of Evolutionary Naturalism, 1865-1900 (1969)
  • Crook, D. Paul. Darwinism, War and History : The Debate over the Biology of War from the 'Origin of Species' to the First World War (1994)
  • Crook, Paul. "Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945" The Australian Journal of Politics and History, Vol. 45, 1999
  • Dickens, Peter. Social Darwinism: Linking Evolutionary Thought to Social Theory (Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2000).
  • Degler, Carl N. In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought (1992).
  • Gossett, Thomas F. Race: The History of an Idea in America (1999) ch 7
  • {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)
  • Hodge, Jonathan and Gregory Radick. The Cambridge Companion to Darwin (2003)
  • Hofstadter, Richard, Social Darwinism in American Thought (1955) (originally written in 1930s at a time author was active in Communist party affairs; he later became quite conservative. Historians agree that Hofstadter exaggerated the importance of Social Darwinism in America.)
  • Jones, Leslie. Social Darwinism Revisited History Today, Vol. 48, August 1998
  • Kaye, Howard L. The Social Meaning of Modern Biology: From Social Darwinism to Sociobiology (1997).

Primary sources

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Darwinism&oldid=37799519"