87.
Social Darwinism
Social Darwinism is an ideology of society that seeks to apply biological concepts of Darwinism or of evolutionary theory to sociology and politics, often with the assumption that conflict between groups in society leads to social progress as superior groups outcompete inferior ones.
The name social Darwinism is a modern name given to the various theories of society that emerged in England and the United States in the 1870s, which, it is alleged, sought to apply biological concepts to sociology and politics.[1],[2]
The term social Darwinism gained widespread currency when used in 1944 to oppose these earlier concepts. Today, because of the negative connotations of the theory of social Darwinism, especially after the atrocities of the Second World War (including the Holocaust), few people would describe themselves as social Darwinists and the term is generally seen as pejorative.[3]
Social Darwinism is generally understood to use the concepts of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves.
Thie ideology has also motivated ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism,[4] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.[5],[6]
Opponents of evolution theory have often maintained that social Darwinism is a logical entailment of a belief in evolutionary theory as it provides a justification for policies of inequality. In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Darwin described how medical advances meant that the weaker were able to survive and have families, and as he commented on the effects of this, he cautioned that hard reason should not override sympathy and considered how other factors might reduce the effect:
Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.[19]
The name social Darwinism is a modern name given to the various theories of society that emerged in England and the United States in the 1870s, which, it is alleged, sought to apply biological concepts to sociology and politics.[1],[2]
The term social Darwinism gained widespread currency when used in 1944 to oppose these earlier concepts. Today, because of the negative connotations of the theory of social Darwinism, especially after the atrocities of the Second World War (including the Holocaust), few people would describe themselves as social Darwinists and the term is generally seen as pejorative.[3]
Social Darwinism is generally understood to use the concepts of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves.
Thie ideology has also motivated ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism,[4] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.[5],[6]
Opponents of evolution theory have often maintained that social Darwinism is a logical entailment of a belief in evolutionary theory as it provides a justification for policies of inequality. In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Darwin described how medical advances meant that the weaker were able to survive and have families, and as he commented on the effects of this, he cautioned that hard reason should not override sympathy and considered how other factors might reduce the effect:
Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.[19]
Our father is rich. He's not poor. God is not poor. Sadaisvarya-purna. Six kinds of opulence fully. So why are you talking of this over-population, scarcity of food? Why? Actually the father is God. He's maintaining. And factually we see how many human beings, civilized human beings, are there. The other living beings are many hundred thousand times bigger quantity. If they can be maintained by God, what we have done, that He'll not maintain us?
~ Srila Prabhupada (Room Conversation with Indian Ambassador --September 5, 1973, Stockholm)
Nazism, Eugenics, Fascism, Imperialism
Some followers of the ideology advocated racial and national struggle where the state planned and controlled human breeding through science and eugenics.[37]
Critics have frequently linked evolution, Charles Darwin and social Darwinism with racialism, nationalism, imperialism and eugenics, contending that social Darwinism became one of the pillars of fascism and Nazi ideology, and that the consequences of the application of policies of “survival of the fittest” by Nazi Germany eventually created a very strong backlash against the theory.[38],[39]
During the age of New Imperialism, the concepts of evolution justified the exploitation of “lesser breeds without the law” by “superior races.”[40] To elitists, strong nations were composed of white people who were successful at expanding their empires, and as such, these strong nations would survive in the struggle for dominance.[40] With this attitude, Europeans, except for Christian missionaries, seldom adopted the customs and languages of local people under their empires.[40]
Nazi Germany’s justification for its aggression was regularly promoted in Nazi propaganda films depicting scenes such as beetles fighting in a lab setting to demonstrate the principles of “survival of the fittest” as depicted in Alles Leben ist Kampf (English translation: All Life is Struggle).
Hitler often refused to intervene in the promotion of officers and staff members, preferring instead to have them fight amongst themselves to force the “stronger” person to prevail.[43]
The argument that Nazi ideology was strongly influenced by social Darwinist ideas is often found in historical and social science literature.[44]
Critics have frequently linked evolution, Charles Darwin and social Darwinism with racialism, nationalism, imperialism and eugenics, contending that social Darwinism became one of the pillars of fascism and Nazi ideology, and that the consequences of the application of policies of “survival of the fittest” by Nazi Germany eventually created a very strong backlash against the theory.[38],[39]
During the age of New Imperialism, the concepts of evolution justified the exploitation of “lesser breeds without the law” by “superior races.”[40] To elitists, strong nations were composed of white people who were successful at expanding their empires, and as such, these strong nations would survive in the struggle for dominance.[40] With this attitude, Europeans, except for Christian missionaries, seldom adopted the customs and languages of local people under their empires.[40]
Nazi Germany’s justification for its aggression was regularly promoted in Nazi propaganda films depicting scenes such as beetles fighting in a lab setting to demonstrate the principles of “survival of the fittest” as depicted in Alles Leben ist Kampf (English translation: All Life is Struggle).
