| This article is in need of . |
| Please improve it in any way you see fit. |
Social Darwinism is a social theory which holds that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not only a model for the development of biological traits in a population, but can also be applied to human social institutions. While social darwinism does apply the concept of evolution and natural selection to human cultural systems, none of the political and quasi-theological ideologies related to it are a part of Charles Darwin's biological theory of evolution. Later proponents of social darwinism have drawn on some concepts from Darwin's biological theory of evolution, although only the theory of sociobiology, developed in the 1970s, tries to synthesize both biology and sociology in a scientific fashion.
Social Darwinism originated as part of social evolutionism simultaneously but mostly independently of Darwin's works and was an important, often dominant social theory, from the late 19th century to the end of World War II, in Europe (especially Germany), the United States, Canada, South Africa (where it blended neatly into Afrikaner Calvinism),Japan in Asia, Australia, and New Zealand. Because Social Darwinist theory intertwines so neatly with the Calvinist (also known as "Puritan") theological concept of predestination, it remains a very important social theory in twenty-first century America - especially among social conservatives and economic libertarians.
Proponents of Social Darwinism often use the theory, directly or obliquely, to justify laissez-faire capitalism and social inequality, while some extreme theories manifest racism, imperialism, eugenics. However, the theory itself does not necessarily engender a political position: some Social Darwinists argue for the inevitablility of progress, while others emphasise the potential for the degeneration of humanity, and some attempt to enroll Social Darwinism in reformist politics.
It should be noted that 'Social Darwinism' is a term used by academics to describe a style or trend in social theory, rather than a coherent school of thought with, for instance, a professional association or an explicit manifesto. The application of the term to 19th and 20th century modes of thought 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.
Some historians thus complain that 'Social Darwinism' is an anachronism, or at least an anochronistic label; so that using it to examine certain questions makes little sense. Nevertheless, the phrase is still widely used in the field of academic history. More importantly, Social Darwinism, in its contemporary forms, remains a very important social theory in the United States, and in some conservative political movements elsewhere.
History
Darwin and Social Darwinism
Many theories related to social evolutionism and eventually, social darwinism, pre-date the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin. Earlier thinkers also emphasized social conflict as an inherent feature of social life. Thomas Hobbes's 17th century portrayal of the state of nature at time seems close to the competition for natural resources described by Darwin. While Darwin's theories have certainly influenced many sociologists, it was not until the emergence of the sociobiology theory of Edward Osborne Wilson in the second half of the 20th century that sociology clearly drew the inspiration from Darwin's theory.
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", and his second, "First Principles", was printed in 1860, only a year after, and thus it is unlikely that these works were shaped to any large extent by Spencer's knowledge of Darwin's theory.
Darwin's discussion of species evolution in biology was distinct in several ways from these previous works. Darwin argued that humans were shaped by laws of nature (rather than divine intervention) in the same way as other animals, and particularly by the pressure put on lineages by population growth. Unlike Thomas Hobbes he believed that this pressure allowed individuals with certain physical and mental traits to suceed more than others, and that these traits accumulated over time to allow the emergence of a new species.
It seems clear that Darwin felt that 'social instincts' such as 'sympathy' and 'moral sentiments' evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that "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, ch. 6). Thus Darwin did believe that social phenomena were shaped by natural selection, although exactly how evolutionary pressure on individuals led to collective benefits is something that Darwin never clearly explicated. At the same time, Darwin did not hold the political views that many of those inspired by him would eventually affect.
There are however several key differences between Darwin's and Spencer's theories of evolution. Darwin's evolution is concerned with population, a group of individuals, while Spencer's is concerned with the how individuals' motives influence the entire humanity. Darwin's evolution is probabilistic, based on changes in enviroment that sooner or later influence the change of individuals, but don't have any single, specifc ultimate 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 evolution does not equal progress except in the sence that the new, evolved species will be better suited to their changing enviroment, Spencer's evolution introducess the concept of social progress - the new, evolved society is always better then then the past.
Similarly, the use of the phrase 'Social Darwinism' to describe Thomas Malthus' ideas is somewhat anachronistic, as Malthus died in 1834, a quarter century before publication of the "The Origin of Species" in 1859. According to Michael Ruse, Darwin read Malthus' famous Essay on a Principle of Population in 1838, four years after Malthus' death.
Spencer's work also served to renew interest in the work of Thomas Malthus, who is also cited as a Social Darwinist author. Malthus's work An Essay on the Principle of Population published in 1798 argued that as increasing population would normally outgrow its food supply, this would result in the starvation of the weakest. Some historians have suggested that the Malthusian catastrophe theory and similar concepts were used by the British to justify the continued export of agricultural produce from Ireland, even as the Irish were suffering from famine, in particular the Great Famine of 1845-1849.
Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of social Darwinism of the time emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation. In the time since then, evolutionary theory has de-emphasized inter-species competition as well as the importance of violent confrontation in general. Advances in both the social and natural sciences, therefore, have discredited many of the assumptions on which Social Darwinist theories were built.
Criticism
Proponents of Social Darwinism often use the theory to justify laissez-faire capitalism and social inequality. Others use it to justify racism and imperialism. At its most extreme, some pre-twentieth century Social Darwinists appear to anticipate eugenics and the race doctrines of the Nazis.
In America particularly, the theory became intertwined with Calvinist (Puritan) theological traditions. Thus, application of Social Darwinist principles to explain and support social inequality and inequity, racism (especially Jim Crow laws), laisse-faire economics, and libertarian political theories, were interpreted as a reflections of God's will. Whether someone succeeded or failed (i.e., survived as one of the fittest) in any given endeavour (stock market investments; African-American able to vote in the South; etc.) was supposedly pre-ordained by God, so it just had to be let alone to do as it would ("laissez-faire").
Because Social Darwinism came to be associated 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 leveled, for example, at evolutionary psychology.
Similarly, capitalist economics, especially laissez-faire economics, is sometimes equated with Social Darwinism because it is thought by some to involve a "sink or swim" attitude toward economic activity. However, the fact that some Social Darwinists are advocates of capitalism and laissez-faire does not mean that all capitalists are Social Darwinists.
Social Darwinist theory itself does not necessarily engender a political position: some Social Darwinists argue for the inevitablility 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 ecclectic set of closely interrelated social theories -- much in the way that Existentialism is not one philosophy but a set of closely interrelated philosophical principles.
External links
References
- Hawkins, Mike (1997). Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945: Nature and Model and Nature as Threat. London: Cambridge Univesity Press. .
- Hofstadter, Richard (1995). Social Darwinism in American Thought. Boston: Beacon Press. .
- Dickens, Peter (2000). Social Darwinism: Linking Evolutionary Thought to Social Theory. Philadelphia: Open University Press. .
See also
|