Hitler often refused to intervene in the promotion of officers and staff members, preferring instead to have them fight amongst themselves to force the “stronger” person to prevail.[43]
The argument that Nazi ideology was strongly influenced by social Darwinist ideas is often found in historical and social science literature.[44]
“The most extreme ideological expression of nationalism and imperialism was Social Darwinism. In the popular mind, the concepts of evolution justified the exploitation of “lesser breeds without the law” by superior races. This language of race and conflict, of superior and inferior people, had wide currency in the Western states. Social Darwinists vigorously advocated the acquisition of empires, saying that strong nations-by definition, those that were successful at expanding industry and empire-would survive and that others would not. To these elitists, all white men were more fit than non-whites to prevail in the struggle for dominance. Even among Europeans, some nations were deemed more fit than others for the competition. Usually, Social Darwinists thought their own nation the best, an attitude that sparked their competitive enthusiasm. In the nineteenth century, in contrast to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Europeans, except for missionaries, rarely adopted the customs or learned the languages of local people. They had little sense that other cultures and other people had merit or deserved respect.”
~ From ‘Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society’
References
Source: Wikipedia and others.
1. a b c d Riggenbach, Jeff (2011-04-24) The Real William Graham Sumner, Mises Institute
2. Williams, Raymond. 2000. Social Darwinism. in Herbert Spencer’s Critical Assessment. John Offer. (ed). pp. 186 -199
3. a b Hodgson 2004, pp. 428–430
4. a b c d Leonard, Thomas C. (2009) Origins of the Myth of Social Darwinism: The Ambiguous Legacy of Richard Hofstadter’s Social Darwinism in American Thought Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 71, p.37–51
5. Gregory Claeys (2000). The “Survival of the Fittest” and the Origins of Social Darwinism. Journal of the History of Ideas 61 (2):223-240.
6. Bowler 2003, pp. 298–299
7. a b “CA002.1: Social Darwinism.”. TalkOrigins Archive. 2003-09-26. Retrieved 25 April 2012.
8. Paul, Diane B. 2003. Darwin, Social Darwinism and Eugenics. in The Cambridge companion to Darwin. Cambridge University Press, 2003 ISBN 0-521-77730-5 p.
9. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/
10. a b Fisher, Joseph (1877). “The History of Landholding in Ireland”. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (London) V: 250., quoted in the Oxford English Dictionary
11. Ward, Lester F (1907). “Social Darwinism”. American Journal of Sociology(Chicago) 12: 709–10.
12. Hodgson 2004, pp. 445–446
13. Bannister, 1979; Hodgson, 2004
14. Huxley, T.H. (April 1860). “ART. VIII.- Darwin on the origin of Species”. Westminster Review. pp. 541–70. Retrieved 2008-06-19. “What if the orbit of Darwinism should be a little too circular?”
15. Bowler 2003, p. 197
16. a b Fisher 1877, pp. 249–250
17. Hodgson
18. Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 598
19. Darwin 1882, p. 134
20. Spencer, Herbert. 1860. ‘The Social Organism’, originally published in The Westminster Review. Reprinted in Spencer’s (1892) Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative. London and New York.
21. Barbara Stiegler, Nietzsche et la biologie, PUF, 2001, p.90. ISBN 2-13-050742-5. See, for ex., Genealogy of Morals, III, 13 here 1
22. Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, §224 here 2
23. Scott F Gilbert (2006). “Ernst Haeckel and the Biogenetic Law”. Developmental Biology, 8th edition. Sinauer Associates. Retrieved 2008-05-03. “Eventually, the Biogenetic Law had become scientifically untenable.”
24. Schmidt, Oscar; J. Fitzgerald (translator) (March 1879). “Science and Socialism”.Popular Science Monthly (New York) 14: 577–591. ISSN 0161-7370. “Darwinism is the scientific establishment of inequality”
25. but see:Wells, D. Collin. 1907. “Social Darwinism”. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 695-716
26. Descent of Man, chapter 4 ISBN 1-57392-176-9
27. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18603/18603-h/18603-h.htm
28. “A careful reading of the theories of Sumner and Spencer exonerates them from the century-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
29. “At least a part--and sometimes a generous part” of the great fortunes went back to the community through many kinds of philanthropic endeavor, says Robert H. Bremner, American Philanthropy (1988) p. 86 online at Amazon.com
30. “Borrowing from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, social Darwinists 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, mainly those that could preserve themselves while supplanting others, as in the case of the White race.” The philosophy of Jack London
31. Eugenics in Japan: some ironies of modernity, 1883-1945 by Otsubo S, Bartholomew JR. Sci Context. 1998 Autumn-Winter;11(3-4):545-65.
32. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/jennifer.robertson/files/blood_talks__ eugenic_modernity_anthro___hist_2002.pdf
33. Jonathan D. Spence. The Search for Modern China.” W.W. Norton, 1990, p. 301.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid., 414-15.
36. McLean, Iain (2009). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Oxford University: Oxford University Press. p. 490.ISBN Special:BookSources/9780199 20780|978019920780Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs Check |isbn= value (help).
37. Leonard, Thomas C. (2005) Mistaking Eugenics for Social Darwinism: Why Eugenics is Missing from the History of American Economics History of Political Economy, Vol. 37 supplement: 200-233
38. a b “Hitler & Eugenics”. Expelled Exposed. National Center for Science Education. National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2008-06-09.
39. a b “Senior Fellow Richard Weikart responds to Sander Gliboff ”. Center for Science and Culture. October 10, 2004. Retrieved 2008-05-17.
40. a b c d Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 2008-10. ISBN 978-0-547-14701-7. Retrieved 2007–03–25.
41. Kropotkin, kniaz’ Petr Alekseevich. “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution”.
42. Chomsky, Noam (July 8, 2011). “Noam Chomsky - on Darwinism”.
43. cf. 1997 BBC documentary: “The Nazis: A Warning from History”
44. E.g. Weingart, P., J. Kroll, and K. Bayertz, Rasse, Blut, und Gene. Geschichte der Eugenik und Rassenhygiene in Deutschland (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1988).
45. Arendt, H.: Elements of Totalitarianism, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: New York 1951. pp. 178-179
46. Jonathan Sarfati (2002) “Nazis planned to exterminate Christianity” Creation24:3 p27ff.
47. Jonathan Sarfati (1999) “The Holocaust and evolution” Creation 22:1 p4ff.
48. Zimmerman, Andrew Zimmerman (Volume 110, Issue 2, Page 566–567, April 2005). “Richard Weikart. From Darwin to Hitler”. The American Historical Review(American Historical Review) 110 (2): 566. doi:10.1086/531468.
49. “Richard Weikart: From Darwin to Hitler”. Isis. Volume 96, Issue 4, Page 669–671, December 2005. Retrieved 2007-05-17.
50. “Review: Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler”. H-German. September, 2004. Retrieved 2007-05-17.
51. a b “Review: Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler”. H-Ideas. June, 2005. Retrieved 2007-05-17.
52. “Book Review of From Darwin to Hitler”. The Journal of Modern History. (March 2006): 255–257. Retrieved 2007-05-17.
53. “Creationists for Genocide”. Talk Reason. 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-17.
54. Weikart, Richard (2002). “”Evolutionäre Aufklärung”? Zur Geschichte des Monistenbundes”. Wissenschaft, Politik und Öffentlichkeit: von der Wiener Moderne bis zur Gegenwart. Wien: WUV-Universitätsverlag. pp. 131–48. ISBN 3-85114-664-6.
Source: Wikipedia and others.
1. a b c d Riggenbach, Jeff (2011-04-24) The Real William Graham Sumner, Mises Institute
2. Williams, Raymond. 2000. Social Darwinism. in Herbert Spencer’s Critical Assessment. John Offer. (ed). pp. 186 -199
3. a b Hodgson 2004, pp. 428–430
4. a b c d Leonard, Thomas C. (2009) Origins of the Myth of Social Darwinism: The Ambiguous Legacy of Richard Hofstadter’s Social Darwinism in American Thought Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 71, p.37–51
5. Gregory Claeys (2000). The “Survival of the Fittest” and the Origins of Social Darwinism. Journal of the History of Ideas 61 (2):223-240.
6. Bowler 2003, pp. 298–299
7. a b “CA002.1: Social Darwinism.”. TalkOrigins Archive. 2003-09-26. Retrieved 25 April 2012.
8. Paul, Diane B. 2003. Darwin, Social Darwinism and Eugenics. in The Cambridge companion to Darwin. Cambridge University Press, 2003 ISBN 0-521-77730-5 p.
9. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/
10. a b Fisher, Joseph (1877). “The History of Landholding in Ireland”. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (London) V: 250., quoted in the Oxford English Dictionary
11. Ward, Lester F (1907). “Social Darwinism”. American Journal of Sociology(Chicago) 12: 709–10.
12. Hodgson 2004, pp. 445–446
13. Bannister, 1979; Hodgson, 2004
14. Huxley, T.H. (April 1860). “ART. VIII.- Darwin on the origin of Species”. Westminster Review. pp. 541–70. Retrieved 2008-06-19. “What if the orbit of Darwinism should be a little too circular?”
15. Bowler 2003, p. 197
16. a b Fisher 1877, pp. 249–250
17. Hodgson
18. Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 598
19. Darwin 1882, p. 134
20. Spencer, Herbert. 1860. ‘The Social Organism’, originally published in The Westminster Review. Reprinted in Spencer’s (1892) Essays: Scientific, Political and Speculative. London and New York.
21. Barbara Stiegler, Nietzsche et la biologie, PUF, 2001, p.90. ISBN 2-13-050742-5. See, for ex., Genealogy of Morals, III, 13 here 1
22. Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, §224 here 2
23. Scott F Gilbert (2006). “Ernst Haeckel and the Biogenetic Law”. Developmental Biology, 8th edition. Sinauer Associates. Retrieved 2008-05-03. “Eventually, the Biogenetic Law had become scientifically untenable.”
24. Schmidt, Oscar; J. Fitzgerald (translator) (March 1879). “Science and Socialism”.Popular Science Monthly (New York) 14: 577–591. ISSN 0161-7370. “Darwinism is the scientific establishment of inequality”
25. but see:Wells, D. Collin. 1907. “Social Darwinism”. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 695-716
26. Descent of Man, chapter 4 ISBN 1-57392-176-9
27. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18603/18603-h/18603-h.htm
28. “A careful reading of the theories of Sumner and Spencer exonerates them from the century-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
29. “At least a part--and sometimes a generous part” of the great fortunes went back to the community through many kinds of philanthropic endeavor, says Robert H. Bremner, American Philanthropy (1988) p. 86 online at Amazon.com
30. “Borrowing from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, social Darwinists 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, mainly those that could preserve themselves while supplanting others, as in the case of the White race.” The philosophy of Jack London
31. Eugenics in Japan: some ironies of modernity, 1883-1945 by Otsubo S, Bartholomew JR. Sci Context. 1998 Autumn-Winter;11(3-4):545-65.
32. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/jennifer.robertson/files/blood_talks__ eugenic_modernity_anthro___hist_2002.pdf
33. Jonathan D. Spence. The Search for Modern China.” W.W. Norton, 1990, p. 301.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid., 414-15.
36. McLean, Iain (2009). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Oxford University: Oxford University Press. p. 490.ISBN Special:BookSources/9780199 20780|978019920780Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs Check |isbn= value (help).
37. Leonard, Thomas C. (2005) Mistaking Eugenics for Social Darwinism: Why Eugenics is Missing from the History of American Economics History of Political Economy, Vol. 37 supplement: 200-233
38. a b “Hitler & Eugenics”. Expelled Exposed. National Center for Science Education. National Center for Science Education. Retrieved 2008-06-09.
39. a b “Senior Fellow Richard Weikart responds to Sander Gliboff ”. Center for Science and Culture. October 10, 2004. Retrieved 2008-05-17.
40. a b c d Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 2008-10. ISBN 978-0-547-14701-7. Retrieved 2007–03–25.
41. Kropotkin, kniaz’ Petr Alekseevich. “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution”.
42. Chomsky, Noam (July 8, 2011). “Noam Chomsky - on Darwinism”.
43. cf. 1997 BBC documentary: “The Nazis: A Warning from History”
44. E.g. Weingart, P., J. Kroll, and K. Bayertz, Rasse, Blut, und Gene. Geschichte der Eugenik und Rassenhygiene in Deutschland (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1988).
45. Arendt, H.: Elements of Totalitarianism, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: New York 1951. pp. 178-179
46. Jonathan Sarfati (2002) “Nazis planned to exterminate Christianity” Creation24:3 p27ff.
47. Jonathan Sarfati (1999) “The Holocaust and evolution” Creation 22:1 p4ff.
48. Zimmerman, Andrew Zimmerman (Volume 110, Issue 2, Page 566–567, April 2005). “Richard Weikart. From Darwin to Hitler”. The American Historical Review(American Historical Review) 110 (2): 566. doi:10.1086/531468.
49. “Richard Weikart: From Darwin to Hitler”. Isis. Volume 96, Issue 4, Page 669–671, December 2005. Retrieved 2007-05-17.
50. “Review: Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler”. H-German. September, 2004. Retrieved 2007-05-17.
51. a b “Review: Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler”. H-Ideas. June, 2005. Retrieved 2007-05-17.
52. “Book Review of From Darwin to Hitler”. The Journal of Modern History. (March 2006): 255–257. Retrieved 2007-05-17.
53. “Creationists for Genocide”. Talk Reason. 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-17.
54. Weikart, Richard (2002). “”Evolutionäre Aufklärung”? Zur Geschichte des Monistenbundes”. Wissenschaft, Politik und Öffentlichkeit: von der Wiener Moderne bis zur Gegenwart. Wien: WUV-Universitätsverlag. pp. 131–48. ISBN 3-85114-664-6.
